Abortion

Here's one for the coffee house.Let's talk about who's got what stance and what's their reasoning.Let's not talk about who's a Nazi and who's a Baby Killer.I really want to understand people's positions beyond "I can't get elected unless I say this."Let's mix it up and hash it out.

Will do.It seems like the abortion debate is at a stand still because the two groups are arguing from different grounds.One side is taking a moral stand against abortion, the other is taking a practical stand for abortion. Both sides disagree at almost every level of the debate, be it when life begins or who should decide when and where this proceedure can take place.From my understanding, the Right to Life community believes that life begins at conception. As such, the fetus (even at day one) has the same rights given to any citizen, therefore it's life can not be terminated simply by the will of another person.The Woman's Choice argument seems to be that a fetus is different from a living child, that the rights we associate with a child after birth are not necessarily the same as those of a being still in development, and that either way, the Government has no place passing laws forbidding individuals from doing things to/with their own bodies.Are their other points of view that I've left out? Do people agree/disagree with these topics.Where should the Government's influence end? The front door? The bedroom? Inside the body?

Sounds like you are morally opposed but not legally.Personally, I look at abortion as the worst possible solution to a easily avoidable problem.Ideally we'd have no abortion and no need for abortion.However, practically, there's something like 1 million abortions in the US every year. (roughly 1 in 4) How could we possibly handle that many more people? Our school system is already over crowded, as are our jails, etc.

It's not that abortion is "bad" morally, it's just a bad solution to the problem.Other solutions would include:
Abstaining from unprotected sex
Using birth control
Taking morning after pill
Giving the child up for adoptionThe first three are clearly less invasive and traumatic than abortion.The adoption suggestion is more personal opinion than anything else. Obviously taking a pregnancy to term is a big deal for a 14 year old girl, and the arguement could be made that that would be less damaging to her than an early abortion. So, it's sort of a middle ground possition.

I often hear the Right suggesting abortion should be "illegal except in cases of rape and incest"I find this boggling.Is there anyone here who takes that stance and can you better explain your thinking?

Well, unless I've missed something, it seems we are all pretty much in agreement on the issue.Sounds like the concensus is, "Wish we didn't have to have abortions, but need to keep it legal."Given the variety of posters here and their positions from other threads, I would think that all the press this issue gets is nothing more than noise.Seems like the "make it illegal" crowd are a small fringe minority with a bullhorn.

Abortion is mentioned in the Hypocratic oath (against). Clearly this is a practice which has been known for almost as long as medicine itself

I have to disagree with this. Just because one party is upset about a situation does not mean the other party must compromise. For example, a 4 year old can be upset that they can't eat candy all day, the parents don't have to (and shouldn't) compromise their possition.My problem with the strict anti-abortion crowd is that their argument is disingenuous. The majority of the pro-life moment argue that abortion should be illegal in all cases except rape and incest. A few argue it should be illegal in all cases - Alan Keyes for example, and I have less of a problem with this argument.If abortion is murder, then why are we murdering children because their father's are rapists? We don't jail the children of thieves.Even looking at it as a balance, a murder is certainly worse than a rape, and you aren't going to "correct" the rape by murdering the innocent child.This double standard indicates to me that the issue is not so much the life of the unborn child, but the method of which the woman got pregnant. If she was "forced" into it, then it wasn't her fault. But if she is a slut, she should have to deal with the consequences. That's legislating morality.Additionally, I can't help but noticing that the "Illegal except in the case of rape..." crowd seems to be predominantly white and Southern. Could it be that "rape" here still carries with it, however subliminal, the image of a black man and a white woman. Are they really saying, "My daughter would never get an abortion, but if it's gonna be a black baby, that's a different matter."No one is coming out and saying this, but that undercurrent is alive and well in the American South.Lastely, still on the disingenuous point, I hear tales all the time of women protesting abortion clinics for months on end, then walking inside to have one. It seems that one's possition on the matter is very dependant on their personal circumstances.How many pro-life families have forced their pregnant 13 year old daughters to go through with it, versus how many have opted out. I wonder

