Abortion

[Plaything48]

Understandably, abortion has captured the imagination of the public quite unlike any other social policy issue. After all, the controversy is about the death of innocents. So it would be hard to overestimate its importance in the political sphere. For many people, it is the single determining factor in selecting their public servants.

But it wasn't always like this. The abortion issue in the United States was happily simmering on the back burner until January 1973. That's when the Supreme Court ruled that Norma McCorvey had a right to kill her developing fetus, contrary to Texas law. Oh, and ditto for every other pregnant woman in the United States as well.

The fallout from Roe v. Wade immediately touched off a nationwide firestorm, especially among conservative evangelicals. This led directly to the formation of the Moral Majority and the election of their poster boy, President Ronald Reagan. The overweening influence of the Christian Right on the political scene even inspired televangelist Pat Robertson to run for President in 1988. Instead, they elected Reagan's protege, abortion foe George HW Bush.

In their rhetoric, rabid Pro-Lifers love to draw analogies to the Holocaust whenever possible, which makes their opponents Nazi sympathizers, if not the gas chamber attendants.

Every once in a while some nut actually takes this genocide talk seriously and decides that it would be wrong to sit idly by while innocents are being annihilated. So they call in some death threats, plant a few pipe bombs, and start torching clinics.

While everybody else is busy working on the demand side of the abortion equation, jokers like Eric Rudolph, Peter Knight, Paul Hill, and James Kopp have been working on the supply side. They have taken the battle directly to the source, by killing the abortion providers themselves.

All of these guys are motivated by their Christian doctrine to prevent the slaughter of innocents. Which is a little puzzling, given that Yahweh specifically sanctioned infanticide more than once in the Old Testament.

And a tumult will rise among your people, and all of your fortresses will be ruined, just as Shalman ruined Beth-Arbel in a day's battle. Mothers will be dashed to pieces with their sons. Hosea 10:14

Samaria will be desolated, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword, their infants will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. Hosea 13:16

Their infants will be dashed to pieces right before their eyes. Their houses will be ruined and their wives raped. Isaiah 13:16

Then again, nobody really gives a tinker's damn what the Bible says anyway. People just take little pieces from the book whenever it suits them, and ignore the rest.

Your typical abortion opponents (who haven't already snapped) are content to stand in front of women's clinics, shouting slogans and carrying signs. Many of them hold up placards with pithy epigrams, like:


EQUAL RIGHTS FOR UNBORN WOMEN
IF IT'S NOT A BABY, YOU'RE NOT PREGNANT
WHAT IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU?
HITLER MADE 6 MILLION CHOICES

But just because these people haven't embraced violence doesn't mean they're averse to harnessing the power of violent imagery. Nothing quite grabs your attention like a gruesome, four-color posterboard image of an aborted fetus. And they know it.

Anyone holding up a stomach-churning sign like that evidently believes that some people just don't understand that abortion means killing a human fetus. What they fail to realize is that everyone actually does understand that. So their little show & tell has about the same effect as a vegan standing outside a Sizzler, holding up posters of a slaughterhouse. Sure, it gets a viceral reaction, but nobody's actually learning anything.

If you think that's a little much, there's always that famous photo of teensy feet held between a gloved thumb and forefinger. It looks downright classy in comparison. It's certainly less sickening than a jumble of dismembered baby parts like the one below:

[Photo Removed]

Meanwhile, what totem have the Pro-Choicers rallied around? A lousy wire coat hanger. How gutless. If they were really serious about winning the PR battle, their logo wouldn't be so abstract. It really ought to be a woman lying in a pool of blood with a coat hanger shoved in her crotch. After all, their argument is that criminalizing abortion leaves women with no choice but to seek out dangerous, back-alley procedures.

The most entertaining thing about the controversy is the fact that it's a magnet for zealots who are also opposed to the RU-486 pill and contraception, like Mother Teresa. Apparently these people believe that God has a plan for each and every zygote (despite the 10-15% of all pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion).

