The Clockwork Mansion

Ok Peeps! Listen up!
After talking with the mods/admins, we figured we'd try opening the floor to some of the more heavy-hitting conversation topics. You know...the ones that sometimes bring out the drama and the heated emotions.  The hope is that everyone here will be cool and mature about things...and if not...well consider this opening post the warning.

Seriously. Opinions will differ, heads may butt, but there best be no personal attacks or insinuation that just because the other side is not agreeing that they are wrong stupid-heads.  Be smart, stay cool, and keep in mind this is hopefully a thread of sharing ideas and concepts and not a "last man standing" battle to see who can outrant the other side.

Ok now.
--------------------------

Everyone knows I don't like chainletters.  They annoy me to no end...TRIPLY so if I have no clue whatsoever as to who the person sending them is.  It aggravates me when I am put on someone's friend list and the only reason I know this is because I get a chainletter telling me about how Bonzai Kitten is horrible and must be stopped.

So I open my mail...and I get this:

QuoteMonth one
Mommy, I am only 8 inches long, but I have all my organs. I love
the sound of your voice. Every time I hear it, I wave my arms and legs. The sound of your heart beat is my favorite lullaby.

Month Two
Mommy, today I learned how to suck my thumb. If you could see me, you could definitely tell that I am a baby. I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though. It is so nice and warm in here.

Month Three
You know what Mommy, I'm a boy!! I hope that makes you happy. I always want you to be happy. I don't like it when you cry. You sound so sad. It makes me sad too, and I cry with you even though you can't hear me.

Month Four
Mommy, my hair is starting to grow. It is very short and fine, but I will have a lot of it. I spend a lot of my time exercising. I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes, and stretch my arms and legs. I am becoming quite good at it too.

Month Five
You went to the doctor today. Mommy, he lied to you. He said that I'm not a baby. I am a baby Mommy, your baby. I think and feel. Mommy, what's abortion?

Month Six
I can hear that doctor again. I don't like him. He seems cold and heartless. Something is intruding my home. The doctor called it a needle. Mommy what is it? It burns! Please make him stop! I can't get away from it! Mommy! HELP me!

Month Seven
Mommy, I am okay. I am in Jesus's arms. He is holding me. He told me about abortion. Why didn't you want me Mommy?

Every Abortion Is Just . . .

One more heart that was stopped. Two more eyes that will never
see. Two more hands that will never touch. Two more legs that will never run. One more mouth that will never speak

If you're against abortion, post this

Ok. First off, I want to apologize to Pro-Life. Cause seriously...this is a terrible representation to start off from and already makes Pro-Life look like morbid individuals...much less incapable of math since I'm 90% sure that the fetus does not reach 8 inches in the first month alone.  I already hate the power-play where each side tries to bring to mind the most heart-string pulling stories and plights they can.  And yes, Pro-Choice can be just as guilty when they go into horrible scenarios about girls being raped and forced to back-alley. 

I think we can all agree no one likes abortion...and that there is likely more to the situation than each side trying to villainize the other.  So I guess the reason I'm posting is I'm curious as to what people here personally feel, why they feel it, and what they beleive an ideal solution would be that would benefit the most parties involved.

That and it was a really lame chainletter and I needed to share my pain.  PAAAAIN.

I've never really liked getting into the whole abortion debate. Maybe because I've never known someone who's been through that sort of thing. But there's always been one truth I've supported when it comes to kids-
There are some people who would make wonderful parents, but don't have kids; and then there are just some people who shouldn't have kids but have them anyway.

I dont like talking about the whole abortion issuie as well...I mean its a womans choosie do what she wants not anyone else or for any relgious fantic to say..Horse is dead...And no seince beating onto that factor for those creepy church peoples...nuff said and oh yeah...Pro life makes me think though...Even though the go suck a cheetahs dick for I care...Leave those people alone bible welders!  >:O

Bah. I dunno what to think of abortion. I just don't want dumbass high school whores using it when they're too stupid/lazy to use birth control or somethin'.

:/ Sadly, most of my femme-classmates think that it should be legal. And they give me weird looks when I say weird things that I usually say.

"Abortion doesn't make you unpregnant. It makes you the mother of a dead baby."

I'm such a bitch. :3

I'm not too surprised that such a chain letter was floating around... such a terrible, manipulative one, too (my apologies to pro-lifers out there). While I have no clue as to whether or not a fetus obtains sentient thought at a certain point in their life, or if they do at all, I do believe that it's up to the mother to do what she wants to her own body. There are some situations in which it may absolutely be necessary, as well, when the mother's life is endangered.

I used to be a very pro-life person, though, up until I saw some truck zooming around the neighborhood with pictures of dead babies plastered all over it. For the love of God, people...

~Keaton the Black Jackal

It's one of those situations where I really feel bad for a lot of Pro-Life/Choice people because both sides do have their share of overzelous boogers to the point it sometimes feels like they are more about promoting a cause and getting attention rather than trying to work on a solution or want to find out what other possibilities are out there.

My biggest beef on Pro-Life is that many people like to really push the third-trimester or partial birth abortions when those particular cases are actually very uncommon (and in many cases are done for very particular reasons like medical complications or the fetus has actually died by natural means and they need to expell the body.)

Vice versa, my big beef on Pro-Choice is many people like to really push the rape/incest scenario...which is also a very uncommon thing in the general scheme of it. (and in many cases the actual reason are more societal and financial pressure than something severly traumatic.)

Really its usually a lot better to try to separate the content from many of the people who are pushing it.  Yeah, there might be a lot of bible-thumpers...but there might also be valid reasons for being Pro-Life being given by rational and intelligent people.  And there isn't anything wrong if your religion is an influence on your decision...thats kind of what religion is about.  It all boils down to how you use it and how you handle yourself.  And yeah...people who like to wave signs and yell at women going to the clinic aren't any better than people who slam someones religion because the person doesn't want to sign a petition they don't agree with.

I don't get some people and religion... I'm a Christian and all, but I'm at least a respectful one. If people want to go do something, it's their choice. I shouldn't push my religion onto them if they don't want it. :/

I move that everyone sticks to oral sex.

Your instinct was right, Amber, the numbers are wrong. Both my parents are doctors who specialize in ultrasound diagnosis and I've worked as a secretary for them a few times. Not only do embrios (not yet fetuses) not have all their organs after just one month (they have a rather basic heart but that's about it), but the sexual organs don't develop until after the 4th month, and there are several other details that are wrong. In any case, I agree that it was tasteless.

Now on to the abortion topic. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. I would agree with it when it's a matter of life or death for the mother (in which cases it is legal here). In other cases I don't like the idea. I think the baby deserves to live and if his/her parents can't look after him/her, they could at least try to give the baby to someone who can. But I know it's rarely as simple as it sounds. So I don't know, really. I just know I'll never do it myself unless my life depends on it.

Alas, the issue here is one of excluded middles.  Either the fetus is a living human being or it isn't.  It can't be 90% alive or 30% human.  For me, it's clearly alive.  Life is defined by the following criteria:

1.) Organization (cellular structure)
2.) Metabolism
3.) Growth
4.) Adaptation
5.) stimulus-response
6.) reproduction

A fetus/embryo/blastocyst/zygote:

1.) is organized into cells
2.) metabolizes things into energy
3.) grows
4.) adapts(1)
5.) responds to stimuli, such as attaching to the uterine wall
6.) reproduces(2)

It's clearly human; it has human DNA.  It's clearly a unique organism, since it has different DNA than its mother.

Ergo, it's a living human being.

This explains why I don't believe that abortion is right for me.

As to why I believe that abortion should be illegal, there is a legal principle that is commonly expressed as ``My right to express myself ends at my neighbor's nose.''  Since we've already established that the fetus/embryo/blastocyst/zygote is an independent living human being, it is deserving of the same protections against homicide as any other human.  Which means that unless you kill it trying to protect yourself, you're committing murder.

My cousin has a daughter who was born eight weeks premature (and doing great nowadays), so I'm a little bit biased about this.

As to the nutsos on both sides of the issue--yes, they're all nuts.  You've got the chauvinists, the eugenicists, the fundamentalist know-nothings, the zero population growth idiots...

They seem to think that forcing people to look at images of botched coathanger abortions or aborted fetuses are going to turn people to hteir point of view, rather than making the viewer think that the nutso is...well, a nutso.

We here in the US saw these strange folk on display during the Schiavo debate.  There's a debate to be had when you have a kid who can't express his own opinion, but when you have someone who clearly said what she wanted if she were ever in such a position, it's no longer a case of religion; it's a case of her free will.

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 07:47:44 AMIn other cases I don't like the idea. I think the baby deserves to live and if his/her parents can't look after him/her, they could at least try to give the baby to someone who can.

We are getting to the point where we can actually transplant a fetus from one person to another.  I think that that would be an excellent method for getting rid of these debates.

(1) Physical sexual characteristics begin to develop very early on in response to hormones present.  This is not a stimulus-response, but rather an adaptation.  Even earlier, we can see adaptations such as implantations in the fallopian tubes, or even in the abdomen.

(2) Technically, this covers the cell division that causes growth.

My feeling is thus: If the unborn child isn't able to survive on its own yet (it's incapable of surviving without its mother), then it's the mother's decision what happens to it. If it could survive outside of the mother (eat, breathe, etc.), then killing it is wrong.

Probably, superluser.

I'll have to argue against your points (1) and (2), though. Hormones come from inside, not from the exterior. And cell reproduction is not the same as the reproduction of the individual. But you can't say that anything that does not reproduce is not alive anyway. A fetus is likely to be able to reproduce eventually, but is too young and physically immature at that stage. In any case, all those points only prove a fetus is alive in the same way that moss is. And there are many species which are not organized into cells but are considered to be living (like bacteria).

Anyway, I've strayed from the topic. My apologies. Back to the topic... yes, transferring embrios from one womb to another (and fetuses if that's ever possible) would make things easier... for those who can afford it.

modelincard: so are you sying it's right to kill anyone who can't survive on his/her/its own? Because little children normally can't, nor can many sick or very old people.

Eh...Sorry, that's not quite what I meant.

More like this: Modern medicine (as far as I know) can only raise an babies outside of the womb after a certain point. Before that, they would need everything from the mother. To some extent then, the baby is part of its mother. After a child is born (what I think you mean by "little children") it would still need it's mother, but not in the same way. It might still take nourishment from the mother, it would likely seek guidance from its mother, but the mother isn't the only one who can now provide nourishment/care to the child. (I'm not saying that a child should be raised without its mother/birth mother, only could.) I suppose then that "on its own" was a bad choice of words. (Heck, I probably couldn't survive on my own yet.) Rather, could it be brought to maturity (for lack of a better term) outside of its mother.

Ah, I understand what you mean now.

My take on this is that both side are Hypercritics...

The Pro-lifer want the mother to have the child even if it is very badly deformed and would not survive without modern medicine...Yet, they cry out if you raise taxes to help the mother with medical bills and feeding their new kids or for better schools for them or reform adoption systems.  We have people going oversea to adopt, because the US system here is so broken, good people lose out and the kids still get to predators who are temperary Foster parents.

The Pro-choicer often ignores the fact that most adbortions are for a mistake in judgement on the woman part or the males.  One drunken night activities which a young woman regrets later, will end a life that is an inconvenance for her.  Responability of the both male and female is never questioned, and even the asking about this is frowned on.

 There was a time when an unimarried pregnant girl was a shame and looked down on her peers... Now, she is seen as courageous, and a role model?  Well, that was the normal in my teen years, it may have changed, since.  Maybe it has gotten worst, where a boy's maleness is measured by how many children, he has "forced"/tricked on girls.

Abortion/unwanted pregnancy is the result, but either side will look at the reasons why, or the real reason why?  The Right will blame the Media, and the Left will blame the lack of /faulty sexual education..

Abortion should be between the doctor, and the woman, she will have to live with the guilty of her child's death.  Society should look at itself and question why young women and men don't feel responible to the lives, they created...and hold them responible somehow.  This is too complex even for my short answer.

PBH    

Abortions are already out there, and trying to stop them is only going to mean that more people will take to the back alley and endanger their health, or they may chuck the kid in a dumpster soon after giving birth, when it can actually feel pain.

What I'm trying to say is, once you give people something, you can't just take it away.  Some are still going to want it, and will be willing to do what they can to get it.

Quote from: RJ on February 26, 2007, 07:17:56 AM
I don't get some people and religion... I'm a Christian and all, but I'm at least a respectful one. If people want to go do something, it's their choice. I shouldn't push my religion onto them if they don't want it. :/

But then you have to ask yourself: What is religion and what is common sense? Killing is prohibited by the bible and thus a religious law. At the same time it's a very common law that many people follow regardless of religion.

When it comes to abortion, I think the real question is what you consider to be human life and if it is right to kill someone in order to prevent that person from suffering for a life time. The later links back a bit to the first when you consider how we handle termination of nonhuman life.

Quote from: Netami on February 26, 2007, 07:37:26 AM
I move that everyone sticks to oral sex.

There is so much WIN in this statement.


Personally my view on abortion is since I lack the necessary equipment to give birth that means I am not qualified to try and push my opinion on others. 
That being said (Here is my opinion :D), unless the baby is going to be mentally retarded, unable to live past a few years, or stands a good chance to kill the mother when it is born I would prefer that the woman has the child.  Being adopted might not be the best life but at least it's a life.  One of my good friends was adopted, I'm pretty glad they didn't give him the surgical coat hanger.

But, no parts, no 1000 prolife bumper stickers on the back of my car.

Wow
I'm going to differ from some folks I like on this one

My personal feelins
I don't like abortion
however since it's highly unlikely I'll ever get some one pregnent (that would realy be a suprise) I feel it should be legal because it's not my place to judge

My feelings on abortion is that it should be Safe, Legal, and Rare.

It should not be used as an alternitive to birthcontrol,  but if because of what ever reasons the mother can't care for the child the choice is here.

proper sexual education is whats needed I think,  comprehensive education,  Abstenance my be the best form od birth control but abstanence only programs are a failer (they on average delay the first sexual encounter by a year or two,  but these kids are much more likely to use no form of cnraceptive at all).  Teach them everything, and there will be far less need for this service.

I'm tempted to post a link to an intereting page I've come across

You know, birth control does sometimes fail... What then?

Baby Sandwiches.

Heh... I laugh at that e-mail. Since unborns can't hear anything till month 3...

Anyways, my whole view on it is that, I guess, it shouldn't be a debate if it's before the point that the brain has formed. Cause until then, I just think of it as a little bunch of fluids wrapped up in a very soft package, attached to a tube.

