Heating up General. (Abortion)

[superluser]

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.

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.

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

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)

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...

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.

[Brunhidden]

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"

A 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.

[Zedd]

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

[Suwako]

*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. 

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

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*

[King Of Hearts]

*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.

[Jim Halisstrad]

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

[EvilIguana966]

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. 

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.)

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/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. 

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.

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

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. 

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 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? 

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

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

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. 

[Prof B Hunnydew]

*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

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

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 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.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

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

[thegayhare]

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

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

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.

[Gabi]

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.

[Alondro]

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*   

I agree with Jonathan Swift.  Baby sandwiches and kitten juice.   

[Stygian]

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]

[Brunhidden]

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.

Somebody stop me

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

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

[Kasarn]

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

[Prof B Hunnydew]

I agree with Jonathan Swift.  Baby sandwiches and kitten juice.   

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.

[superluser]

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.

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.

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

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.  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.

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 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.

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

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%).

Thanks 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.

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...

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.

[Brunhidden]

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!

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

[Damaris]

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.

[Amber Williams]

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/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. 

[superluser]

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

No, it doesn't.  The number of homicides of children under age 5 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.  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.

[Amber Williams]

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.

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]

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

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. :-)

[superluser]

Keep 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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

[Amber Williams]

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

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.

[Stygian]

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.

[Alan Garou]

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.