It's hard to imagine much of a divine plan beyond organ harvesting for the ones that wind up stillborn (sometimes even taking their mothers with them). Or the ones with ultrasevere birth defects (for instance, certain acephalic disorders -- those things are death sentences, plain and simple).

So let's face it: God certainly isn't Pro-Life, not by a long shot. If anything, He's the single biggest abortion provider of all time. And He has no qualms about ripping open the stomachs of pregnant women whenever necessary. Hence, people who are categorically opposed to killing unborn babies aren't really doing the Lord's work -- they're just advancing their own agendas.

[tusaki]

could you -please- next time post a link to a picture instead of putting the picture itself here. (and include a warning) It made me quite sick.

[dannyp]

...thanks for the warning.

interesting opinion.

[Plaything48]

If you can't handle the heat, get out the kitchen. Or don't. Your choice

[LogicaLunatic]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Plaything48)

So let's face it: God certainly isn't Pro-Life, not by a long shot. If anything, He's the single biggest abortion provider of all time. And He has no qualms about ripping open the stomachs of pregnant women whenever necessary. Hence, people who are categorically opposed to killing unborn babies aren't really doing the Lord's work -- they're just advancing their own agendas.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I completely agree, Plaything. In addition, if the fundies in the Bush administration manage to outlaw abortion then an unborn baby should be considered a dependant for tax purposes.

LogicaLunatic

[damnrad]

When does a person become a human person? That would seem to be a major issue. Some argue that this happens at the moment of conception -- although they are often unclear as to whether that moment is that of fertilization or of implantation (and in fact, the Catholic Church is not clear on that). Their argument is actually purely religious: that a soul is created at the moment of conception. They sometimes muddy the waters, however, by arguing that a unique biological entity starts at that point, even claiming that 'science proves' that humanity starts at conception. That this argument is mud can be shown by asking back whether humans are no more than biological organisms. There are few who argue 'human person from conception' who will agree that we are no more than biological constructs.

Problems with the position:
1) If it's religious, why should it be imposed on the rest of society, on the irreligious as well as on the religious? And it is not the only religious view -- in fact, the traditional religious view was that the soul was infused at the point of quickening, weeks into the pregnancy. Some religions stick to this view, so why should one religious view be championed over another in public law?
2) It is not true that a unique biological organism is always created at conception. In fact, most fertilized human eggs do not survive to be born. That's a wastage of potential, and in fact partially a means of quality control, quite common to biology. But if a soul is created for each fertilized egg, then that is a wastage of souls that seems a bit strange. More importantly, even among fertilized eggs that survive, not all go on to become unique human individuals. Identical twins are fairly common, and multuplets hardly unheard of, yet they represent different people who result from the same fertilized egg. If only one soul is created at conception, which twin gets it? Moreover, not every individual results from a single fertilized egg. Fertilized eggs sometimes fuse together. Chimeras are organisms that contain the DNA of more than one fertilized egg. In at least one case, in fact, a human's DNA has been shown to have derived from more than one father. So, if more than one conception went into making a human, does that person have more than one soul?

So, the moment of conception, whichever moment that is, is reasonable to define a human person only if (1) one uses a purely-religious view of 'soul' or (2) one sees humanity in purely-biologically-deterministic ways. What is a good point at which to state that a human person exists? I have noted that some religions place soul acquisition at the later stage (such as at quickening), but why should public law be based on some other religious teaching? Let's look further.

The traditional view is, actually, that a person becomes a person at birth. In fact, by the US Constitution, a person born in the US becomes a citizen at birth. True, the development of the fetus is largely the same before and after birth; but the functioning is not. For one thing, at birth, the former fetus begins breathing air and no longer derives nourishment from connection through the placenta to the blood of the mother. Further, the newborn begins immediately interacting with the outside world, most importantly, beginning social interaction with other humans. Practical advantages of the use of birth as the dividing line include, of course, that the baby is no longer an inhabitant of the mother's body (abortion is no longer an option), and that our laws already use the moment of birth to define when a civil person exists, one who can be murdered for example. True, medical tech makes the moment of birth partially discretionary, and can push it back further in development; but the changes that occur at birth (and the legal and social statuses that go with it) still occur at that point.