In most cases I would assume that the person would make the choice of yay or nay before that happens anyways.
All in all, though, I can't disagree with the pro-choice thing. This is going to sound harsh to some, but there's so many people around now, there could stand to be less babies being born. I mean, there's tons of overfilled orphanages as is. Is it really better that a new baby is born into a family that would possibly ditch it, not love it, or inadvertantly raise it in horrible conditions? I say that part cause it's usually the lower income classes that tend to do this. At least form what I've seen. Most higher classes would be able to afford a new baby no problem, and wouldn't mind.

Anyways, I already forgot what I was typing, so I'm out.

First Jim....Ewww... And if you say "MMMMmm Kitten Stew"  I'll shoot you.

Quote from: thegayhare on February 26, 2007, 12:48:51 PM

My feelings on abortion is that it should be Safe, Legal, and Rare.

It should not be used as an alternitive to birthcontrol,  but if because of what ever reasons the mother can't care for the child the choice is here.

proper sexual education is whats needed I think,  comprehensive education,  Abstenance my be the best form od birth control but abstanence only programs are a failer (they on average delay the first sexual encounter by a year or two,  but these kids are much more likely to use no form of cnraceptive at all).  Teach them everything, and there will be far less need for this service.

I was trying to state the two (extreme) views over this issue, I will agree with you for the most part TGH... But this also touches on the moral issues of ourselves and our respect for ourselves and others..  Sexual Education must teach that respect, and it should also show the consequencies of our sexual adventures even if it don't lead to pregnancy or a STD.

Truth is always more effective than scare tactics...Because all caution is often thrown into the wind, once the Scare is overcome or proven false

PBH

(I'd do my typical quote thing, but I'm not)

Kenji, strictly speaking, the brain isn't fully formed until age 3 or so.  Does that mean that we should allow infanticide until age 3?  Some of the Greeks (including Plato) thought so.

Wow, that comes across as spiteful.  It wasn't meant that way.  My question is more one of, ``where in the continuum of brain formation does the brain come into existence?''

PBH's comments about sex ed and health infrastructure are well taken, as well.  I'm not too sure about national health care as a general principle, but I do know that we in the US have to do something to fix it.

Finally, in a 2004 study (*), 14% of of abortive mothers surveyed said that one of the reasons that they were having an abortion was that their partners wanted them to, and 6% said that their parents wanted them to.

I'm also unsure of what sort of correlation there is between income and abortion, but it looks like 57% of the women having abortions are severely impoverished. (+)

I think this severely undermines the concept that this is a woman's right to choose.

(*)Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
    Lawrence B. Finer; Lori F. Frohwirth; Lindsay A. Dauphinee; Susheela Singh; Ann M. Moore 
    Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Sep., 2005), pp. 110-118.
(+)Patterns in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000-2001
    Rachel K. Jones; Jacqueline E. Darroch; Stanley K. Henshaw
    Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 34, No. 5. (Sep. - Oct., 2002), pp. 226-235. 

Quote from: Jim Halisstrad on February 26, 2007, 01:07:02 PMBaby Sandwiches.

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~superluser/sarcasm.jpg)

Quote from: superluser on February 26, 2007, 02:37:11 PM
(I'd do my typical quote thing, but I'm not)

Kenji, strictly speaking, the brain isn't fully formed until age 3 or so.  Does that mean that we should allow infanticide until age 3?  Some of the Greeks (including Plato) thought so.

I didn't say anything about being fully formed. But personally speaking, I don't see something as "alive" unless it has a brain and a heart.
Well... fauna, speaking. Obviously plants are a different story.

The abortion debate tends to annoy me insofar as it becomes a debate about "a woman's right to choose".  The key issue in contention is not whether a woman has the right to control her own body, it is whether the developing embryo has rights of its own that supersede the parent's.  Nobody is seriously contending that we should be able to tell a person they cannot have a cancerous growth excised because it is a living "thing", nor are many people seriously contending that a newborn child can be killed and disposed of at the adult's leisure.  The honest abortion debate centers around which of those situations more accurately describes a woman carrying a child at any given stage of the pregnancy.

Now on to the meat of the argument, whether or not an embryo is distinct person or simply a part of the mother's body.  Genetically, an embryo is not the same person as the mom.  It has it's own unique set of genetic code, distinct from any  other human being on the planet (other than an identical twin), making it, in that respect, it's own person.  It is also undeniably a member of the human species, even if it is at a very early stage in its life.  And it will eventually, barring extreme circumstances, grow and develop into what we easily recognize as a human being.  On the other hand, it is inside of a woman and for a significant portion of the pregnancy it cannot survive without the help of that woman. 

I can understand people who support abortion on an early term fetus, but I cannot say the same thing for perfectly viable late term babies.  The further into viability the child progresses, the harder it is to justify an abortion.  Is it really possible to say with a straight face that killing a newborn child a minute after it's been delivered is murder, but that partially delivering that same child then killing it before the law recognizes it as a person is morally acceptable?  I'd argue not.  As such, I support a near total ban on partial birth abortion.  The procedure is barbaric and you would be hard pressed to find even a hypothetical case where it is a medical necessity, much less any real world example of it being done as such.  What you have with a partial birth abortion is a procedure that combines all the risks of going through a long pregnancy and delivering a child with the death of a viable fetus.  Its sole purpose seems to be allowing someone who doesn't want a kid to delay the decision as long as possible. 

On the subject of early term abortions, debate is much more meaningful.  Carrying a child to term has it's risks, as does delivering, and obviously a child is a very big commitment that a lot of pregnant women aren't ready for.  Incest, Rape, and the health of the mother are all generally accepted as circumstances that may make abortion the right choice.  However, most pro-lifers, myself included, will concede these.  How common they are proportionally among all abortions is an issue, but not a central one.  If we concede those cases as acceptable then we need to discuss the remaining, however common they may be.  There are things to consider besides the child's/fetus's life.  First off, just as there are medical consequences of pregnancy and delivery, there are negative medical consequences of abortions.   Drugs always have side effects and they vary among patients, surgical procedures can go bad, and the body will not always react predictably to being messed with in ways not found in nature.  Abortions are not completely safe, and for some people they may be more dangerous than delivering a child.  There are also noted negative psychological side effects to aborting a child, unsurprising given how much the mind and body invest in creating and nurturing a child.  Evolution has made women of our species especially inclined to care about their children, frequently in ways they don't even realize.  This makes a lot of biological sense, given how relatively few we have, how helpless they are at birth, and how dependent they are on nurturing to become functional adults. 

I have also read reports that a not insignificant portion of mothers who have abortions do it at the urging of their partners and against their own instincts.  And of course you have rapists, who go beyond simple urging when it comes to seeing that their crimes leave no evidence.  The amount of anonymity guaranteed to people seeking abortions has greatly helped rapists in hiding their deeds.  I perfectly understand that someone who has been raped would not want to have a child who is the product of that deed, and they should not be forced to.  What is surprising is how many women would willingly carry that child to full term in spite of all that.  There really is a lot more at stake than just an errant pile of cells. 

Something else to consider.  Assume for a moment that an early term fetus can be definitively considered not to be a person.  Are they possibly something else, with less value than a person but more value than, say, a cancerous lump?  We certainly revile people who murder humans the most, but we don't just ignore crimes against other creatures.  Do you not have negative feelings about someone who abuses or kills their dog?  I know I do.  What about someone who, while doing nothing technically illegal, goes out of his way to kill small animals for no purpose beyond his own cruel satisfaction?  If aborting a child in an early stage of development is not killing a person, is it perhaps equivalent to needlessly killing an animal a bit lower on the evolutionary ladder?  Think about it.

The last thing to consider regarding abortions is how necessary a lot of them really are in counteracting pregnancy.  It is incredibly easy not to become pregnant, all you have to do is not have sex.  Now, admittedly, the urge to go ahead and have sex is strong, but people have the ability to suppress that urge and to satisfy it in a responsible manner.  The ease of acquiring an abortion and doing it anonymously can not be a positive factor in convincing people to behave more responsibly.  I think that if you were to magically remove abortion from the table, a lot of (but not all) people would behave a bit more responsibly, and the majority of those who do have a child they aren't prepared for would find good adoptive parents for it.  I also think that in general it is the men who would be the ones bearing the brunt of such a change.  Men have a bigger stake in the abortion debate than you may think. 

So basically, I am almost categorically against allowing any late term abortions, leaving a tiny bit of wiggle room for truly extreme circumstances.  Early to mid term abortions are ambiguous enough that some restrictions ought to be enacted, but a total ban is not something that I could likely support at this time.  However, legality aside, I still instinctively feel that there is something not quite right about aborting your unborn child at any point along the way.  Anything that could become a person like you or I with enough time and effort has to have some value beyond what meets the eye. 

While I agree with much of what you've said, EI, or at least grant you the courage of your convictions, I disagree with this slice:

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 26, 2007, 04:02:34 PM
I think that if you were to magically remove abortion from the table, a lot of (but not all) people would behave a bit more responsibly, and the majority of those who do have a child they aren't prepared for would find good adoptive parents for it.

I don't think any of them would. People are incredibly, surprisingly, and short-sightedly stupid. It's a fact of life. Take away the option, and most of the stupid ones will reproduce, because they're not bright enough to not stick tab A in slot B.

There's value there, there's reasons for and against, but, when you get right down to it, people will do stupid things. "Any stupid fsck can have a baby, and usually does."

Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on February 26, 2007, 12:56:03 PM
You know, birth control does sometimes fail... What then?

Like I said Abstenance is the only 100 percent effective meathod, and while modern birthcontrol isn't fool proof it's a damn sight better then nothing at all which, do to the mis information thats often used in abstinance only programs, is whats left to those kids when they do begin exploring there sexuality

In the caseswhere birth control fails abortion, and adoption should still be an option if the woman feels they can not care for the baby. 

Quote
I was trying to state the two (extreme) views over this issue, I will agree with you for the most part TGH... But this also touches on the moral issues of ourselves and our respect for ourselves and others..  Sexual Education must teach that respect, and it should also show the consequencies of our sexual adventures even if it don't lead to pregnancy or a STD.

Truth is always more effective than scare tactics...Because all caution is often thrown into the wind, once the Scare is overcome or proven false

Ohh Of course thats part of  what I mean by a comprensive sexual education hon

Anti-Abortions suck no privacy sucks...Nuff said..No more to be said about it...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 26, 2007, 04:30:52 PM
While I agree with much of what you've said, EI, or at least grant you the courage of your convictions, I disagree with this slice:

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 26, 2007, 04:02:34 PM
I think that if you were to magically remove abortion from the table, a lot of (but not all) people would behave a bit more responsibly, and the majority of those who do have a child they aren't prepared for would find good adoptive parents for it.

I don't think any of them would. People are incredibly, surprisingly, and short-sightedly stupid. It's a fact of life. Take away the option, and most of the stupid ones will reproduce, because they're not bright enough to not stick tab A in slot B.

There's value there, there's reasons for and against, but, when you get right down to it, people will do stupid things. "Any stupid fsck can have a baby, and usually does."

I am with you on this, Ilearch... The Right would like us to believe that abortion has not been around for centuries... It is only that modern medical science makes it more survivable for the mother. "Ladies" in the past often had many ways to end unwanted pregnancy that more often than not led to her death.  Or the unwanted child was killed after birth or spirited away somewhere.

And who says the good parents can be found for the waif, or the woman will not be change her mind at the last minute, and try to make it with the child without support from the father or family, and ends up poorer and worst mother because the stresses, she had to face alone with her child.  Or that the State won't let the adoption to go through, as the dad or the grandparents fight for the child which may take years, as the kid sits or moves from froster home to home.

Now, third term abortions are really terrible, especially since with the advances in pre-mie care.  It is a Prochoice mistake to try and defend it.  Mid term abortion should be very rare and only in the cases of medical emergencies.  Lastly first term abortion should be thought of on a case by case bases.

 Until the father can be know by DNA early on, and he wages automatic deducted to support the child, and the mother's wages also deducted if she is not raising the child.  Then people will not think about the consequencies for getting drunk or high and getting knock up and having children.  If it is sad but you have to hold a few feet to the fire, before the stupid/lazy take charge of their own lives and bodies... [And the really stupid will always never believe that they will be caught/it will happen to them.]

PBH

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 26, 2007, 04:30:52 PMI don't think any of them would. People are incredibly, surprisingly, and short-sightedly stupid. It's a fact of life. Take away the option, and most of the stupid ones will reproduce, because they're not bright enough to not stick tab A in slot B.

I'm very conflicted about this.  My natural instinct is to agree, but I have a sneaking suspicion that people might be less inclined to mess around if they knew a bunch of people who had kids during their teens.  Of course, if that were the case, nine months later the number of teen pregnancies would decline, and so fewer tragic examples for the kids to avoid.

Quote from: thegayhare on February 26, 2007, 05:11:19 PMLike I said Abstenance is the only 100 percent effective meathod, and while modern birthcontrol isn't fool proof it's a damn sight better then nothing at all which, do to the mis information thats often used in abstinance only programs, is whats left to those kids when they do begin exploring there sexuality

I have to agree.  I'm not an advocate of contraception, but if someone's going to have casual sex with no intention of reproducing, I would much rather that they wear some sort of protection.

(the Catholic Church says that condom use is sinful, but you've already committed that sin when you decided to have casual sex)

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on February 26, 2007, 05:33:39 PMUntil the father can be know by DNA early on, and he wages automatic deducted to support the child, and the mother's wages also deducted if she is not raising the child.  Then people will not think about the consequencies for getting drunk or high and getting knock up and having children.  If it is sad but you have to hold a few feet to the fire, before the stupid/lazy take charge of their own lives and bodies...

Yeah, I think that what is seriously lacking from this debate are people who are willing to stand up and make some hard choices.  To the pro-lifers, I say that we need to stand up and start putting our money where our mouth is.  Let's start offering to adopt any child that someone is considering aborting.  However it must be done, let us try to stop it.  Legally, and (because a few nutsos have besmirched our names) without violence.

...alas, if I even had a biological kid, I'll bet the state would take it away, given my current living standards.

I have something to say, and i know the majority of people will either look past me because this is going to be longer then a few sentances or just because its me and obviously anything i post is pointless. but at least glance at what i present to you.

I was supposed to have been aborted.

no, really, i was supposed to have been revoked before inflicting my presence on the world. I am dead serious. In no way do i find humor or any form of peculiarity in this statement. My existence is a fluke.

