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?

I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.

If the issue regarding the balancing of interests between a fetus and a mother is one of viability, there should be no issue with the morning after pill. Certainly a medication that acts to end or prevent a pregnancy shortly before or after conception would not interfere with a viable child.

You asked about consequences for unprotected sex between consenting adults and whether there should be personal or societal consequences. Just as you mentioned that advances in science would affect the viability of a fetus surviving, medical advances can also lengthen the time after conception in which the pregnancy can be terminated without an invasive procedure. To the extent that technology can provide a means to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, such technology should be encouraged.

I can understand moral and ethical concerns about balancing the interests of a fetus that has advanced to the point is sustainable life and the interests of the woman carrying the fetus. Reasonable minds can differ over how such balancing should occur. What I do not find reasonable is the mindset that would place undue importance on making sex something that can only occur within approved relationships. It seems like the only "sins" some groups care about are the sins that occur with sexual organs. To me there are plenty of "sins" that deserve greater attention.

Regards,

D-Ray

That's right. They're so icky.:p

Didn't you know that our Founding Fathers were virgin?

NO......

Well, I can understand that, since I screwed up the post. That's what I get for trying to think while my 5 year old is buzzing around me. I think what I was attempting to say was that an abortion on demand society challenges the concept of when life begins in an extreme manner. I think most folks are horrified by the concept of near-term abortions. But as science advances, abortion on demand and the determination of when life begins will continue to collide.

But if were talking about the need for an abortion, or the need for a "morning after pill" we're probably also talking about unprotected sex, and quite possibly unprotected casual sex. I think many folks might agree that such behavior is playing Russian Roulette with one's own body (STD's, etc.). But were also talking about casually creating a life, right?

I would argue that once the sperm meets the egg and cell division begins, under normal circumstances, with no outside influence, in nine months a baby will be born. Any interference in this process (interruption or termination) is no different than ending the life of a person one, six, twenty, or any age one may choose to end a life. Careless sex, rape, incest, etc. are all the same in the womb. I recognize that carrying a child conceived under the circumstance of rape or incest is a horrific burden on the mother but murder of a child is no cure. You can toss the word "fetus" around if you want. That "fetus" would grow and be delivered as a human being without outside influence.
I have stated before on this forum my feelings about the death penalty. Murder requires pre-determination. Just because a State deems it legal doesn't change the fact that a human life is ended with thought taken beforehand. Countless governments before have decided that this group or that group, or this person or that person needs to not exist. Deliberate taking of another life is wrong. You may say "What about wartime?" I would answer that that is one of the sacrifices that a person in military service makes with the hope that his or her God will understand and forgive.
As far as what happens to the mother and child after an unwanted birth... it seems to me that in today's society there is room to take care of them both, either together or separately. If we can take care of people with mental problems, people with criminal problems, people with drug abuse problems we ought to be able to find a way to help these people also. I am in no way equating mothers and babies with any of the above except in the fact that they have a need and we should be able to meet it.

I understand what your saying, John, and I admire that you care what happens to the child after it is born.

However, I know all too many who seem concerned about bringing these kids into this world, than consider them to be a burden once they're here. I am referring to right to lifers, who will insist that every pregnant woman give birth, then scream bloody murder when they are then asked to help her pay the bills..........................I've heard some very rude things said about that.

Dave

Therin lies the problem, we should as a wealthy society be able to look after people, but we don't.

JI, I heard an interview with a woman conceived in a rape, the guy said rape babies deserved to live too, she broke down bawling and said everyone says I had no right to life....

Pete

Sure there are SOME folks out there who think that way. But there are many other "lifers" who do try to help. The National Right to Life Organization, along with the various state/local chapters, aggressively publishes options and support resources.

There are also more families in this country waiting to adopt children in any given year than there are abortions performed. If the adoption laws in this country weren't so screwed up, I know personally families who've paid tens of thousands of dollars to facilitate the adoption of a child from Russia, Argentina, etc., that would have been all to glad to pay for the medical care and other expenses of childbirth for someone else.

As always, there are many sides to this issue, well beyond the rude and uninformed comments of others.

See post above. Lots of folks with the money to do so are spending it elsewhere because of our adoption laws.

... because they don't want to adopt a black baby.

Query: how many folks here have adopted a black baby?

Pete

You're probably helping me make my point, Pete.

Heck I've never adopted period. My dog was black though.

Pete

I personally know families who have done exactly that. However, I'll concede a small point to your post: some folks are wary of the stigmas that still exist in that scenario that are fostered in both the white AND black communities.

No, the issue is and will continue to be that the biological parent can resurface and instigate legal action to nullify the adoption. The emotional and financial costs of such a scenario is too much for those considering an adoption to take on.

As do I, but I know far more than have gone to China, Korea, and Russia.

As for you conceding a small point to me, I'm in complete shock.:D

We were fortunate enough to not be one of the couples who were looking to adoption as a means of having a family. The query should be how many folks here who have adopted have adopted a black baby. It would become a more relevant question then.