But then there is the 'what if' question: what if prior to birth there is a human person who is to some degree conscious of its own existence? Well, how would we know? Actually, we could place an early demarcation on the possiblity. At 'brain birth,' at about 22 weeks of gestation, the fetus' brain has developed sufficiently to 'boot up': brain waves begin that will continue through the life of the organism. Since we nowdays define death on the basis of brain death, why not define life on the basis of brain birth? The issue is that we don't know the implications of brain birth in this connection. While it seems unlikely that there could be any consciousness, including self-consciousness, before there was a functioning brain, with sufficient function to support consciousness, we do not know that brain birth signals that consciousness has begun -- it may be necessary, but might well not be sufficient, to that. Still, one could give the brain-born fetus the benefit of the doubt. And in fact, Roe v. Wade came very close to doing so by recognizing a different status for a fetus in the third trimester (a couple of weeks on average after brain birth). States can be much more restrictive of abortion in the third trimester than they can earlier in the pregnancy. But third-trimester abortions can still occur under Roe v. Wade. Consider, after all, that the decision was based on a right to privacy of the mother. Even if the brain-born fetus is a human person who should therefore have some rights, mothers are undoubtedly human persons with rights; and that is what gets weighed in the third trimester under Roe v. Wade.

At base then, I argue that Roe v. Wade already gives us an excellent basis for deciding on abortion, ethically as well as legally. Would that we could agree on that. Think of it: we could get rid of the impediments to abortion early in the pregnancy that sometimes results in abortions' being sought in the third trimester; we could treat earlier abortions as medical procedures that should be funded just as other medical procedurses; and we could clarify what was acceptable in the third trimester (e.g., what conditions could not have been tested for earlier that might lead to the seeking of a late abortion). But that won't happen -- instead, we will continue to have a major societal fight over the question, leading to many tears on all sides.

[PeterAngelo]

ABORTION

The ability to safely abort certainly makes the choice safe, but it does not address reality. Science and medical technology has advanced far enough. It is the distribution that is the problem.

In my ancient youth abortions were often performed relatively safely by midwives who had enough experience with female anatomy to know how to pierce the uterus and cause a failed pregnancy. Infection was the main problem. It still is, but medicine has taken care of that. It is the back room hack we fear.

It's like drugs, abortion would be easily available, one-way or another, no matter what.

The anti-abortion forces are growing because we have had thirty years to see what the long-term effects are. Education the hard way is how we learn

I have six kids and four grand children with all that implies. I am besieged with love and attention with people who know me and care.

I have a sister four years younger than me who was a very hot groupie in the 60's. She had at least four abortions so she could stay at the party forever. When she got older she tried to get pregnant but the damage done from all the abortions made it impossible. She is now fifty-four, desperately lonely and guilt ridden. She sees how much life surrounds me, me brother, and my twin sister. We were all over productive. She wishes for an early death and is in miserable health.

She murdered her family and the grand children she so desperately wants are ghosts eating her soul away.

I married four women to get the six kids. Only one was an abortion queen. She had one son that we share and three she killed. My son lives in another state with his wife and kids. She never sees them and is so neurotic my daughter in law would move to China to get away from her. She calls me crying that she is lonely and deserted and I have lots of kids. I am cruel I know when I tell her it is her own fault. She says she knows, that is the problem.

That kind of end game is what too many families have seen. At fifty-four, Britny Speers won't be able to buy it. That's reality. So is loneliness and guilt. Friends are fine, but blood is blood. If you struggle, no matter what, to raise a family, they will grow old and appreciate what it took to not abort them.