Anyone who has ever been called "A gross parody of life" or "A deeply disturbing mockery of a human being" please raise your hand. Its not a pleasant thing to hear as a child and i wish to offer some consolation to anybody else who has heard similar words.
those of you who have been called "An Abomination Unto God" let me know where the club meeting is, i know it will mostly be homosexuals and people who set stuff on fire, but i like those kinda people, they're fun.

Nobody expected or wanted me, by the time i was conceived both my siblings were roughly nine years old and my parents had already grown to dislike each other in that special kind of low grade hate that just barely isn't powerful enough to cause a divorce yet violence is always looming on the horizon. To this day my conception is a mystery of the universe, to the best of my knowledge its been roughly ten years today sinse the last time my parents even slept in the same room.

In addition to being an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy i was also a health risk, it was a very good chance my mother would die if i was brought to term. This was made all the more real by the agreement of all doctors involved that there was virtually no chance i would have survived to term even if my mother was healthy. They all told her to get an abortion for medical reasons- i would not live anyway and it would save her life.

At this point i would like to bring an unusual viewpoint to bear, that of the unborn child. Almost never does one actually survive in the knowledge that they almost never were and freely express their feelings. But i will express my opinion on my mothers decision.

had they asked me, i would have told her to get the abortion. knowing nothing of my own future and nothing other then my chances and her chances, i would have gladly traded my slim prospects at breathing so that she would avoid the grim fate of bleeding internally and leaking digestive fluids into her own bloodstream. I love my mother, nothing would ever change that, even if they had the guts to go through with it.

However dear old mum had a case of preemptive guilt and told the doctors, and i quote, "There may be a chance he would die, but if we do that he would surely die". A bit of a hero in every mother i suppose. the doctors however shook their heads and mentally prepared themselves to fill out her toe-tag unless she changed her mind, constantly reminding her that i was doomed anyways. They said i would not last the nine months, with her being old and even my fetus being compromised. but i lasted the nine months, at the very end giving grief as i stood up before i was born, almost breaking my mothers ribcage until they preformed a C section.

Yeah, i messed her up pretty bad. they told her with a straigt face to say goodbye, i would not last the hour. but i lasted, barely. they told her i would not survive the night, she of course wasnt going to let all that time carrying me wasted so she cohered them into trying the drastic.

that night, less then a day old, i was given a syringe full of adrenaline right to my heart. i survived the night. they said i would not survive the week, and only one or two shots later it was next week. finally the exasperated doctors said i would not survive my first year. hey, i'm 22, i assume you can guess how well i survived.

sure, for the first seven years of my life i had an unknown respiration disorder (later diagnosed as severe form of asthma, somehow went away on its own) and randomly stopped breathing and colapsed occasionally. obviously i had 'issues' and one of them was pretty clear that my mental development was severely stunted. but i got over it. the one thing that bothers me is that my nervous system seems to be funked up, most of my body is so numb i cannot feel things like a feather tickle, knife cut, any fabric at all, and i only seem to notice blunt trauma if its strong enough to shake my body and draw my attention. someday ill find out what the heck thats all about.

Today im a (reasonably) healthy full grown man built like a gorilla, have a wife and darling daughter, my inability to hold down a decent job can be blamed more on the economy of the region i live in and the fact that my education has essentially given me a degree as a lemming moreso then on personal failings of physical requirements or mental handicaps.

and yet, if you ask me, i would still say that i should have been aborted. i still love my mother and would not impose a risk of death upoon her. and the funny thing about it is i saved her life, she would have bleed to death internally anyways unless they had cut her open for the C section and noticed another problem she had and weren't aware of.


well, with that out of the way i can now express my feelings a bit more. as courageious as my mother was sets a standard to me. medical abortions i approve of, gladly and wholeheartedly, but there are some that just make me sick by comparison. you know the ones im talking about, who act as though its the end of the world to have a child yet at the same time making the decision is so light for them.

You were raped and are ashamed? really i wouldn't know what you are ashamed of, wasn't your fault. the excuse that the child would not like growing up knowing he/she was a product of rape is a weak defense- chances are they would like the idea of growing up at all and if you give them up for adoption that information can be withheld. heck, the kid may never know your name in their entire life.

you aren't ready for this level of responsibility? if that your excuse your are suddenly belaboring the obvious by the sheer fact that you consider it to be an excuse. in addition to needing help you need to learn your actions have consequences. bear the kid to full term and look it straight in the eyes and grow up. real life decisions have real life consequences and you should know that. even if your incapable of raising the child properly yourself, give it up for adoption, you've still grown up and hopefully will not find yourself using the excuse that you "weren't ready" ever again, apparently you were ready to have sex, which is a very adult thing for this exact reason.

this is not to say that i am pro life, i understand that it is a persons choice. also understand that PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS all the freaking time, just because something is illegal or morally wrong does NOT stop them from doing it. Example, murder and theft are illegal, people do them every day, many of them are never found out. Whether or not you permit something like abortion, you should at least make sure everyone agrees that it is a "bad thing" and it is wrong to do so. They still have the option, but they know its wrong.

to express this i have three accounts of people who have been through allot of fecal matter over this issue.

Second chance
the first is a woman who was in a bad relationship. hey, she was a teenager, teen aged girls are magnetically attracted to assholes. this bad relationship was last in a long line of bad relationships including drunks, guys who blamed her for all their problems, and specifically the verbally abusive. she got pregnant, she never told him, he just continued to be an abusive jackass. before long she got an abortion, knowing the kind of future in store should she stay with him and raise her child in a horrible relationship fated to make all three of their lives a living hell, and quite possibly produce children who will never know happiness and grow up to continue the cycle. To this very day she feels horrible about it, but does not regret her decision- because less then a year later she met up with a guy who was "nice" and treated her kindly. they fell madly in love and got married two years later. they both agreed they wanted children and actually planned a jump start by conceiving about two months before the wedding (they had been planning for a year total) so they could start a happy family right away. They're still a happy family, and their kid has the brightest smile and a laugh like a golden bell. I think she made the right choice, aside from hanging out with looser jerkhole in the first place.

Death march
An online acquaintance of mine (some of you may know him, many of you know OF him) had a bit of a romantic tryst with a girl, and they got pregnant. they were both fine people and i respect them both allot, this is not a story where a bad relationship had anything to do with the problem. a little past halfway through the pregnancy a routine OBGYN visit revealed a big problem, the baby had no skull. now, this gives the kid chances WAAAAY lower then the ones i had of surviving, and just about anyone who has passed grade school classes which only briefly touch on anatomy can agree. In addition theres still medical complications to the mother if they left it go full term, in addition to the chance of the kid experiencing horrible and excruciating pain as its born, and then wait an hour or two for it to die in misery. with tears in their eyes they walk to the abortion clinic, a mob of protesters screaming in force. They begin to verbally assault my friend and rush forward with signs held high, clearly this must be some 'monster' getting an abortion with a belly the size of a throw pillow. My friend is not daunted, but quietly walks up to them and whispers in the ear of one of the lead protesters why they are here. the protester sobers instantly, and after a minute or two a hush falls over all the protesters and they part to form an aisle for the two mourners to make their way.

Regret
a friend of mine knew personally a woman who was not so lucky, she STAYED with looser jerkhole. of course she got pregnant, and aborted. she got pregnant many more times, some of them she told him and some of them she didn't. when told he agreed with the abortions saying the time was not right and they did not need a kid, when not told she accepted that bringing a child into this cesspit of a family would be wrong. after several years looser jerkhole left her, for extremely looser jerkhole reasons. Later she also wised up and found Mr. Nice, but when they decided that it was time for a family they got a nasty surprise. She was now sterile, and admitted to having 14 abortions, any of which might have screwed up her innards that badly. Shortly thereafter it turns out that Mr. Nice wasn't as compassionate as he could be, and left her saying that he could not stay in the childless relationship. Today the woman of this story is in a mental institution (assuming she has not killed herself, a likely probability) after suffering a horrible case of depression about her lost children, lost lovers, and thinking herself a monster. The mental institution only came into the story when she started having hallucinations of her unborn children, and when i heard that i had a case of the heebie jeebies for three months.


on the VERY unlikely chance that anyone is still reading i would like to present my stance on abortion and the law.

*ahem* abortion can be carried out at certified clinics which are regulated by the health board and inspected VERY often to ensure safety of the patients. upon requesting an abortion the mother is required to fill out a form, this form is more or less an admission of a minor crime, which is waived if suitable medical reasons (such as my mother or my online acquaintance in story #2) are provided. the consequences of this legal agreement are presented clearly, and a member of the clinic staff explains them to anyone who is 'new' to the process. the staff also hands out pamphlets promoting adoption and can readily forward patients to local adoption agencies if they prefer.

abortion #1- you pay a legal fine, the abortion shows up on your criminal record. you are then provided with contraceptives for free as well as given the numbers and addresses of several counselors to give you aid with relationship problems if any exist. at this stage chances are you've just had a bad piece of life and may need some help getting over it. maybe your boyfriend is looser jerkhole, maybe it WAS rape, maybe you were just an 'innocent' little girl who stumbled into the frightening world of sexuality. they're there to help.

abortion #2- you pay another fine, much bigger, in addition to it going on your criminal record. you also have the opportunity to appear in court if you wish, but this time its mandatory to see counselors about relationship issues, any drug issues, any psychological issues, and possibly spend time in rehab if any of the counselors suggest it. at this stage the innocence is gone, its obvious something is wrong and must be taken care of.

abortion #3- you HAVE to appear in court, and this time your criminal record may show up as manslaughter or a similar crime. chances are high you will be put in rehab under the watchful eyes of some somber professionals who will try to correct the situation. not 'help', this time its graduated to 'correct the situation'. unless you convince the court otherwise you will be sterilized, nobody wants to have someone come in for five, seven, or fourteen abortions. at this stage not only is all innocence gone but most excuses dry up too, the finger of blame can be pointed at the mother with only a small amount of argument as to what the problem is. at least after this you will not have to visit the clinic again.


there, iv'e said my piece. i am neither pro life or pro choice, but feel that its an issue every person has to deal with themselves just as we each deal with anything else. adoption clinics are facing high demands with a shortage of children, and many childless couples wait from three to five YEARS after being accepted to receive an adopted child. life is precious, nobody can question that, but many precious things can be thrown away.

if you feel i'm full of shit, fine, say so as loudly as you want. i do feel i have SOME amount of right to voice my opinions though, as much a right as you have to tell me to fornicate myself with an iron rod.

and upon that i kind of wish i had a bottle of whiskey on hand to pour on the ground "for those who did not make it"

QuoteA brief candle; both ends burning
An endless mile; a bus wheel turning
A friend to share the lonesome times
A handshake and a sip of wine
So say it loud and let it ring
We are all a part of everything
The future, present and the past
Fly on proud bird
You're free at last.

*just swallowed his gum from Bruns post* ........

*Stares amazed* those are quite the stories Burn..

That post really... *sigh* that was amazing and informative Burnhidden you've made me look at it in a whole new way, Thank you. 

I was still reading, Brun. :-P

The problem with the fine on the first offence is that it will generate a situation in which back-yard clinics pop up all over the place. People being people, and that sort of thing.

I trust everyone can see the problem with unregulated clinics. :-/


I don't -have- a solution, though. And your descriptions are filled with pathos.


*hug*

*Read's Brun-kun's post*

*slow claps*

Personally I'm against Abortion, but a strict advocate for Contraception.

What can I say? Im a bleeding heart who just wants to see that a person has a chance for happiness the moment they become a person... which would legally be after they are born which would retroact to their date of conception.

I find it amusing how law defines when a person is a person.

In an ideal futuristic world, perhaps these supposed to be aborted fetuses can be removed from the womb and be grown by a machine or perhaps a surrogate mother so that it can be born and the original mother will be free of the "burden" of carrying a child.

ah... to live in a world of Sci-fi.

Holy Shit thats one hell of a good read Brun.

I might not necessarily agree with it 100%, but it's pretty damn well written.

I share a similar scenario allthough it's not as epic as yours persay. 
I'm not the first kid my mom tried to have.  The first attempt ended in a still birth followed by some nasty surgery and she was told that she wouldn't be able to get pregnant again.
That didn't stop her from squirting me roughly a year later however.  Her pregnancy went fine and I came out into this world much like I would spend my life, chubby and screaming ;p

Quote from: Zedd on February 26, 2007, 05:16:59 PM
Anti-Abortions suck no privacy sucks...Nuff said..No more to be said about it...

This type of post is "the lose".  No content, no support of any kind, just a harsh statement of personal opinion delivered in a matter of fact manner with a bold statement of infallibility.  The good news is pretty much everyone else has given his or her opinion in calm and sober manner that has allowed for an honest exchange of ideas.  For that I'm grateful.

That said, I'd like to address a few people's posts more specifically. 

QuoteMy biggest beef on Pro-Life is that many people like to really push the third-trimester or partial birth abortions when those particular cases are actually very uncommon (and in many cases are done for very particular reasons like medical complications or the fetus has actually died by natural means and they need to expell the body.)

While they are not the most common type, to say they are very uncommon may be misleading to a lot of people.  I present to you some research, archived on a pro-life site but well cited and seem very reliable:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html)
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf)

Basically, the claim they make and support is that there are 2 to 5 thousand partial birth or dismemberment type abortions performed every year, and they are nearly all purely optional for the mother.  That makes sense insofar as the medical benefits of the procedure are nearly nonexistent and the risks abundant. 

QuoteAnd who says the good parents can be found for the waif, or the woman will not be change her mind at the last minute, and try to make it with the child without support from the father or family, and ends up poorer and worst mother because the stresses, she had to face alone with her child.  Or that the State won't let the adoption to go through, as the dad or the grandparents fight for the child which may take years, as the kid sits or moves from froster home to home.

Here are some statistics on adoption, again well cited and apparently reliable unless someone can refute them:

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html (http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html)

Basically, there are a lot more people looking to adopt than there are children up for adoption in this country.  Could they adopt every child that would have been otherwise aborted?  Numerically speaking, based on those numbers, I'd say not, but it would be better than the alternative and would more than cover all the partial birth abortions.  Of course if you accept my hypothesis that a reduction in availability of abortion would correspond to an increase in personal responsibility with regards to baby creation, then the numbers look better.  The other issues brought up seem somewhat secondary to the life/death issue, but they are important.  Keep in mind there are a number of support groups out there for people who choose to keep their unexpected children, and there are many many more compassionate people willing to work with those families as the demand increases.  I will not diminish the significance of the emotional and economic issues at play here, abandoning these people is not going to solve anything. 