In this case, I think the 4-year analogy is spot on. One group has made up it's mind regardless of facts or logical consistancy, they want it "their way" and want everyone else to play by their rules.No one in the pro-choice side is even suggesting that the pro-life people be forced into having abortions. No one is curtailing their rights to believe in their religeon, or jump up and down and yell about their dislike of abortion.When two groups can't agree, we must ALWAYS side against the group which wishes to curtail rights. We can not let a minority of the public dictate the lives of the majority. Once a group gets a taste of taking away people's rights, it's not a slippery slope, it's a dead drop cliff. Well, two responses here. Of course we must judge the logic of their argument! There have been plenty of collections of wackos out there who want things their way, and if they don't have logic and facts on their side, allowing them to trample the majority would be total disaster.On the second part of your quote - "One person's preferred lifestyle is their own choice". This is exactly right. This is why we must not compromise with people willing to rob people of their rights. This is correct, when you use the terms "right" and "wrong" to mean moral judgements. But, if you mean "right" and "wrong" as true and false, or correct and incorrect, I can't agree with you.I'm not saying that people can't believe what they want, I'm say they can't make others live by those beliefs. The Catholic Church (for example) is not more "right" or "wrong" than the Heaven's Gate cult. However, I don't think people would take kindly to manditory castration and cyanide capsules every time a comet passes. Exactly, that's why we mustn't let this fringe group rob another group of it's rights. They are protected in their beliefs, no one is suggesting that they stop believing what the want. However, they're right to believe what they want ends at their ears. One person's beliefs can not be forced onto another group.If they don't want abortions. Don't have them. Don't work at an abortion clinic. Petition to have funding cut. Picket across the street. Print of t-shirts. Create websites that express your point.Don't blow up buildings, don't shoot people, don't try to stop people from exercising their constitutional rights. I agree with this, we should allow all people to choose their lifestyle.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 08-28-2005 11:21 PM

I've read your post and find it well reasoned.It looks like Chiro is already engaging you in a "where can we draw the line" debate, so I want to focus my attention elsewhereIt sounds as though you are in the "No abortions at all camp". Does this include cases of rape and incest?

While I disagree with you on this issue, your argument is well reasoned and internal consistant. I have a great deal of respect for that.

I believe this to be true.However, I would argue that these are EXACTLY the sort of people we don't want to be parents. Their children are going to grow up to be just as irresponsible as they were.There's a great book out now called "Freakanomics". It takes statistical analysis and applies it to everything from the economics of dealing crack to whether or not Sumo wrestlers cheat. It's a really great read and I recommend it to everyone.One whole chapter of the book is called "Where have all the criminals gone" and it discusses the sudden and totally unexpected drop off in crime in the mid-ninties. Many people have suggested many causes, by the authors pretty much prove the cause and effect - Crime rates dropped because abortion became legal 15-20 years earlier.The majority of aborted pregnancies involve people not ready or suited for parenthood.While I whole heartedly agree that an ounce of prevention could have prevented the necessity for the abortion in the first place, I'm not ready to have a million more children born into bad situations every year. And 18 years down the line, when those kids are an army of criminals, our society is simply not prepared to handle them

This is awful close to saying "Those sluts are being punished for their behavior." My main problem with the abortion debate is that the pro-life side always seems to fall back to a possition of blame.It seems like they are hell bent on punishing sexually active women for their "immoral behavior".I agree that these people SHOULD be using condoms, but when we're talking about a 15 year old girl and her 15 year old boyfriend, "responsibility" is kind of abstract.Additionally, the same people arguing pro-life are the same people arguing AGAINST sex education in schools. They want abstenence only as the ciriculum. How are these kids supposed to learn about proper use of birth control / available methods? They aren't going to get that information from their teachers or their parents.

I'm really confused by all the WWII references.Am I Italy in this scenaro? Or the Swiss?I think the people who don't want to get pregnant and aren't using birth control should have abortions, cuz I sure don't want them raising another generation of like minded idiots.I think the argument of "when is a life a life" is an impossible one to answer. Conception vs 1st trimester vs birth - all arguments have merit, and, so long as the person arguing them is internally consistant, I'm not going to try to dissuade them.I think the abortion argument should be about practicality. The number I've heard is 1,000,000 US abortions a year.The majority of those kids would be born into underprivledged situations.People say, "What about adoption?" Got news for you, white babies get adopted. What percentage of the 1 million are minority? 1/5? 1/3? 1/2? No idea whatsoever, but I know that 200,000 new unadopted children in the orphanages would pretty much destroy that system

Is this the same Jesus who hung out with all the prostitutes?