At the University of South Florida the media ethics professor, Jay Black, invited me to a showing of a documentary on selective abortion. He knows me too well. I was born with a clubfoot. I can now dance ballet better than Baryshnikov. I challenge him.

At the end of the film I stood up and said I had to make a comment. I told them that, " I was born with a club foot. I'm sure my mother would probably have aborted me when she was young if she had the choice and the information in advance. I just wanted you to know that I'm real glad to be here, even if no one else is."

It got quiet.

The prime directive in life is to multiply. From the age of six I had nothing on my mind but women. Four wives, countless lovers, and not done yet. There is nothing else as good but sleep. Everything else is work.

Life is never easy or perfect. We all grow up in spite of our parents. They are just people struggling to survive with the whole world working against them. It is the best argument for each of us to voluntarily help each other like a big family. La, la, la. Laugh if you will, but without support from family and community we get what we've got now.

There is a choice to keep your legs closed. Once there is life the choice is human dignity or murder.

I miss the days when there were simultaneously demands from work, family, community, and the need to party. It is war on four fronts. That's living.

In the twenties, thirties, and even forties, there is time and energy to do it. Education can come at anytime in life. Some people breed early, some late. Our society has become a twenty-four hour a day routine. It feels like life is just one long day with naps, food, and the rest in between.

Why not go with the flow. After the first five years a parent can go back to school and change careers five times. It doesn't matter anymore. What matters is that there are responsible people around to help during rough times. Things can change fast. I've been in the crapper and back rich again in a year or so. Some of the best times my wives and I had were when our backs were up against the wall and we fought back to back.

That's living. That's when you know what you are made of. Where did the idea come from that you should flush a kid down the toilet because you're not ready to hire a nanny? Get real. At the end of the road if you are alone it is hell. Go to a nursing home and ask old people. I volunteer one day a week. I have learned from them over the years and got lots of good advice. A lot of my success is because of them.

Making abortion illegal is nuts. It will be done anyway, but not safely.

Before 1970 I remember watching a documentary on abortion with my pregnant wife. It made us sick. That baby is my oldest son now. He's thirty-seven. I cannot imagine having killed him. For what? A couple years of changing diapers. Good God. They grow up so fast it's ridiculous. What a bunch of lazy, insipid, soulless idiots.

Teach the long-term effects. Discourage it as much as you can. Make it as disgusting as smoking. But be real.

[Sean]

Yikes, I read your argument, but I think I'm in the minority. You got to be a little more concise here if you want discussion to continue.

[white rice]

Thanks Plaything for a good read, but that pic was grizzly for some readers...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
1) If it's religious, why should it be imposed on the rest of society, on the irreligious as well as on the religious?  And it is not the only religious view -- in fact, the traditional religious view was that the soul was infused at the point of quickening, weeks into the pregnancy.  Some religions stick to this view, so why should one religious view be championed over another in public law?
2) It is not true that a unique biological organism is always created at conception.  In fact, most fertilized human eggs do not survive to be born.  That's a wastage of potential, and in fact partially a means of quality control, quite common to biology.  But if a soul is created for each fertilized egg, then that is a wastage of souls that seems a bit strange.  More importantly, even among fertilized eggs that survive, not all go on to become unique human individuals.  Identical twins are fairly common, and multuplets hardly unheard of, yet they represent different people who result from the same fertilized egg.  If only one soul is created at conception, which twin gets it?  Moreover, not every individual results from a single fertilized egg.  Fertilized eggs sometimes fuse together.  Chimeras are organisms that contain the DNA of more than one fertilized egg.  In at least one case, in fact, a human's DNA has been shown to have derived from more than one father.  So, if more than one conception went into making a human, does that person have more than one soul?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

We base the majority of our ethics and morals on the Bible. Those values create the laws we have today (the criminal ones at least). That is partly a runaround to work religious values in our legislative decisions, but people, after all, write the laws.