Regards,

D-Ray

But doesn't that put a lie to the anti-abortion agencies who would promise a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy that if she gave birth the baby would be adopted. You can't say that people are going overseas because of the legal difficulties adopting here, and also say that anti-abortion agencies are going to arrange an adoption.

Regards,

D-Ray

I think folks are worried more about crack babies.

Pete

When we adopted our son the lady asked how we felt about mixed blood. At the time I was not certain that I would been able to handle the problems (yes we have racists in Canada also). She laughhed and said that she was not referring to black or asian, but did we have problems with non-english babies. My jaw hit the desk but she told us that some people refuse to adopt outside of their ancestry (as if half of them know).

We were quickly approved and got our son at 2 months of age. There was one unannounced visit and that went smoothly, after six months they sent us his birth certificate listing us (me and my first wife) as his parents and that was it. I can't recall if there were any fees or not, if there were they must have been so small that they did not register enough for me to recall.

See no need to go to Russia or China, now how is it that the politicians here can screw up everything they touch, inquiring minds want to know.

Its not inconsistent. There certainly are those who can (and do) afford to take the risk, and for whom taking that risk pays off. However, if you ask folks why they are going outside the US to adopt, they just want to be parents. They just can't assume the emotional and financial risk of losing a child that they know they would come to love deeply.

Some dodge! :D

Ford, actually, Dodge is Blue's thing.

:D

They are though. Huge problems, those poor kids. But it's the same as coke.

Good on you Rob, really. I trust it all turned out goodly?

Pete

Not the first marriage, but we can't ask for a better son.

That's appalling, she gets a life sentence for someone elses crime.



JJ111

"Life begins when sperm meets egg and cell division begins".

In that it's the beginning of a natural process that if everything works results in another addition or two to the human race, it's true, but the implication of your post is interesting.

If you and your family by free choice live by this belief would you leave it at that? If you could make abortion a criminal offense, no matter what the circumstances, would you do so? Would you take my freedom of choice away because, by your belief, deliberately breaking the chain immediately after cell division is murder?

Words are interesting. The difference between "abortion" and "termination" has the same slant as "smacking" your child or "hitting" your child. Same acts, but the words indicate viewpoint.

My view? I am pro termination whatever the circumstances. No, I do not believe that killing a newborn baby is anything less than murder but aborting a fetus is not. If you believe there should be no interference, no matter what the circumstances in the natural process, logically you must believe that a baby born too early to survive on its own should be left to die. After all, it's the natural process.....

Do you know of any sentient being that would agree that the above statement is logical? Do we leave any child, born at whatever term of the pregnancy, left to die because it can't survive on its own? "Sorry, kid. If you can't wiggle your way to your mom's tit on your own, you're SOL. Survival of the fittest, and all that..."

No baby can survive on their own. Is a child outside of the womb is viable because anyone can hold him/her now when the kid is feeding, and we can change their diaper? The kid was still consuming nourishment, growing, developing and defecating right up to the point he/she was born. Some children born with disabilities or certain birth defects are certainly less "viable" than a typical child. Some children born with disabilities/birth defects would certainly perish is there wasn't intensive medical care, and in some cases surgical intervention, shortly after birth. Does this make them any more or less worthy of medical intervention that a child born prematurely? Is a child born prematurely only viable if delivered, a child aborted at the same number of weeks of fetal development is somehow not viable?

The logic behind Roe V Wade continues to escape me.

That's the problem with the assumption that moral relativism is a good ideal. There are folks who believe that "All men are rapists", marriage is legalized rape, and that heterosexual intercourse is the ultimate expression of derision towards women. I wouldn't want to live in a world governed by their morality or belief system either, though I suspect many of them might be found in the pro-choice camp.

Those who argue that there can be no moral absolutes use much sophistry to support their arguments. But can a society where morality (or a sense or right or wrong) is relative uphold any values, since any sense of "wrong" might be reduced to the sensibilities of the least common denominator of that society?

In truth we do intervene during pregnancy and the amount of that intervention is increasing. Surgery is being performed in the womb with increasing frequency for things such as spina biffida.

Intervening to terminate a pregnancy to save the motherr's life is really not a great difference. Especially where there are already children in the family. The more we play with the wording of laws the more it seems that we hopelessly complicate things.

I do not welcome abortion as birth control, but is the 'morning after pill' really any different than a diaphragm and spermicidal jelly? Yet, is a woman who casually uses abortion as birth control really a fit mother? But God forbid we try and devise a law that would allow us to remove a child from her care. We have done a more than adequate job of screwing up the nation's justice system as it stands.

"

You believe that there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. I see this difference as scientific semantics that describe different stages of development of a human being.
There is a huge difference between interference trying to save a life and interference snuffing out a life.

Forgive my lack of skills in breaking your quotes into easier to understand segments. I hope it can be read so it makes sense.

Someone did a bad job of explaining her existence to her. I hope that no one actually was crass enough to say that to her. I can understand that she might infer this from the statements that a woman who is raped should be allowed to get an abortion. That her mother chose not to abort her, or may have been coerced to bear her is certainy not the young woman's fault. Note that those who believe in choice only want that a rape victim has the "choice".