QuoteI don't think any of them would. People are incredibly, surprisingly, and short-sightedly stupid. It's a fact of life. Take away the option, and most of the stupid ones will reproduce, because they're not bright enough to not stick tab A in slot B.

There's value there, there's reasons for and against, but, when you get right down to it, people will do stupid things. "Any stupid fsck can have a baby, and usually does."

I tend to think that people are not so much stupid as they are affected greatly by societal pressures and trends.  I think that the short-sightedness and stupidity you see is anything but a given.  Provide people with options, with education on the issues, and don't sell them short, and you may be surprised how many make the "right" decision.  What we have right now, is a generally accepted stance on sex that everyone does it at an early age and none of us have the will to fight the urge.  When you add that to what people see in the media, where sex is almost universally treated as frivolous and meaningless, and where people attempting to counter the "consensus" are universally labeled as squares or cranks by the establishment, is it any wonder that a lot of people have adopted that stance on sex? 

QuoteLike I said Abstenance is the only 100 percent effective meathod, and while modern birthcontrol isn't fool proof it's a damn sight better then nothing at all which, do to the mis information thats often used in abstinance only programs, is whats left to those kids when they do begin exploring there sexuality

Actually, properly applied abstinence education can be very effective, despite the inundation of "progressive" views on sex that young people receive.  Heres a study that talk about that:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm)

I do realize that some people will always have sex when they would be better of not doing so.  That much is really not in dispute, and there should be a system in place to deal with that.  But I think you would be surprised just how malleable a person's sexual conduct is.  Our minds are not as hardwired as we used to think. 

*speak-less after read  Brun's post**

Brunhidden da Muse

There is nothing to said to your last post .. You have sum up the whole debate, and it should go to the every Senator and the news outlet...or Oprah... But that is for you to do if you want.  

Senator Clinton once asked a bapist leader of a prolife organization..more or less "What is it you want?  We are all christians and we, Democrats, are always for helping the poor and the needy...Why can't we find common ground on this?"

He answers ..this more or less  "We want the killing to stop..period,   So, we will always agree to disagree"

Thanks Brun for sharing... But your solution should document the father or fathers of each pregnancy, too.  this may increase the back alley clinics or the murder rates.  But you need to make them illegel, too.  Now, to find the money to pay for all that counciling.  

I will add one troubling note,... Many states have laws that said a woman or girl can drop off a newborn at any hospital, no questions asked, yet their still find new babies in trashcans...

PBH

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AM

QuoteI don't think any of them would. People are incredibly, surprisingly, and short-sightedly stupid. It's a fact of life. Take away the option, and most of the stupid ones will reproduce, because they're not bright enough to not stick tab A in slot B.

There's value there, there's reasons for and against, but, when you get right down to it, people will do stupid things. "Any stupid fsck can have a baby, and usually does."

I tend to think that people are not so much stupid as they are affected greatly by societal pressures and trends.  I think that the short-sightedness and stupidity you see is anything but a given.  Provide people with options, with education on the issues, and don't sell them short, and you may be surprised how many make the "right" decision.  What we have right now, is a generally accepted stance on sex that everyone does it at an early age and none of us have the will to fight the urge.  When you add that to what people see in the media, where sex is almost universally treated as frivolous and meaningless, and where people attempting to counter the "consensus" are universally labeled as squares or cranks by the establishment, is it any wonder that a lot of people have adopted that stance on sex? 

I disagree (but you're welcome to disagree with me, that's quite ok :-) and, furthermore, I think you're misunderstanding me.

"ignorant" is something that education can fix. "stupidity" is something that cannot be fixed. Stupid people can be put in front of stacks of education, and you can spend thousands of dollars trying to teach them, but none of it will stick.

The short-sighted element then comes into play, because people won't learn - not can't, won't - unless they can see the immediate benefit to themselves. There are exceptions to this, but they are exceptions (I like to think I'm one of them, but the jury is still out on that one) and, in the great statistical play that is life, they're not significant. They do tend to be the folks who do the inventing and creation of new things, so they play a big part in the way that everyone lives, but, genetically speaking, they're not terribly significant.

How many people take the time to learn about their PC's? Enough to stop them getting infected with crap? Really, honestly? Just about bugger-all, judging by the numbers of trojans and viruses out there. How many people respond to Nigerian 419 emails? How many avoid driving drunk, to pick another example? How many die due to driving drunk? How many go out committing burglaries?

You can't tell me -all- of those people are intelligent, educated, and thoughtful people. Well.. ok, maybe you can, but not without lying through your teeth...

Bringing the conversation back to abortion and sex, I've heard tell of a young lady who couldn't tell you who the father of her child was, because "I was at a party, and had my head out a window throwing up at the time" - now, is that thinking ahead? Furthermore, just how many times have you heard of similar behaviour at frat parties? How many of you have participated in similar behaviour at parties?

Call me cynical if you like, but I stand by my statement - people are short-sighted, stupid, and miserable bastards, by and large.

Most people will act as society and peers expect them to.... When teens were asked in a recent study, Why teen do stupid things?   They said that they did knew it was stupid and dangerous, but they did it anyway to be accepted in the group.

{somethimes I wish the "Animal House" movie was never made}
Abuse of alcohol and drugs will make many people do stupid things. 

And to answer my own question, E.I., An national database for government approved parents, which cuoples need to adopted, is what is need to help these troubled young mothers.  Hey we have internet dating services, why not this.

PBH

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AM

Actually, properly applied abstinence education can be very effective, despite the inundation of "progressive" views on sex that young people receive.  Heres a study that talk about that:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm)

I do realize that some people will always have sex when they would be better of not doing so.  That much is really not in dispute, and there should be a system in place to deal with that.  But I think you would be surprised just how malleable a person's sexual conduct is.  Our minds are not as hardwired as we used to think. 

So your saying a  five year old artical, with little or no actual statistical data,  on a website dedicated to a strict conservitive view point some how proves that abstenaince only programs work?

Well the medical comunity disagrees American Academy of Pediatrics for one,  hell even congress gets it from the 2004 report you can see some of the  misinformation (http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf)

Teaching that Aids can be passed threw tears, half the gay teen age boys have aids, or that Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

Independent state run studies found that sexual activity actualy went up after the abstenance only sex education

Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex and areless likely to use and form of protection.

Abstinence does indeed prevent pregnancy, but only for as long as you keep it up. People should know what to do whenever they do decide to have sex.

Bah.  The easiest way to solve this problem is to tie everybody's tubes at birth!  Then, you have to go to a lab to have a kid in a test-tube... after a little genetic tweaking for perfection!  Of course, only the RICH will be able to afford this, and the rest will have to become slaves to them if they want kids... but it's for the best!  Really!  There are far too many carbon-based units infesting V'ger's planet.   *says the Mason-Illuminate-Templar-mutant/alien/cyborg-ultramega-right-wing Xenu conspirator-working for SEELE*   >:3

I agree with Jonathan Swift.  Baby sandwiches and kitten juice.   >:3

I think that Alondro has got the idea here...

Purity! More screwing for the people, less genetic pollution! Sieg!

... unless, of course, there's a better way? [tilts head]

Or we could take a page from the great Larry Niven- create a fertility board.

essentially every citizen of a country participating in the fertility board is surgically implanted with contraceptives (the men too, hormones to stop the sperm as well as to stop the release of eggs). this is both free, mandatory, and you have to return regularly in a manner similar to getting your license plates renewed. when you wish to have a child you must request it from the fertility board- they look at your economical status, genetic problems of both parents, mental condition of both parents, and your birthrights.

essentially it works that each couple is assigned two birthrights. you can loose a birthright by things such as genetic disorders, severe mental disorders, any substantial physical problems that can be passed on to kids, and if your at a point where your financial levels would cause a problematic childhood. you can GAIN birthrights by having incredible genetics, high IQ, and any other favorable conditions.

for example a person who is diabetic may only have one birthright instead of two, someone who has the genetics for a perfect liver or heart which is far less suseptable to health issues may get three. someone with a certified genius level of intelligence may have unlimited birthrights.

keep in mind this scenario is set somewhere near the year 2500, and its feasible to implant a crystal in someones arm that slow releases birth control for a full year. after about two hundred years of this program humanity has essentially weeded out 75% of its genetic disorders and has severely reduced inherited chemical imbalances such as manic depressives and paranoia. ethnic cleansing is not an issue of who gets kids and who does not, after two hundred years of having 'teleport booths' everyone has interbred to the point that it does not matter anymore.

with that in mind i can admit this system also includes giving bonus birthrights to anyone displaying psi abilities. and in an effort to cut down on bribery you can purchase a birthright for an amount i can probably translate to five thousand dollars- why not? the knack for making money is a proven survival trait.

the disturbing issue was that after all birthrights were assigned and totaled up, all deaths were subtracted, and any 'unauthorized' births have been accounted for more people died every year then were born. so they institute a 'birthright lottery' where the balance between births and deaths are put to lotteries people can enter if they wish. nobody without a serious physical problem can be denied a birthright lottery.

the question here is 'does that create a human bred for luck?' seeing as how one of humanities prime survival traits is now whether or not they win lotteries.


but all that is aside from the issue more or less. however i cannot stress enough that technology may be our savior from this quagmire. like mentioned before we may soon come to a point where an 'aborted' fetus could be stored alive untill someone wants it, or contraceptives and education reach a suitable level. sadly all this still means that third world countries are still going to kill themselves with overpopulation as people living on dirt farms keep having seven kids thinking "each mouth comes with two hands" despite the fact theres nothing for the children to help farm, and many are essentially sold into slavery for next to nothing.

someone has to stop me from making long posts, my fingers are starting to hurt and this post isn't a third as profound as my previous one.

QuoteSomebody stop me

I could ban you for a day, but I suspect that's not what you wanted. :-)+)

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on February 27, 2007, 01:59:56 PM
keep in mind this scenario is set somewhere near the year 2500, and its feasible to implant a crystal in someones arm that slow releases birth control for a full year.

That reminds me of something *looks up on Wikipedia*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norplant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon

Quote from: Alondro on February 27, 2007, 01:22:08 PM
I agree with Jonathan Swift.  Baby sandwiches and kitten juice.   >:3

The problem is Charline..mmm. I do believe you would  press your own children for kitten juice... **Must update the forceshield on the Lab.**

Miss Mab.!..Brun, done it again...

I would prefer a system, where the female has control of if and when she can have a cub.  What the release of the egg required some deep concentration of a sober mind that would release the egg.  That she could do this in the few hours before or up to a day after having sex to have a child... Then we will see what happens....Maybe there will less violence to women, because she could not give an egg if forced.  It would turn to the whole equation around.  And yes, a girl could use a pregnancy to trap "her" man, that way but the jerks'll still just walk away.

PBH.

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AMBasically, the claim they make and support is that there are 2 to 5 thousand partial birth or dismemberment type abortions performed every year, and they are nearly all purely optional for the mother.  That makes sense insofar as the medical benefits of the procedure are nearly nonexistent and the risks abundant.

I've learned not to trust statistics that are not from a disinterested group.  They are quite frequently wrong, sometimes to the extent of pulling statistics out of their ass.

According to a study (1), there were 1274 dilation and extraction abortions in a sample population in the year 2000.  This can be extrapolated out to around 2200 for the entire US, but the statistics are notorious for being wrong.

So it looks like the statistics that you cite are roughly in accord with these.

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AMHere are some statistics on adoption, again well cited and apparently reliable unless someone can refute them:

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html (http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html)

Basically, there are a lot more people looking to adopt than there are children up for adoption in this country.

It's amazing just how difficult it is to find statistics on adoption.  It's pretty easy to find out that there are about 120,000 kids up for adoption every year (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_adopted/index.cfm).  The statistics on who are looking to adopt are much more difficult.  In 1988, there were 204,000 women currently seeking to adopt(2).  I don't know how many people (not just women) are seeking to adopt per annum.

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AMWhat we have right now, is a generally accepted stance on sex that everyone does it at an early age and none of us have the will to fight the urge.  When you add that to what people see in the media, where sex is almost universally treated as frivolous and meaningless, and where people attempting to counter the "consensus" are universally labeled as squares or cranks by the establishment, is it any wonder that a lot of people have adopted that stance on sex?

I think that one thing that we are missing is that Western society has pushed sex/marriage/child rearing to an extremely late date.  Historically, if you weren't married and having kids by the time you were 14, it was a sign that something was wrong.

So I don't think that I can agree with you that society is pressuring people into having sex at a young age, or that their attitudes are abnormal.

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AMActually, properly applied abstinence education can be very effective, despite the inundation of "progressive" views on sex that young people receive.  Heres a study that talk about that:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm)

Er...you do realize that you just cited the Heritage Foundation, right?

I found a study on Medline(3) that indicates that suggests that the number of unplanned pregnancies declines significantly when abstinence is part of the education, but it really doesn't matter whether contraceptives are explained in conjunction with that. 

There were also ``significant differences in number of abortions experienced by women receiving different types of sex education in school.''  Specifically, those receiving abstinence and contraceptive education were significantly less likely to have abortions than those who had only abstinence education.  This makes sense, because those who would not be opposed to abortion would probably be more likely to use contraceptives if they knew about them.

Your point, however, is well taken.  It seems that the symptothermal method, when used optimally, is actually 50% more effective that perfect condom use (2% vs 3%) (4).  Of course, with the typical use, those numbers are reversed (14% vs. unknown, but possibly up to 25%).

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on February 27, 2007, 10:01:59 AMThanks Brun for sharing... But your solution should document the father or fathers of each pregnancy, too.

I think that that is an excellent idea.  I actually want to see that done in prostitution cases, too.  The woman may be forced into prostitution, but the john knows damned well what he's doing.  If we actually went after the men in these situations, the problems would dry up in no time.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on February 27, 2007, 10:01:59 AMI will add one troubling note,... Many states have laws that said a woman or girl can drop off a newborn at any hospital, no questions asked, yet their still find new babies in trashcans...

That's the law where I am.  We actually had a case in the news about that recently.  I also think that if you made that fact part of sex education, you'd get fewer trashcan babies.

Also, I've heard of Norplant tattoos, where you get a tattoo that makes it look like you've got Norplant.  Someone else pointed out that Norplant doesn't `look' like anything, but apparently, it doesn't stop people from getting them.  Or urban legend.  Either way.