A large question in abortion and human research is the ethical implications on the worth of a human life. I find it ironic that the same political group that values the potential of a human life would very well let people rot in jail or die by the hand of the government for their actions, violent or nonviolent (drug offenders), as if they could play God themselves! Regardless of the implications of hypocrisy, they do have a point in preserving the value of human life, whether you believe in a soul or not.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
At base then, I argue that Roe v. Wade already gives us an excellent basis for deciding on abortion, ethically as well as legally.  Would that we could agree on that.  Think of it:  we could get rid of the impediments to abortion early in the pregnancy that sometimes results in abortions' being sought in the third trimester; we could treat earlier abortions as medical procedures that should be funded just as other medical procedurses; and we could clarify what was acceptable in the third trimester (e.g., what conditions could not have been tested for earlier that might lead to the seeking of a late abortion).  But that won't happen -- instead, we will continue to have a major societal fight over the question, leading to many tears on all sides.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Abortions because of medical complications shouldn't be restrictied, and should be the choice of the mother. I would find that casual abortions performed widescale during the third trimester to be ghastly and a blatant disregard of human life. It would be indicative to a deteriorating society and culture. Freedom comes with responsibility. Choice should never be simple, especially in this case.

Lately, with improving technology, babies have been delivered prematurely and kept alive through machines until they can survive on their own. I think that's a working framework to determine when abortion should be outlawed. If the fetus is physically dependent on the mother to survive or would no way survive on its own even with the help of machines, then abortion can be performed. If it takes a mother 9 months to decide to abort a baby, she definitely can't make the responsible choice. Her choice should rest during the first 4 months. It's not a perfect solution, but what ever is?

In this age where fertility rates are declining and families are deciding to have children at an older age, adoption is a very viable solution. Non-restrrictive abortion would give too much responsibility and power to a person already proven to be uncapable of handling her own life, let alone anothers.

[mbrock59]

So, if I choose to have an abortion it is a fetus, but if Scott Peterson murders his wife while she is pregnant, it is an unborn child?
Abortion is not murder, but an unborn child dies because the mother was using crack cocaine, it is murder?
the problem is the definition of life....

[PeterAngelo]

The problem is whether we care about life at all.

I think life is such a horrifying experience we all have a death wish so it will end.

This is more like purgatory than anything else.

A torture victim knows hell.

A King knows heaven.

The rest of us are always somewhere in between.

Abortion may be the biggest favor we can do.

I would have preferred to have never been born than to live in this world - and I have had a fabulous life compared to most.

I never told my six kids before I was born that I would see them as soon as I found their mothers and got them drunk.

Consciousness is a curse.

Maybe this is hell.

It sure ain't heaven.

Send em' back until the chief engineer fixes this defective existance.

I vote mandatory abortion foraver.

Spay em' at birth and party till there is one rotten bastard left.

Then - peace on Earth.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (whiterice,)
Abortions because of medical complications shouldn't be restrictied, and should be the choice of the mother. I would find that casual abortions performed widescale during the third trimester to be ghastly and a blatant disregard of human life. It would be indicative to a deteriorating society and culture. Freedom comes with responsibility. Choice should never be simple, especially in this case. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Agreed, but I was noting that some medical complications are known about earlier, so that action could be taken earlier. Some are not, so third-trimester abortions would still be necessary.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (whiterice,)
Lately, with improving technology, babies have been delivered prematurely and kept alive through machines until they can survive on their own. I think that's a working framework to determine when abortion should be outlawed. If the fetus is physically dependent on the mother to survive or would no way survive on its own even with the help of machines, then abortion can be performed. If it takes a mother 9 months to decide to abort a baby, she definitely can't make the responsible choice. Her choice should rest during the first 4 months. It's not a perfect solution, but what ever is? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No, in the real world, solutions are seldom simple -- but they can sometimes be simpler than the complications upon which fanatics insist. The idea of using the viability of the fetus is a possible answer for defining when a human person begins. But is it the best answer? I was suggesting the earliest point at which there could be consciousness, so self-consciousness. But on the other hand, the best point may still be birth, when everything changes -- and when viability is not just theoretical, rather is put to the actual test. Still, at no point before birth should we talk about 'when abortion should be outlawed,' as you yourself have noted with regard to medical complications -- which can be complications for the fetus. I can't see requiring that a fetus with severe spina bifida, or especially an anacephalic fetus, be born simply because it is theoretically viable. So, let's talk about restrictions on late-term abortion. And as I have noted, we already have SCOTUS rules on that, thanks to Roe v. Wade.

