Speaking of abortion...............................
 

I have never been a big fan, although I (reluctantly) take a moderate stance.
"Abortions of convenience" nag at my conscience, but I believe, in cases of rape or medical complication the woman should be allowed to choose so long as she is of sound mind, (Not unconscious or suffering from severe mental conditions.)

That being said;

Has anyone here ever considered the ramifications, economic and social, of a repeal of Roe v. Wade? If so, what are your thoughts on that?

Dave

Other than the certainty of even more tut-tutting by the Right about the procreative prowess of inner city dwellers, I'm not sure.

Well, I heard a comment on the radio last night about the unintended consequences of a million+ more children placing a greater load on the already overburdened adoption and foster care systems.

Dave

And then there was this post by "Dondilion" in another thread that piqued my interest in the economic and social aspects of the abortion issue;

"Reading further on this "Broken Window Theory" lead me to critics of the theory from the authors of the book "Freakonomics". They claim the reduction in crime across America was due to: increase incaceration rate, increase in the number of police, and finally the legalisation of ABORTION."

Dave

I am very much afraid that the "Right to Lifers" are only concerned with seeing every conception result in a birth. What happens after that is of absolutely no concern to them. Or whatever happens to the mother should that birth be a threat to her life. I am not capable of bearing children so my opinion should, by rights, count for nowt. To me it is a matter between the woman, her doctor and her conscience.

Regarding adoption(and I have first hand experience of the process, but in a country with civilized adoption laws) the laws here suck big time. When the natural father, having taken no interest, can come along after a year and demand, and get, the child from the adoptive parents is barbaric.

I heard that one of the riders on the appropriations bill included severe restrictions on the "morning after" pill, one of which was to require the doctor to administer the medication, greatly increasing the cost. It seems like the social conservatives are intent on making sure that sex doesn't pay.

Regards,

D-Ray

I'm closer to you Blue on this than you might think, but we'd have a lot less criminals overall if they were simply shot on sight.

Pete

anti abortion, pro death penalty

what dolts

they don't even see the irony of this

silly teabaggers

And they're holding up the government budget making process because they won't compromise on this idiotic position.

Assuming that we're talking about unprotected sex between a non-monogamous couple (setting aside condom failure), what consequences, if any, should engaging in sexual activity have? Societal consequences? Familial consequences? If we become an abortion on demand society, then we must assume that life begins at conception. However, medicine is increasing the survival rates of children who are delivered under 30 weeks. Roe V Wade could not have envisioned the advances in medicine, so who now decides the medical standard for fetal viability? Should it be updated as medicine advances, with its potential impact on defining when an abortion should / shouldn't occur?