(1) Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000
    Lawrence B. Finer; Stanley K. Henshaw
    Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 35, No. 1. (Jan. - Feb., 2003), pp. 6-15.
(2) On the Path to Adoption: Adoption Seeking in the United States, 1988
    Christine A. Bachrach; Kathryn A. London; Penelope L. Maza
    Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 3. (Aug., 1991), pp. 705-718.
(3) Sex education attitudes and outcomes among North American women.
Williams MT; Bonner L
Adolescence [Adolescence] 2006 Spring; Vol. 41 (161), pp. 1-14.
(4) Contraceptive Failure, Method-Related Discontinuation and Resumption of Use: Results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth
    James Trussell; Barbara Vaughan
    Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Mar. - Apr., 1999), pp. 64-72+93.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on February 27, 2007, 04:47:28 PM
Miss Mab.!..Brun, done it again...

done what again?


and i fully agree about the hospital thing- if people KNEW that options like that existed it would probably be faaar less frequent for you to find the horror stories like the trashcan, public restroom, and a nasty local one was a port-a-john. that was a disturbing one, it seems the mother actually put the newborn in a sweater from a teddy bear before leaving it to freeze in a portable toilet, luckaly someone heard the crying and saved the kid before it died, and it just may be that teddy bears sweater saved a life.

we would still need someone to talk to the teens to see about their concept that they should hide being pregnant like that.

Yay! a kinda almost short post from me!

QuoteIn the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

It was also suggested that I be aborted.

Prior to my mother knowing about the pregnancy, she broke her leg, and was given x-rays and medication (no idea what type)- one of which was supposed to cause severe physical defects, the other wich would cause severe mental defects.  The doctor was bound by law to make the suggestion, but he also truly believed in it, and my mother refused.

I turned out fine.  My eyesight is worse than either of my parents, and my hearing is beginning to go at 26, but other than that I seem to have escaped anything major (and both those conditions could very well be inherited)

---

Personally, I feel that abortion is something that will never be right for me, unless it happens to be a case much like Brun's second example- where the child just won't survive.

However, there are way too many horrible foster care stories (children surviving on PAINT CHIPS for crying out loud) and terrible parent stories for me to think that abortion has no place.  Yes, I think abortion needs to be fixed, and I think the foster and adoption system need to be fixed at the same time.  All three are intimately connected, in my opinion.

QuoteWhile they are not the most common type, to say they are very uncommon may be misleading to a lot of people.  I present to you some research, archived on a pro-life site but well cited and seem very reliable:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html)
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RusePBAonTrial.pdf)

Basically, the claim they make and support is that there are 2 to 5 thousand partial birth or dismemberment type abortions performed every year, and they are nearly all purely optional for the mother.  That makes sense insofar as the medical benefits of the procedure are nearly nonexistent and the risks abundant.

This is going to sound very very shallow, and I apologize...but 2-5 thousand? That's it?  Is this just in the US or worldwide? (Cause some sites do like to shady the numbers)  And either way...this then falls into my "this is a lesser problem" category in comparison to something like...children in poverty and starving to death in our own countries.  In a small way, it burns me that some groups fight and scrape and gnash teeth over a 2-5 thousand number when possibly thousands more to maybe a couple million fully alive and functional children are being completly overlooked and ignored.  What makes the 2-5 thousand more special?  Because they have nice gruesome pictures and can tug a heartstring better than Billy who's parents spend most his food on drugs?

And on a complete scale, 2-5 thousand is still an uncommon number. Yeah it sounds really massive and big on a personal scale, but in comparison to world/country statistics, even pure out infanticide has a higher stat-count. 

(Chart taken from wikipedia, which may not be a purely drama-free source...but since the abortion topic is locked down, one can assume they are trying best to avoid too one-sidedness)  Granted this one is from England, but the overall implication I think would run similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UKAbortionbyGestationalAgeChart2004.png

In the big scheme of things, third trimester is uncommon.  It's there yes, and down to the nitty gritty the numbers might seem amazingly high and impressive...but in my opinion, its not high enough that it should overlook other bigger-issues.  2,000-5,000 a year is not a heavy number.  According to many sites, around 3 normal children die a day from abuse and neglect in the US alone.


As for one-on-one personal stories, I find them to be dangerous.  While I feel abortion is one of those things that should be considered on a case-by-case basis...it makes for poor fodder in a grand scheme of things oftentimes.  Personal stories and cases always have a way of going for a more emotional impact than anything.  And it boils down to the "just because I was raised this way, doesnt mean everyone being o will turn out fine like me" problem where what may work for one person might not for the other.  True a rape victim might have no issue with carrying the child and giving it to adoption, or even having it and raising it no problem, but another might have an issue and it might be a big one. 

You might end up with someone who goes sterile after one abortion while another lady goes through twenty of them without a hassle.  People are funny like that.

Ultimately I do think its a very personal issue that the best qualified are the mother, a doctor, and if there, the mother's partner.  And I'm not talking about her one-night stand or dead-beat boyfriend cause I'm sorry...if the most you did for the whole thing was fire one off, that isn't a strong case for you to have a full say.  Now if they were in an actual relationship or long-term or married, then yeah, I do think the partner should have a voice. 

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 05:30:25 PMThis is going to sound very very shallow, and I apologize...but 2-5 thousand? That's it?  Is this just in the US or worldwide? (Cause some sites do like to shady the numbers)

Ghaa!  What are you doing to me?

(spends more hours on JSTOR)

I can tell you that my statistics (~2200 partial birth abortions per annum) were scrupulously studied to make sure that they were all from the US alone.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 05:30:25 PMAnd either way...this then falls into my "this is a lesser problem" category in comparison to something like...children in poverty and starving to death in our own countries.  In a small way, it burns me that some groups fight and scrape and gnash teeth over a 2-5 thousand number when possibly thousands more to maybe a couple million fully alive and functional children are being completly overlooked and ignored.  What makes the 2-5 thousand more special?  Because they have nice gruesome pictures and can tug a heartstring better than Billy who's parents spend most his food on drugs?

This is a really good point.  The pro-life activist would say that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby who cannot defend itself, but the other cases involve people more capable of self-preservation.

Of course, if that logic smells to you, I've gotta say I agree.  We should focus on alleviating all of society's ills, not just one.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 05:30:25 PMAnd on a complete scale, 2-5 thousand is still an uncommon number. Yeah it sounds really massive and big on a personal scale, but in comparison to world/country statistics, even pure out infanticide has a higher stat-count.

No, it doesn't.  The number of homicides of children under age 5 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/kidstab.htm) has ranged between 511 and 778 between 1976 and 2004 (the dates for which the data were available).

This includes deaths by people other than the mother.

I'll have to look up that ``3 normal children die a day from abuse and neglect'' stat.

Edit: I did.  It seems to come from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/index.htm#ncands).  There are some funky things going on with at least one of these data sets, since NCANDS claims that ``For 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died due to child abuse or neglect,'' and lists 80% of those as children under age 4, while the Department of Justice lists the number of child homicides under age 5 for that year as 558.  So apparently in some cases, they don't consider a child who dies from abuse or neglect a victim of homicide.

At any rate, the number of partial birth abortions is about twice the number of kids who die due to neglect or abuse before age 4.

Keep in mind superluser, that all these facts are on "reported cases"...which is always a good bad thing for any side talking on stuff.  Its like a "U CANT TRUST ANYTHEEEEENG" so we do with what we got. :3

If there was any statistically redeeming situation on abortion legalized is that it makes it easier to track and chart.  Infanticide makes for more tricky categorizing since that then starts to fall into murder and most people will attempt to cover their tracks.  (Also, I'm doing world statistics and not just USA in terms of infanticide. I should have mentioned that...and I'm going to say flat out your number is wrong if you are counting world)

As horrible as it sounds, it is really easy to kill an infant and it appear it was an accident.  And while this shouldn't be used to imply that the numbers are in fact higher and oober-dangerous...I will say that such a straight up reported data you have should be taken with a grain of salt.

[edit note]As for the 3 a day figure, I confess I did a generalized number based on several statistics that were being thrown around the net.  It was ranging everything from 1 a week to 1 and hour so I tried to pick what seemed like a middle-number.  If need be, I can later on try to re-rustle all the pages, but you can likely guess that the higher numbers were on "help prevent" sites and the lower were on things regarding taxes and such.

However the main thing I was getting on was that people fighting over what may/may not be alive while there are obvious alive children suffering seems painful.  In a perfect world I'd rather we tackle the actual deaths and then focus more on abortion and what defines aliveness.  And that is to say if there was an option to give lots of support money to one or the other...I'd rather it go to helping starving and abused infants/children over research to work on figuring out the exact time something can be considered living.
[/edit note]

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 06:18:04 PM
Keep in mind superluser, that all these facts are on "reported cases"

If there was any statistically redeeming situation on abortion legalized is that it makes it easier to track and chart.  Infanticide makes for more tricky categorizing since that then starts to fall into murder and most people will attempt to cover their tracks.  (Also, I'm doing world statistics and not just USA in terms of infanticide. I should have mentioned that...and I'm going to say flat out your number is wrong if you are counting world)

I believe superluser is aware that he's dealing with US-only data. He's also been rather careful to cite sources, and mention where bias exists, and where data is suspect...

... having said that, I'm gonna STFU, because I don't think I have anything more to add to the conversation, and you guys are actually discussing it quite well. Particularly with all the stats. :-)

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 06:18:04 PMKeep in mind superluser, that all these facts are on "reported cases"

Likewise, the number of cases of intact dilation and extraction are based on cases reported by providers.  Illegal/unreported cases are likely to crop up in abortion statistics as well.  As to what extent, I may have to look into it.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 06:18:04 PMIf there was any statistically redeeming situation on abortion legalized is that it makes it easier to track and chart.  Infanticide makes for more tricky categorizing since that then starts to fall into murder and most people will attempt to cover their tracks.  (Also, I'm doing world statistics and not just USA in terms of infanticide. I should have mentioned that...and I'm going to say flat out your number is wrong if you are counting world)

There's a specific reason why I'm using US statistics and not world.  US statistics are easy to locate, and have a relatively uniform reporting methodology.  World statistics are incredibly flaky, since they involve multiple regions with multiple reporting methods.  Abortion rates might be much more difficult to discern in Afghanistan than in Italy, due to different attitudes toward privacy and sexual openness.  I remember looking up a number of statistics on homicides before, and the UN said flat out that numbers will not line up across countries due to different reporting methodologies.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 06:18:04 PMAs horrible as it sounds, it is really easy to kill an infant and it appear it was an accident.  And while this shouldn't be used to imply that the numbers are in fact higher and oober-dangerous...I will say that such a straight up reported data you have should be taken with a grain of salt.

No offense, but I am citing sources and providing references to peer reviewed journals.  Your personal opinion (as mean as this is going to sound) doesn't count anywhere near as much as those of people who have actually researched these phenomena.  Some of these statistics do actually correct for flaws and flukes in reporting.  I don't know if the infanticide one does.

So unless you have specific evidence that there are a statistically significant number of infanticides being performed but not reported, I'm going to have a hard time believing that it's something like a 100% deviation from the reported number.

Yeah.  Get out box!  We don't like your kind here!

As my edit mentioned, there is a lot of stuff pulling from different angles.  Between numbers and emotional tuggings, what makes something defined is always going wacky.  (side note: Even with the 3 a day, the number is still lower than the abortion so I wasn't trying to imply that neglect/abuse deaths in the US were higher...just worse in terms of morality)

On a purely emotional level(for me), I would say the idea of one child dying from neglect and starvation is a lot worse than the idea of an abortion done in a clinical and medical fashion.  They both have the same result, the death. But in terms of humane nature, (and this is me talking without the overhype about the possibility of pain), the abortion seems a lot quicker and less painful...and if anything...at least professionally handled.

Then again I admit I have a maaaaajor dislike when people do have kids for horrible reasons. (IE: to get money. To keep a guy or their relationship together.  because you think babies are cute. revenge. etc)  Possibly moreso than people who have abortions for shallow reasons.   Yet I have met people who feel the idea of another person not wanting to have kids is "just a phase" or implies they are not right in the head.

Bwargh. XP

Quote from: superluser on February 27, 2007, 06:52:07 PM
So unless you have specific evidence that there are a statistically significant number of infanticides being performed but not reported, I'm going to have a hard time believing that it's something like a 100% deviation from the reported number.

My comment was meant towards them using the exact number of 511 and 788.  That seems to imply a "no more/no less" frame of mind.  Though I have no doubt they have some little * thingie with a note saying that it is based on data they have been provided...cause all things do that. (for likely reasons)  But not everyone may realize that, and not everyone may go through and read the whole article. Hence my comment about grain of salt.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 07:08:41 PM
Then again I admit I have a maaaaajor dislike when people do have kids for horrible reasons. (IE: to get money. To keep a guy or their relationship together.  because you think babies are cute. revenge. etc)  Possibly moreso than people who have abortions for shallow reasons.   Yet I have met people who feel the idea of another person not wanting to have kids is "just a phase" or implies they are not right in the head.

Happens all the time. This seems to be the most common case, and is yet another perfect demonstration of short-sightedness due to stupidity and emotionality; people keep their babies, even though modern medicine can with very great probability (and in some cases, absolute probability) tell that they are going to be gravely retarded/unable to breathe/horribly stunted and blind, etc. And why? Because they don't want a guilty conscience?! Allright then. It's their call. But after twenty years, after seeing the consequences, I am unsure of how they really see things...

   But in comes Brunhidden. And there we see what the same medicine can do in the long run. And even more, what sheer perseverance and will can do. I cannot say but that I am touched by your account, and even somewhat jealous in fact, for some reasons... Though it still remains an extreme case, one must point out.

   In the end, I think it all goes to show one thing though; if you can't take responsibility, then either you have to use prophylactic up to the point where you are completely safeguarded, or you can't screw. It's that simple. In fact, if you are an irresponsible jackass, then your friends and family should actually be hammering you with the message "you can't do that shit!", because they care for you. And if you don't listen, well, then fine. Tough break. You're fucked. Literally, and figuratively.

   Me, I broke off a friendship with a girl, since she got pregnant underage, and then refused to have an abortion despite the protests of her family and boyfriend. I actually pitied them for being burdened with her too. And I don't care who calls me an ass for that. I don't want to be associated with someone who acts that way.

Personally, I feel that it's the (potential) mother's choice, and should stay that way. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, I feel it's morally wrong to try to force her to. Nobody can decide whether it's right for her to have the child better than she can. It's her body, and she should be in control of it.

Two people have a child, not one.