[white rice]

Damnrad,
At what point do you draw the line then? Peter Angelo made some point that if abortions were non-restrictive, he might've been aborted at the expense of his club foot. Should we allow abortions for fetuses with non-lethal genetic defects such as Down Syndrome or even cleft palate?

Maybe this point is moot with ever increasing strides towards genetic engineering and tampering with our own genetic code, but I would like to read your opinion on this.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
Damnrad,
At what point do you draw the line then? Peter Angelo made some point that if abortions were non-restrictive, he might've been aborted at the expense of his club foot. Should we allow abortions for fetuses with non-lethal genetic defects such as Down Syndrome or even cleft palate?

Maybe this point is moot with ever increasing strides towards genetic engineering and tampering with our own genetic code, but I would like to read your opinion on this.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Someone might have been aborted? Well, had any of our parents happened not to meet, we would not be here. We can't run on might-have-beens. The real questions are who has what rights and who makes the decisions. Who are we to not 'allow abortions for fetuses with non-lethal genetic defects,' or for reasons unrelated to genetics? Angelo is here, so has rights. When Angelo was a fertilized egg, he had no rights. When should he have been seen as acquiring rights? By law and tradition, that is at birth. Is there a reason to set the point at an earlier point? And, a la Roe v. Wade, if there are rights pre-birth, how do these stack up against the rights of the mother?

[PeterAngelo]

Someone?

I am not someone. I am me.

I am not a - "might have been". I am a reality.

When the living "tissue" is flushed down the toilet it is no longer a matter of philosophical opinion. It is a dead human being.

If my father had not gotten lucky that night I wouldn't be here - true.

But he did, and I am.

As a fertalized egg any mother can use a coat hanger. I guess if my mother was the kind of vapid whore who can't be bothered with her own flesh and blood I would prefer to be aborted.

As it was - I grew up in a home that can only be described as "never-never land. My parents made my life, and my siblings, a magical mystery tour I would need a book to describe.

I am lucky I had them (they are still vital and fun at 84) and not selfish, murdering, shallow, pigs for parents.

Lucky for me.

Unlucky for the angels cheated out of their place in this world.

The Supreme Court legalized abortion because the "hippies" of the sixties appeared to be sexually out of control and the overpopulation was not wanted.

Florida ended common law marriage in 1968 because they didn't want unmarried people to have legal rights without the state making money, or being able to control them.

It is definately a personal decision, and making it illegal would not stop it.

I just propose that education and truth be applied to slow it down to a minimum.

Personal choice coincides with personal responsibility.

Ladies - Keep your legs closed!!!(that's why you have two sets of lips)

Men - take care of your children!!!

[damnrad]

Quote by: PeterAngelo, Someone? I am not someone. I am me. I am not a - "might have been". I am a reality.

Actually, that's what I said, about you and everyone else.

Quote by: PeterAngelo, When the living "tissue" is flushed down the toilet it is no longer a matter of philosophical opinion. It is a dead human being.

Says you; not me. A human person is a lot more than the living tissue. The question is how, and when, the living tissue acquires what brings about a human person.

Quote by: PeterAngelo, If my father had not gotten lucky that night I wouldn't be here - true. But he did, and I am.

True, and quite irrelevant to the question.