Quote from: Alan Garou on February 27, 2007, 10:05:15 PM
Personally, I feel that it's the (potential) mother's choice, and should stay that way. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, I feel it's morally wrong to try to force her to. Nobody can decide whether it's right for her to have the child better than she can. It's her body, and she should be in control of it.

Normally I agree with that...except sometimes you get those off-wild scenarios that always creep into things.  I guess sometimes it really does fall into motive.  The only reason I mention this is because I was unfortunate to know of a situation where someone later-termed aborted just to ultimately get back at an ex.  That...well...lets just say it still burns me a bit since it is not only immature and childish, but a gross abuse of a process that should be used (IMO) only for emergencies and dire situations.

It's ultimately one of the reasons I feel that the guy (if he is a valid part of the mother's life) should get some say...especially in situations like that.  Yeah, if its some dude who just wham-bam'd one night or has no actual input into the childs life other than gene-contribution, screw em.  But if there is a relationship or the guy actually wants to take responsibility(possibly even sole responsibility), it is unfair for the girl to just be like "piss off"...triply so if her motives are very petty.

Seriously. I got no loves for the girls who use their potential babies as bargaining chips.

It's my body and I can do what I want with it... the exact same excuse people use who are drug abusers or wish to commit suicide.  Yet we stop those people... for some odd reason.  It's hypocrisy to allow people to do one thing for that reason, then disallow the other things they wish to do to themselves.

Think more logically.

Pure logic says that if people cause all the world's problems, then the solution is to get rid of all the people.  For if there are no people, there will be no problems.   >:3

Quote from: Stygian on February 27, 2007, 07:53:07 PMMe, I broke off a friendship with a girl, since she got pregnant underage, and then refused to have an abortion despite the protests of her family and boyfriend. I actually pitied them for being burdened with her too. And I don't care who calls me an ass for that. I don't want to be associated with someone who acts that way.

While I am pro-life, I do recognize the values that the pro-choice people are trying to promote, and I understand their point of view.  I think that an independent human life should be valued more than a convenience, but I do recognize that the pro-choice people are doing what they feel is right, and I understand why they feel that way.

But when people start taking the position that not only is the fetus not independent of the woman but also a part of the woman that other people can control, I begin to get a bit sick to my stomach.

I don't know what sort of experience you guys have with forced sterilization over in Sweden, but in the US (as well as much of Europe), we have had a very sordid history with that wretched thing.  Anything like forced abortion starts to have more than a whiff of eugenics, and that makes me unhappy.

What is more, I'm very concerned about what this sort of practice will have on the genetic complexion of the human race as a whole.  Are we evolving ourselves into less genetic diversity, to the point where a single plague might be able to level the entire human species?

Psh. You should be more worried about cultural changes if that's what you're really aiming for. Of course we are polluting the human DNA. Everything's pointing to it. Nobody minds it either, it seems. Not in a way that is the least constructive.

And thinking that the mother is the only one to make the choice is plain idiocy. That guy who made my "friend" pregnant thought he was safe and protected. Now, I don't know how the affair ended, since she moved and I haven't exactly felt like keeping in touch. But last I saw that guy he was practically torn apart. Now, I am very, very disinclined to believe that it was a good choice for a studying, underage, asthmatic and jobless girl to set her mind to keep the baby.

Quote from: Stygian on February 27, 2007, 10:55:11 PMOf course we are polluting the human DNA.

OK.  That's completely *opposite* of what I was saying.  Genetic diversity necessarily involves allowing (and even helping) the weak survive.  What is a deficiency one millennium may very well be the thing that saves the human race the next.

You call it pollution; I call it an essential part of the human condition.

I'd advise caution if only because there is a bit of similar sentiments that were once spoken back when inter-racial marraige was first stepping onto the scene. Obviously not for same reasons and exactly same situation...but there likely was a general "if this is allowed, we'll all breed into one race" mentality.

Personally speaking and thinking, considering the sheer amount of people on the planet, it would likely be hard pressed and hard time coming to a point where genetic diversity is so scarce that a super-bug would take us out. We're not potatoes, though we share a few traits now and then.  :giggle

That and...correct me if I'm wrong...most major plagues and epidemics usually can wipe out people regardless of particular genetic strains.  I remember reading cases where particular genders and ethnic groups are more likely to get heart desiese or cancers, but I've never heard of a lot of cases where a group survived a particular epidemic due to genetic diversity.

Then again, I might be getting confused and still thinking in terms of random abortion versus enforced sterilization.  If we're talking mass sterlization then yeah, I could see a case about genetic issues.  Then again genetics aren't the only key factor in ones life.  I dont' think obesity is running rampant in the US simply because people are being born with the chunky gene.

Quote from: ITOS on February 26, 2007, 11:40:03 AM

Quote from: RJ on February 26, 2007, 07:17:56 AM
I don't get some people and religion... I'm a Christian and all, but I'm at least a respectful one. If people want to go do something, it's their choice. I shouldn't push my religion onto them if they don't want it. :/

But then you have to ask yourself: What is religion and what is common sense? Killing is prohibited by the bible and thus a religious law. At the same time it's a very common law that many people follow regardless of religion.

When it comes to abortion, I think the real question is what you consider to be human life and if it is right to kill someone in order to prevent that person from suffering for a life time. The later links back a bit to the first when you consider how we handle termination of nonhuman life.

I've always perceived that my common sense goes hand in hand with my religious beliefs so then I don't make an ass out of myself and end up a bad example.

And really, I have to admit I don't know enough about pregnancy and babies so I have no idea what to think, let alone try to make some uninformed judgement on what is right there.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 11:45:44 PMI'd advise caution if only because there is a bit of similar sentiments that were once spoken back when inter-racial marraige was first stepping onto the scene. Obviously not for same reasons and exactly same situation...but there likely was a general "if this is allowed, we'll all breed into one race" mentality.

I'm having a hard time figuring out who this is addressed to, because I think I'm agreeing with you.

My point is that we shouldn't condemn anybody for their genes, and we should let everybody have sex with whomever they want (well, so long as the other person agrees).  Telling people that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce or that people with certain `deficiencies' (or so we call them today) should be aborted results in a less rich gene pool.

Hand in hand with that, however, is the fact that we cannot isolate these genetic traits.  It's hard to explain, but if you know a bit about information entropy and punctuated equilibrium, it starts to make sense. 

The famous case is that of sickle cell anemia (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html).  If you have two recessive sickle cell genes, you have the disease (or are likely to have it activate.  I'm not 100% sure).  This results in some serious problems.

So we should get rid of that gene, right?  Not so fast.  The sickle cell gene also confers a resistance to malaria.  So if in another 1000 years, we have a worldwide malaria epidemic (well, we already do in most tropical and third world regions), those people who have even one copy of the gene are suddenly going to become fitter than those without.

If you found out that your kid was going to have Huntington's Chorea, you might think that your kid is going to have a miserable life.  But what if, in 1000 years, it turns out that the mHtt protein will provide us with some resistance to some other disease?

And then, if we confine our populations to reproducing with their own kind, we're effectively committing genocide on all those other populations if such a disease ever comes.

Quote from: RJ on February 28, 2007, 12:24:22 AMAnd really, I have to admit I don't know enough about pregnancy and babies so I have no idea what to think

There are so many responses to this.  But I think I'll stick to this one (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_489.php).

Quote from: superluser on February 28, 2007, 12:37:06 AM

Quote from: RJ on February 28, 2007, 12:24:22 AMAnd really, I have to admit I don't know enough about pregnancy and babies so I have no idea what to think

There are so many responses to this.  But I think I'll stick to this one (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_489.php).

...I can't pick a single response, so I'll do both!

:pzilla

:tmyk

In a stable system of development, changes that are as rapid and as extreme as the changes that we've seen in human lifestyle, in human diseases, in human genes etc., are generally detrimental. Same thing with climate change, same thing with basically any mainly chaotic system. Evolution isn't perfect; it's a system, and any system has leeways. And if evolution is dependant on natural selection, then...
   I won't take it as far as going fascist, since I believe in sympathy, in intelligence and in there actually being a possibility for humane thought. But people who refuse to see that it's still something that happens, and that it's detrimental...
   Odd chemicals that we spread all around us, that get in our bodies, that affect us... The occurrence of more and more genetically related diseases and deformities in humans... People becoming unhealthier and weaker... These are facts. They're not some silly idea or some pessimistic fiction. They're facts. And you can read about them in health reports worldwide. Now, I won't take this to a point, and I won't try and hammer some idea or so into your head, but I am saying that all things, regardless of where you look, together point to show that the overwhelmingly greatest possibility is that the human genome is deteriorating in its quality. It is not a question about genetic diversity anymore, not now. It is about quality.

Don't worry, just a general cautionary advisory. Not targeted at anyone in particular.  If the topic was going to go from abortion to genetics, I wanted to shift the civilness rule to help cover.  I guess its inevitable that sometimes one topic like abortion might shift to topics like racial diversity. :U

That and it's partially reflexes from my old sociology and debate class.  When you take lectures where you read some articles and data that contains information implying that some genders and races might actually be racially better/worse at certain things...it is good to cover ones bum.

Other than that, and this one will be targeted to ya superluser, you are kind of confusing me about if we are just talking your average abortion or if this is going into the train of thought of people aborting purely for genetic/gender reasons.  Or if you are still referring to mass sterilization.

Cause Wikipedia cited chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AGIAbortionReasonsBarChart.png) in abortion tends to put genetic reasons on the low-scale. (though this is a 1998 chart and also on Wikipedia so caution regarding source given) (actual article where chart is from here. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html))

Personally speaking, I can understand if some people opt abortion if the illness of the child was something majorly serious that would require dependent care from the parents and what might be considered a low-quality of life.  It's a rough choice, and I doubt it's an easy one to make regardless. And as Brun's post indicated, there are always exceptions to the rule.

I'm not saying we should condemn people for their genes or start targeting particular groups,  that's like saying blind people shouldn't have kids...and that's stupid.(Though I would bet some groups would say that it would be a good idea. Bleh)  But I don't necessarily forsee in anytime people going to the doctor, finding out their kid has asthma(which I admit I don't know if its hereditary or genetic at all so apologies), and deciding to abort.   

Then again I might be relying on the hope that medical science and technology will come up with breakthroughs and cures to help make the genetic/health reason for aborting unnecessary. 

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 27, 2007, 07:08:41 PM
Yeah.  Get out box!  We don't like your kind here!

Yes, massa. Sorry, massa.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 28, 2007, 01:13:21 AMOther than that, and this one will be targeted to ya superluser, you are kind of confusing me about if we are just talking your average abortion or if this is going into the train of thought of people aborting purely for genetic/gender reasons.  Or if you are still referring to mass sterilization.

Cause Wikipedia cited chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AGIAbortionReasonsBarChart.png) in abortion tends to put genetic reasons on the low-scale. (though this is a 1998 chart and also on Wikipedia so caution regarding source given) (actual article where chart is from here. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html))

I'm not specifically excluding either, but I was referring to ``your average abortion.''

I haven't taken the time to verify that the article actually comes from International Family Planning Perspectives, but it probably does, and I think that that publication is fairly credible.

Which makes it interesting, because most of the literature that I read play up the questions of ``What if there's something wrong with the baby?''  It's interesting that it seems that that is the main reason in only 3% of US abortions.  Looking at it a bit more, it looks to be a major factor in 13% of all US abortions.

And a lot of that you can understand.  What if you knew that your kid had Down Syndrome?  That's genetic.

Actually, Down children tend to be sterile, so they're already out of the gene pool.  But some other genetic diseases can be just as serious.  The point remains that people do have abortions because of genetic `defects,' and the issue is that eliminating these `defects' is limiting the resilience of the human race.

I'm not arguing against designer children here, because that's not what's being argued here.  I'm just arguing that it's probably for the best to allow natural selection to work its magic.

... it is. Those who have lots of abortions tend not to have lots of kids.

Over time, that sorts itself out. We're just in a stage where it hasn't. Yet.

So far all the people I know who have opted for abortion did so because they considered themselves too young to raise children. That is illegal here, but if you have enough money you can always find someone who's willing to do it (contrary to what someone said earlier about abortion being more popular among the lower classes in his/her country).

As for the "it's my body" philosophy, I don't agree with it. A baby is much more than a physical condition. We're not talking about a haircut, a tattoo or a diet. It's someone else's (potential?) life, even in the regrettably many cases in which the father disappears as soon as he hears he's becoming one.

Well, the whole deal is that it's not the genes themselves that trigger these diseases (e.g. cancer, blindness, asthma, heart conditions, blood conditions, faulty fats around glial cells...), but external conditions in combination with the genes. However, as these conditions are triggered, something that most probably happens at a young age, they are basically fixed into the genome of a person, and they are allowed to pass on. This affects the next generation. And then, when they, with their probability to develop these kinds of disorders, have kids, then what about them?
   Progressive accumulation of hereditary genetic flaws. Even recessive traits may mutate, or simply become very common to the general genepool due to overexposure. And that is a contributing reason to why we have more of these diseases and disorders today than, say, fifty or sixty years ago. It's not the biggest factor, not by far, but it's the one that threatens to become exponential...

I don't think we have more diseases and disorders now than 50 years ago. At most many that used to be unknown have a name now. And in any case, it's in-breeding that perpetuates those diseases the most. Inter-breeding helps them dissolve away. Not to mention that carrying a disease doesn't reduce someone's value as a person, let alone justify killing them. But we're derailing the topic again.

If you want see genetics and the environment and others horrors of urbanization and pollution go see the movie    "The Children of Men" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men)

Now, back on topic.

Yes, woman should get to choose, but there needs to be a time limit on her choice.  And a limit to how many times, she uses the abortion option.  Okay the first time can be a mistake and the second maybe so, but when you get to ten times, someone should start thinking about birth control and/or sterilization. The girl needs her head examined, I am sorry.   If you have a habit of picking losers, than get on the pill.  Why do people always think that "Oh if we only had a baby he would stop drinking and love me."

The mental health of the woman is always the major factor in if she can seperate the rapist father from the child. it is double trouble, when it is a family member.  Oh, I have read that just because a child has the potential to be a full sentient life, that they should have rights to be protected.   Well, No one has talked about one's rights to have your genes spread around or not or be mix with that guy or these guys.This is the difference between being rape or being slutting....Still, If a woman wants to control over her body, then take control and take steps not to be pregnant in the first place.  And yes, you must be mature and accept the risks, because birth control is not foolproof.   

Still, we were talking about statical numbers:  What is the percent of abortion for personal, medical, and criminal (rape/incest) reason?  and maybe then we can make a more informed opinion then?

PBH

I know someone who says she's had kids on every form of birth control there is - including having her tubes tied, -and- his.

I figured she probably knew what she was talking about, since she had had four kids by the time she was 26 (cute kids, too) and was bright enough that she was using linux some 8-10 years ago, and, last I heard, had a job as a network engineer for one of the larger ISP's around in NZ.

Sure, that's small biscuits to the US, but even so, they don't give those jobs to morons...

Quote from: Stygian on February 28, 2007, 10:15:21 AMWell, the whole deal is that it's not the genes themselves that trigger these diseases (e.g. cancer, blindness, asthma, heart conditions, blood conditions, faulty fats around glial cells...), but external conditions in combination with the genes.

Actually not.  Sickle cell anemia is congenital (I just checked (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Sca/SCA_WhatIs.html)).  So is hemophilia.  And Huntingdon's Chorea.  And Down Syndrome.  Environment cannot stop these diseases.

Quote from: Stygian on February 28, 2007, 10:15:21 AMHowever, as these conditions are triggered, something that most probably happens at a young age, they are basically fixed into the genome of a person.  This affects the next generation.

:kittyno

This is not right.  This is Lamarckian inheritance--the theory that giraffes got longer necks because they strrrrretched them up and so they got longer.  That was pre-Darwin (in fact, pre-Mendel).  Darwin came along and said that what really happened was that those giraffes born with shorter necks died out before they could reproduce.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on February 28, 2007, 12:53:49 PMStill, we were talking about statical numbers:  What is the percent of abortion for personal, medical, and criminal (rape/incest) reason?  and maybe then we can make a more informed opinion then?

Aargh!  More research!  Actually, Amber's information (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html) (which I've just double checked, and it is an accurate reproduction of the article) gives most of that info.

I've found a more recent version of those statistics(1), which had gaps in the 1987-88 data.

Here are the rates for which women report the most important reason for having an abortion: Personal - 86-88%, Health - 7%,  Rape - <0.5, Other - 6%

Secondary reasons are not going to work, since people can choose more
than one reason, and the numbers are going to add up to well over 100%.  But there are 9 personal reasons ranging from 6% to 74% adding up to 332%.  Health and rape/incest each had two responses 13% (health of fetus), 12% (mother's health), 1% (rape), <0.5% (incest).

This necessarily means that (assuming perfect reporting) the maximum percentage of people who have abortions due to health reasons or rape/incest is 27%.  Which means that 73% do not involve those factors at all.


(1) Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
    Lawrence B. Finer; Lori F. Frohwirth; Lindsay A. Dauphinee; Susheela Singh; Ann M. Moore
    Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Sep., 2005), pp. 110-118.

I tend to view personally the rape/incest scenario similar to the partial birth scenario.  Both exist, but in comparison to the big picture are actually in the smaller percentile to the rest...yet they are often the big banners waved by Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.  Probably because they are such heavy hitting concepts.  The concept of someone being raped and then getting slammed with the fact she's pregnant by it is a brutal one, yet so is the concept of someone having an abortion to an infant that had she waited one week, might have been born naturally if not a bit premie.

In terms of genetics and children born with desieses...I confess I am not familiar with most of them...but I'm going to assume (blindly) that some are worse than others.  And in some cases it does take a lot more effort and strength to be able to be there for them.  Especially if they are the type of illness that is going to require them to be the child's caretaker for their entire lives.  It's a hard task, and I salute anyone who has the resolution to do it...but I can see how not everyone is going to be able to handle it.  Either financially, physically, or mentally.  And while there are good people out there who do such things, I am not entirely sure how the adoption rate goes for children with disorders...so it is possible adoption isn't just a quick and easy solution.

This is me being curious, and hoping that someone who is better at sleuthing data can help...but what are the percentage of children with disorders in comparison to financial earnings?  Cause in all honesty...I have only come across special education children or disordered children in either middle-upward income families...or in foster homes.  And I hate to use that as a base of my opinions. X_x

Allright, I'll admit, I screwed up bad and formulated myself in a faulty way. Even when you look at the context my previous post was off.

Still, I did not mention either hemophilia, Huntingdon's Chorea or Down Syndrome. I was talking about the diseases whose rate of occurrence has been proven to actually be affected by our general lifestyle.

And even if I were not, what if we reverse the whole thing? The gradual buildup of genetically induced diseases and disorders is still a threat due to the fact that the people who carry them do not "die off", unless you go all Nazi asswipe and institute breeding programs. You haven't really provided a solution.

Oh, and what with fortune, living conditions and chance being the way they are, I wouldn't think that you'd see a significant difference between rich and poor, unless you would go outside the perspective of a large community, and began doing a very widespread search. But that's a guess on my part.

Aborting a child because it has genetic diseases or defects is essentially eugenics. On an extremely small scale, to be sure, but still eugenics. Something the human race has been able to pride itself on is the ability to adapt to new and changing conditions, and killing a child because it had disorders/defects is just wrong. I was born addicted to cocaine with an eating disorder. On top of that I had terrible eyes. I'm proud to say I no longer have that disorder nor am I addicted to cocaine. The eyes are still improving, but they've come a long way from the beginning. Would it have been right to end my possible life simply because I had defects at birth? I certainly hope not.

You were born with both an addiction and and eating disorder? That's pretty insane. O_o I'm gonna have to look that up to see if it's even possible because you have to admit, that's pretty unusual.

...I've nothing to really say about the topic at hand.

Edit: Just looked on Wikipedia (I'm fully aware it may be questionable). I've searched under eating disorders and congenital diseases and have not found anything that sounds similar to what you say. The vision thing I can believe, and I'm guessing your vision was improved with some sort of surgery.

Edit 2: Ok, I believe the addiction part.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 28, 2007, 07:52:54 PMThis is me being curious, and hoping that someone who is better at sleuthing data can help...but what are the percentage of children with disorders in comparison to financial earnings?  Cause in all honesty...I have only come across special education children or disordered children in either middle-upward income families...or in foster homes.  And I hate to use that as a base of my opinions. X_x

Well, I guess that's me again.

One of the most interesting things about this discussion is seeing the types of arguments that various people use.  I'm obviously the analytic type, and in my arguments, you're more likely to see peer-reviewed journals (even if the data don't support my position).  I could go on characterizing other people, but (A) that's rude, and (B) I don't know if this debate is a fluke, and I don't want to influence other people's debating styles for future debates (if there ever are any).

On to your question.  I must confess, I'm not sure exactly what your question is.  Almost all children have disorders, from an allergic disorder to a viral disorder (common cold) to an autoimmune disorder to...you get the idea.  And financial earnings.  Is that the kid's or the parents'?  At what age are we measuring this?

You may accuse me of being pedantic, but when I first read that sentence, I was honestly confused.

Based on your subsequent comments, I'm going to assume that you mean something like, ``What is the correlation between parents' earnings at time of child's birth to the likelihood that that child will manifest a genetic disorder?''

Then let me start off by saying that I have some ideas about this.  I have a sneaking suspicion that upper class parents can procure abortions more easily and perhaps even covertly than middle and lower class parents, meaning that the data may be skewed showing a slightly lower incidence of genetic disorders for upper class families than for lower classes.

Furthermore, I suspect that while lower class families can more easily get assistance to pay for abortions and upper class families can more easily afford this out of pocket, middle class families probably get the short ends of both sticks, so they might have a lower abortion rate than both lower and upper classes.

But that's a digression, and I have no evidence to back that up.

Actually, I can't seem to find much of anything on that.  My instincts say that income and genetics shouldn't be strongly correlated, but that's not evidence.

Anywho, I'm supposed to be preparing a presentation on Edward Tufte, so those data will probably haev to wait until the weekend.

Quote from: Roureem Egas on February 28, 2007, 09:20:45 PM
You were born with both an addiction and and eating disorder? That's pretty insane. O_o I'm gonna have to look that up to see if it's even possible because you have to admit, that's pretty unusual.

...I've nothing to really say about the topic at hand.

I likewise have nothing to say about abortion because I honestly don't feel I know enough at this point to form a valid opinion (although this discussion is helping! :)).
However, in response to Roureem Egas: http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=3392
The main topic of the article isn't relevant, but it answers your question regarding addictions in newborns. I would assume eating disorders would work similarly, but I have no data to back it up.

My question is more based on a hypothesis of my own...but one that has no backing and only has my own personal experiences as a guide.  I've grown up in a middle-income area so I'm not exposed to the highly rich or highly poor.  While I realize that certain illnesses and disorders are likely to happen regardless of income, my question was more geared towards the income as a means of how parents handle the situation.

My hypothosis was that middle-income families would likely have a higher percent of people who would be willing to be full-time caretakers if their children turned out to have a disability that required full-time assistance.  Where as higher-income families would be second highest...in theory because they have the resources available for such care. (the flipside being that they might have easier access to simply finding out and aborting) where as incredibly low income would have the highest case of abortion in part due to costs. (The cost of an abortion versus the cost of constant medical care)

But I grew up living in the country Bible Belt of Indiana so I am more than aware I have no knowledge of urban or high-class societies and how they handle things.  It's just that in what I have read and studied, it just dawned on me I have never heard of any real cases of low-income people and how they handle disabled children...well..except in those really ugly newstories about severe neglect/abuse. 

I am assuming genetic disorders don't exactly pay attention to how much their parents are making. I was more wondering if income has any influence in a parents choice to abort due to genetic disorders...and if so, which direction.

Eating disorders usually come after birth. It was the result of not getting enough food, so I developed the habit to eat everything I could. I had a lot of things wrong with me as a kid, but I was simply making a point that just because somebody has something wrong with them doesn't mean it can't be corrected. The improvement of my eyes is actually the result of wearing glasses for nearly 14 years and learning how to keep my astagmus (Spelling?) in check.

I should add a note that when I am talking disorder for the most part, I'm not talking about any and all.  I'm talking mainly about the ones where the person is handicapped to a point they will always need some form of caretaker.

In no way am I suggesting people born blind, missing a limb or partially paralyzed, or have a life-long need for diabetes control is a disorder where abortion is a good option.  There are dozens of disorders where despite them people can carry on with normal lives, and I fully support their right to pursue that. 

I guess what I'm saying is that the debate of abortion versus genetic disorders for me is usually a debate about quality of life.  For the both child and the caretakers.  And unfortunately for me, it's something I can't personally put down a solid opinion because it is such a case-by-case situation...moreso than regular abortion.(at least in my opinion) 

I know none of it was something that required life-long care, I was merely trying to make a point. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I hate to give just one example, and this a extreme case.  A few year back I ran into a story of a poor woman who had her baby, who the doctors said should have been adopted.. But she had the child anyway, and the child was born missing pretty much all of it upper lobe of her brain.  The woman was on welfare, but continue to rush to the hospital whenever the child's heart stop and it stopped breathing due many of her problems.  The child could just eat and sleep, and not much least, her eyes would not follow any toy, it would only cry when in pain, and it bare move its arms and legs.  Still the mother would demand care everytime the child near death, and this child would need life long care even if it did survive to adulthood.

The question is and it's a loaded one, When does the doctor or the state step in and not provide care to the terminal ill so they can died and let the suffering to stop?  (as well as save the taxpayer money)  And/or When or If the state should step-in make require abortions to these few extreme cases?

Another question beyond the US and the West is abortions for gender reasons.... India and China the top nations for this.

  China has been said to have done manatory abortions and only one child per couple  in a male dominated culture for years... Now, they have a problem of Too few girls in a overpopulated male society...What is going to happen to them?  They are going to have to call back all those infant girls that went to the West.  Going wife shopping in other countries?  or Go to War, and hope/insure that their excess of males gets killed off and/or kiddnap woman from their neighbors as sex-slaves.

PBH

Your first few paragraphs were about euthanasia, not abortion.

As for China, that law is aimed to stop overpopulation, not to make one gender dominant.

Hmm... they could legalize polygamy and let women have more than one husband. :P

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on March 01, 2007, 10:36:51 AMThe question is and it's a loaded one, When does the doctor or the state step in and not provide care to the terminal ill so they can died and let the suffering to stop?  (as well as save the taxpayer money)  And/or When or If the state should step-in make require abortions to these few extreme cases?

Never?

Seriously, if the kid can't make decisions about his own life, the decisions should be made by a caregiver looking out for the kid's best interests.  It's one of the things that I took away from the Terri Schiavo debate.  I do not want the government telling me when I should be forced to stay on a feeding tube, but by the same token, I do not want the government to tell me when I must be taken off of that same tube.

Quote from: Gabi on March 01, 2007, 10:56:58 AMHmm... they could legalize polygamy and let women have more than one husband. :P

Maybe my understanding of human reproduction isn't as good as I thought it was.  I thought that women could only have one pregnancy at a time.  :)

P.S. I'll be looking into those stats for Amber this weekend.

Only one at a time, yes (unless you count twins, triplets and so on). But she could have one from each man in her lifetime, and no man would be single in the meantime.

Quote from: superluser on March 01, 2007, 11:17:20 AM
Seriously, if the kid can't make decisions about his own life, the decisions should be made by a caregiver looking out for the kid's best interests.  It's one of the things that I took away from the Terri Schiavo debate.  I do not want the government telling me when I should be forced to stay on a feeding tube, but by the same token, I do not want the government to tell me when I must be taken off of that same tube.

Are you expecting them to pay for said tube, completely, with no say in how the money is spent?

How many people should the govt be paying entirely for? If for this, then why can't the govt give me the same sum every year for doing nothing?

Why do the two cases differ? (and yes, I'll accept that I'm a different case) Why is it ok to expect the government to pay for you to get medical treatment at, oh, let's say two hundred thousand dollars a year, but it's not ok for the government to give me the same amount of money? It's going to get more back out of me than it's ever going to get back out of you...