Quote by: PeterAngelo, As a fertalized egg any mother can use a coat hanger. I guess if my mother was the kind of vapid whore who can't be bothered with her own flesh and blood I would prefer to be aborted.

The only thing relevant in this statement is your misogyny.

Quote by: PeterAngelo, Unlucky for the angels cheated out of their place in this world.

And think of all those sperm and unfertilized eggs also 'cheated out of their place in this world.' How about a little concern for those proto-angels?

[quote=PeterAngelo,]The Supreme Court legalized abortion because the "hippies" of the sixties appeared to be sexually out of control an

Quote by: PeterAngelo, d the overpopulation was not wanted.

No, the SCOTUS decided Roe v. Wade because the idiocy of the antiabortion laws was quite clear, the fact that Americans would not obey those laws was quite clear, and the horror of back-alley abortions was quite clear. Roe v. Wade is a wonderful decision -- as I noted before, it even accommodates a different status for abortion (so for fetus and mother) in the third trimester, when it might be possible that there is some degree of self-consciousness in a fetus.

Quote by: PeterAngelo, It is definately a personal decision, and making it illegal would not stop it. I just propose that education and truth be applied to slow it down to a minimum.

Here we agree; and perhaps that is all we need. You can loathe abortion; I will love the existence of choice. And education, especially sex education, and birth control is definitely perferable to abortion, when they can work to prevent it. However, this leaves unanswered the question I asked: should abortion be more-tightly controlled in the 3rd trimester?

[mbrock59]

Reason, Respect, Responsibility.

Is it reasonable for me to engage in intercourse witout consistant contraceptive use and expect not to cause a pregnancy?

Do I respect myself and my sex partner enough to discuss these issues before becoming intimate sexually?

Am I responsible enough to either use dependable, consistant constraceptives or refrain from sexual realtions? Am I old enough to handle the results what ever they are? Entering high school should not mean the start of a race toward virginity loss.

Abortion is the result of idiocy, laziness, selfishness, ethical amorality, or downright immaturity.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,)
Reason, Respect, Responsibility.

Is it reasonable for me to engage in intercourse witout consistant contraceptive use and expect not to cause a pregnancy?

Do I respect myself and my sex partner enough to discuss these issues before becoming intimate sexually?

Am I responsible enough to either use dependable, consistant constraceptives or refrain from sexual realtions? Am I old enough to handle the results what ever they are? Entering high school should not mean the start of a race toward virginity loss.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

All good points. Would that there were always good sex education, easy access to acceptable contraceptives, and responsible behavior. But these don't always exist, so real-world situations are faced where abortion is one alternative, one choice. The ideal is to reduce the number of abortions through knowledge, contraceptives, and responsible behavior.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,)
Abortion is the result of idiocy, laziness, selfishness, ethical amorality, or downright immaturity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Nonsense. Abortion is sometimes an alternative following any and all of the above. It is sometimes a responsible choice in the absence of the above -- as when a couple who wish to have children discovers that their fetus has terrible genetic defects, when the mother is found to have medical conditions that make birth an unacceptable (to her) hazard, when circumstances or relationships have changed, and so on.

[PeterAngelo]

Third trimester abortions are as ghoulish as anything done at Auschwitz

The end of the first trimester is sickening enough.

We can "Cut" the strings that bind us to our genetic descendents - but those strings stay attached forever anyway. Ask anyone who has had an abortion and lived with it to old age.

The group that started aborting en-mass after 1970 are pushing fifty - ask them how they feel now.

[Man Against Time]

The problem here is the mania that men have allowed to infect their world; this obsession with "Civil rights" and "Choice" has led to this, among many other social ills. Obviously, we should seek the disease, not the symptoms. The disease is the belief that everyone with a head on their shoulders who has existed for a certain number of years is qualified and justified in making decisions by virtue of the fact that they have a head on their shoulders and have existed for a certain number of years. Crush that in this abominable upstart of a civilization and everything else will take care of itself.