Ah. This is assuming you're in a comatose state, with zero chance of ever getting out of it and back into a productive situation, tax-wise.... I'll admit I'm being confrontational, but there -is- a valid point here at base - at what point do we get to say what's right, and what's not? Assuming people are sane and thoughtful all the time is nice, but back here in the real world, people are going to do damn stupid things like keeping a child with half a brain missing alive, because the parent DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. "The first aid is free, isn't it?" doesn't even start to cover the short-sightedness of the approach...

china may have intended the one child per couple law to stop overpopulation, but that is not working. for several reasons.

first- most of the country is almost impossible to govern, anyone too far from a major city is largely untouched by these laws and routinely have 5-12 kids anyways.

second- large chunks of the country arent even aware they are in china, do not speak mandarin, and have not seen a government employee for decades

third- even if the law does not say a thing about it, the CULTURE says that girls are inferior to boys. especially in the poorer classes where parents fear having to pay a dowry when she gets married, and also commonly adhere to the traditional concepts of men bringing honor to the family.

on the up side many doctors in china and India are now refusing to tell parents the gender of their future child, knowing that many of the unborn girls will be given a death sentence.

the gruesome thing about the law about how many kids you can have is how impersonal it is. had your kid but you got pregnant again? abortion, but we knew that. how about the 'you are pregnant at the wrong time, you were scheduled to have the child at said time', well, even though your only five months pregnant they're going to induce labor and let the ultra-preemie struggle to survive for a few hours.

this may seem a bit grim to those of us more in western culture, but to china it works because for generations the people have been told the country is more important then any one person and they should be glad to give their lives to make things run more smoothly.

QuoteBecause I could not stop for Death --
He kindly stopped for me --
The Carriage held but just Ourselves --
And Immortality.

Quote...Even if the law does not say a thing about it, the CULTURE says that girls are inferior to boys. especially in the poorer classes where parents fear having to pay a dowry when she gets married, and also commonly adhere to the traditional concepts of men bringing honor to the family.

Actually, the dowry part is bigger in India, which young women are getting murder or thrown out into the street by her husband because her "dowry was not bigger enough" and/or the husband can get a bigger dowry from someone else's daughter, if he isn't married.   The Husband can go to his In-laws and demand more money, or their daughter will be killed. or he can just throw her out on "adulty" and get another wife with another dowry.

In China, a son, who is expected to support his parents in old age is the main reason of wanting a son over a daughter, and the law made no reference to gender just at you are allow only one kid.  So, individual family decided a son would be best, if only one is allow by the state. And they abortion any daughter unluck to come first.   If they really want to decrease the population, they should have just said your first born only.  If it is a boy or girl, that is it.  And if your child died, sorry for your bad luck.

I don't know, euthanasia is to me speeding up the procession of death, I am more for just letting nature take it's course.  Hold back aid which will just prelong the suffering in hopeless cases, as oppose to giving drugs or aid to speed death along.  To Clear-up my last post, My first question should be... Where should be a line on those "to save" and "not to sure" ?  But that is offtopic.

PBH

sadly 'letting nature take its course' DOES happen to large populations of humans, but takes the form of large wars and plagues instead of natural predators.

for example the black death, yellow fever, smallpox, and the like which wiped out whole villages, or today with malaria pruning third world populations to this very day.

wars are less common now, sinse people dislike the idea of being shot at and our 'leaders' occasionally give an effort to prevent them. in history a great example is the 30 years war, which is responsible for a great many things. in the 30 years war what is now known as Germany was roughly 219 different small principalities, kingdoms, duchys, and other small states, but this region was used as a battle ground and IN GERMANS ALONE and ignoring the other countries involved one out of every three people (of all ages and genders, not just men of fighting age) were put to the sword and had to fend off starvation as their crops were burned. so, as a response to the wars the 200 some different countries ganged up to become what we now know of as Germany, and potato pancakes and potato salad became staple foods sinse its extremely hard to trample or torch a field of potatoes when you can do it to wheat almost by accident.

somehow i doubt our population issues are going to be solved this way unless
1- China and India invade pretty much everyone but Lichtenstein, casualties abound
2- China's current pollution problems continue as it is, drinking water that you do not need a spoon to drink and does not dissolve wooden container becomes scarce and people die that way.
3- Max Brooks was right and China creates a zombie virus, only a small percentage of humanity survives and has the benefit of 'starting over' with the current level of technology and does not need to go through several very dirty industrial revolutions
4- beings from another planet decide humans are tasty and suddenly the population of earth is used to fuel an intergalactic version of McDonalds

QuoteI honestly don't have much to say except the usual "shiny!"

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 01, 2007, 11:41:15 AMAre you expecting them to pay for said tube, completely, with no say in how the money is spent?

I was trying to keep the money aspect out of it.  Insurance companies can certainly say when they will or will not continue funding someone's treatment, often based on actuarial data.  I'm not opposed to letting people set limits on funding, just that I'm unhappy with the idea of doctors refusing to treat a patient because of likelihood of failure.

I was under the impression that the Terri case was an issue where her caretaker (her husband) had a major disagreement with her parents...and since there was no will or official document outlining what to do in such an event, it had gotten to the point they needed the courts to decide.  It just happened to be such a big spectacle that everyone and their cousin hopped aboard.

People. Talk with your loved ones and partners, and even try to get an official document, telling them what you want to happen in nasty situations like that.  In the same boat, people should talk to their partners straight up about their opinions on children and abortion.  I've seen a lot of couples go completly bonkers when something happened and it turned out they don't see eye-to-eye on the subject of kids.

Quote from: Amber Williams on March 01, 2007, 08:17:37 PMI was under the impression that the Terri case was an issue where her caretaker (her husband) had a major disagreement with her parents...and since there was no will or official document outlining what to do in such an event, it had gotten to the point they needed the courts to decide.

As I understand it, the deal was that Terri Schiavo informed her husband of her wishes, but wrote no document detailing her wishes.  Her parents claim that her husband fabricated the story and just want the money that she got as part of a malpractice suit.  About $950,000 of that had been used for Terri's care, so most of her care was not paid by Medicaid.

talking is never to be underestimated. however there can be such a thing as too much.

for example by the time my wife and i had our first official 'date' we had already agreed about when to 'pull the plug', what kind of house we would like to live in, and how to raise our children. we have a girl, but we also have the names prepared for the next 4 children of either gender we may have.

yah, thats a bit extreme, but it sounds perfectly reasonable to talk about issues such as caring for a child, abortion, marriage, and any other agreements before you ever become sexually active with a person. except of course if you think its fun to get so hammered at a party you remember nothing and barf up things you are pretty sure you never ate. oh yeah, a key qualification of 'fun' is not remembering it at all, this is why i do not understand 'fun'.

in a slightly insensitive analogy its like talking to an insurance company at the same time as talking to a car salesman- the time between them should be kept to a minimum.

QuoteAnd thats how you make a welfare che- uh, I mean baby.

Quote from: thegayhare on February 27, 2007, 12:24:56 PM

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on February 27, 2007, 09:53:39 AM

Actually, properly applied abstinence education can be very effective, despite the inundation of "progressive" views on sex that young people receive.  Heres a study that talk about that:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm)

I do realize that some people will always have sex when they would be better of not doing so.  That much is really not in dispute, and there should be a system in place to deal with that.  But I think you would be surprised just how malleable a person's sexual conduct is.  Our minds are not as hardwired as we used to think. 

So your saying a  five year old artical, with little or no actual statistical data,  on a website dedicated to a strict conservitive view point some how proves that abstenaince only programs work?

Proves?  Not definitively of course, but it provides some hard data to back up one point of view.  Your objections don't really hold any water.  Was the world really that much different in April 2002 that the research no longer applies?  I don't think you can honestly say yes to that.  There is plenty of statistical data in the article, but if you are looking for a simple numerical value to describe an issue which is fundamentally about the human mind and how it is affected by the environment, I don't think you will ever be satisfied by any honest study.  Furthermore, the Heritage foundation is hardly what you could call unreliable.  Did you by any chance take a look at the citations in that article?  They aren't just making things up as they go.  It seems to me that you lack any real substantive argument against the content of the article. 

You are also doing something I find very common among my idealogical opponents: setting an impossibly high standard for supporting research.  Basically you say that because it is hosted on a website dedicated to a conservative point of view, or otherwise backed by an organization that supports the conclusion, it must be discounted.  That basically negates the validity of any source I can find, because a study that supports a cause is very unlikely to be linked, hosted, supported, or funded by a group that opposes said cause.  The fact of the matter is that even if a study was conducted by a purely nonpartisan entity and originally published in a purely nonpartisan journal, the chances that the particular journal has a full web archive and will show up on a search engine in the original form are small.  When you consider that the article I linked was really a compilation of the findings of numerous previous articles and studies, it is highly unlikely that I could find it anywhere other than a website that generally supports it's conclusions.  It's also common sense that a researcher who starts off with no opinion on a subject, then finds the data in support of one side of the argument, would himself end up supporting the findings of his project. 

If you can point out, specifically, flaws in the methodology and data of the article, then do so.  If not, stop trying to obfuscate the point with unproven accusations of bias.  I won't hold it against you if you can't, you probably have plenty of reasons to think the way you do about it, but confusing other people about it is wrong. 

Quote
Well the medical comunity disagrees American Academy of Pediatrics for one,  hell even congress gets it from the 2004 report you can see some of the  misinformation (http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf)

Teaching that Aids can be passed threw tears, half the gay teen age boys have aids, or that Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

I find it interesting that you can trash my article for bias, then, with seemingly straight face, link an article whose authors are the Democrats in the House of representatives as if they themselves have no potential bias.  That said, I'm willing to give your article consideration and I will even go so far as to say that it makes some reasonable points.  Assuming that what is being said is true, and since I don't have anything refuting it right now I have no reason not to, then there have been some significant cases of misinformation in sexual education that ought to be corrected.  One thing I am definitely NOT in favor of is misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, especially in education.  If you need to lie to support your case then maybe your case isn't that great in the first place.  I think my side of this issue can be supported without any such inaccuracies, and pro-abstinence sex education can be taught without them as well. 

Your article doesn't really seem to refute anything said in mine though.  The gist of my article was that responsibly presented pro-abstinence education does have an effect on the sexual activity of the kids.  Beyond that, it more or less proves that people are not as hard-wired for promiscuity as your side is claiming, and that is the underlying issue at play. 

Quote
Independent state run studies found that sexual activity actualy went up after the abstenance only sex education

Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex and areless likely to use and form of protection.

I have no reason to doubt these studies exist, although I do believe upon closer examination I might find a lot to object to in their methodology.  There is a lot of vested interest by the establishment in keeping things the way they are, so I fully expect to see studies by the teachers unions, Democrat legislatures, and left leaning university departments that oppose me.  However, their ideological opposition alone is not enough to discount their findings, I will need to find flaws in their methodology to make a good argument against them. 

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on March 02, 2007, 08:32:50 AMYou are also doing something I find very common among my idealogical opponents: setting an impossibly high standard for supporting research.  Basically you say that because it is hosted on a website dedicated to a conservative point of view, or otherwise backed by an organization that supports the conclusion, it must be discounted.

Right.  I'm pro-life.  I think that the only exceptions should be in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, and I think that we should take away the license of any doctor who performs abortions for any other reason.

So I'm on your side.

We are right, so there's no need to fudge the data.  This is important.

There are 33 footnotes on that site.  Some have fairly uncontroversial statements.  I'll look at some of the more controversial ones. (footnotes in this message will be ordered to correspond to the footnotes in the Heritage foundation page)

Some of these I can't find information on, and I'll try come back to them later, probably when I can devote some real time to this (and your research is coming up at around the same time, Amber.)

6:

A review of the scientific literature reveals that, on average, condoms failed to prevent the transmission of the HIV virus--which causes the immune deficiency syndrome known as AIDS--between 15 percent and 31 percent of the time.

I can't find the original Weller article, but a subsequent reference to it (6a) claims that Weller's paper ``was flawed because it aggregated studies with varying definitions of condom use, directions of transmission, study design and types of index cases.''

The NIH study does not include the 31% statistic.

18:

There are currently 10 scientific evaluations (described below) that demonstrate the effectiveness of abstinence programs in altering sexual behavior.

I don't necessarily know about 10, but there are certainly several studies showing statistically significant (and often large) reductions in sexual activity.  I cited one (18a) before.

19:

An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Michael Resnick and others entitled "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" shows that "abstinence pledge" programs are dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7 through 12.

Can't find the paper, but the citation says ``statistically significant,'' which is something completely different from ``dramatically effective.''

21:

The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) dropped by a statistically significant amount from 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent during the intervention period

Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation.

22:

The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and in upstate New York in general, and the difference in the rate of decrease was statistically significant.

This study, on the other hand, does imply causation.

(and so on.  More when I have time.)


(6a) The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV
    Karen R. Davis; Susan C. Weller
    Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 6. (Nov. - Dec., 1999), pp. 272-279.
(18a) Sex education attitudes and outcomes among North American women.
Williams MT; Bonner L
Adolescence [Adolescence] 2006 Spring; Vol. 41 (161), pp. 1-14.

EDIT: OK, Amber.  Here are your stats:

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 28, 2007, 11:05:07 PMI should add a note that when I am talking disorder for the most part, I'm not talking about any and all.  I'm talking mainly about the ones where the person is handicapped to a point they will always need some form of caretaker.

That doesn't seem quite so difficult to find.

Let's see...

Got it! (*)

The data are given as ordered probits with respect to the natural log of income. (You do know what ordered probits are, right?)  There are five levels of health 1 being excellent, 5 being poor.  I've translated those into letters to make the data easier to understand:

A: -0.091 (0.020)
B: -0.086 (0.020)
C: -0.082 (0.021)
D: -0.087 (0.020)
E: -0.087 (0.021)
(std. err. is in parens)

This is actually the best way that these data could be expressed, since it gives the probabilities for health for every possible income.

(I'm going to see if I can't find someone with SPSS to help me make a graph)


(*) Economic Status and Health in Childhood: The Origins of the Gradient (http://www.ilir.uiuc.edu/lubotsky/Case%20Lubotsky%20Paxson.pdf)
    Anne Case; Darren Lubotsky; Christina Paxson
    The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 5. (Dec., 2002), pp. 1308-1334.

Oh god... Wall of text crits you for eight million damage. You die!

Uf... on topic.

Abortion sends babies to Jesus faster.  :hug

Quote from: Netami on March 07, 2007, 08:29:35 AMUf... on topic.

Abortion sends babies to Jesus faster.  :hug

Yeah... if you think about it that way, the opening email kind of failed on (yet) another level.

Quote from: Netami on March 07, 2007, 08:29:35 AMAbortion sends babies to Jesus faster.  :hug

And then Jesus sends them straight to Hell because they're not baptized.

(Oh, sorry, I mean ``the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God'')

under this logic people who rape and murder small children would be given the title of saints.

ever had a conversation with one of those people? seriously, the urge to wash yourself does not go away for a week and the urge to punch them does not go away after punching them. saints they aint.

QuoteThats what I do, I bring the pain