Consuela, I don’t want to assume anything beyond what you have posted so I wanted to ask you a clarifying question. Would that include a healthy woman and fetus who decided to have an abortion at 9 months for a purely trivial reason?
I would have to allow this or risk being a hypocrite. However, I don’t think a lot of women would be lining up 9 months pregnant waiting to get an abortion on a whim.
Look, it’s not something I would advise, but I won’t say to a woman she can’t do it. Why can I say it’s ok at 8 weeks but not at 24 weeks?
J
If one believed that women principally sought late-term abortions because of life-threatening conditions, the chances become greater. This would skew the distributions significantly.
Change the deaths to 10 for group A and 10 for group B in scenario 5. Now the chance is 50% for group A and a tiny, tiny percentage for group B, if that’s more plausible. The point is that if one believes women seek this procedure principally because they’re in danger (I do NOT), your stats don’t dispute this, unless I’m missing something (always a possibility). It would be the same, I think, as arguing that most of the people going to cancer hospitals couldn’t be doing so because of a life-threatening condition, because their numbers would suggest a significantly higher death rate per 100,000 than we see on average. Well, of course they do, and if I already believed cancer hospitals were for critically ill patients, then your stats would do nothing to sway me the other way.
Again, I do NOT believe that most late-term abortions are for life-threatening conditions. I don’t believe it’s even a significant percentage, much less a majority. Dave’s cites, for example, support that. But I don’t think your extrapolation is necessarily a sound counter argument for the reason mentioned.
I do not. I do not believe abortion can be justified in ANY situation or stage of pregnancy except when the mother’s life is in imminent and significant danger and abortion can remedy that condition. I believe that is a rare circumstance, and that an extremely large percentage of abortions are for other reasons.
Forty three states have Safe Haven laws.
If mothers have an alternative can"t men and women of conscience encourage safe, legal, and rare abortion at the woman’s discretion?
Don’t follow you. Can you clarify?
Because the demand is for white babies that are healthy. **
[/QUOTE]
I dare say healthy babies of any color have a much better shot at being adopted than a child older than three or teen of any color who finds themselves suddenly in foster care due to being abused or orphaned. The " why don’t pro-life people adopt all the unwanted kids, then, if they’re so concerned about the babies" argument fails to take in to consideration the number of children who enter the system after they’re babies.
There will always be abortion;legal or illegal.
There will always be abused, unwanted,unloved children.
If women can choose to leave a newborn at a hospital, or fire station, with no legal penalty,and if women can safely choose to bear a life or not,then late term abortions will be extremely unusual.
Not all women have access to medical care.
Not all women have a family or support system.
—1. Is it your opinion that most (i.e. 51% or 47,953) of the 94,027 pregnant mothers during that 6 year period chose to have an abortion because of a life threatening risk?—
No, don’t be silly. I’m not saying anything conclusive to this issue, simply pointing out that your argument can’t give us an accurate estimate figure. It fails for the simple reason that people respond to incentives, changing their behavior. There have to be far better ways to measure the reasons why women get late-term abortions… and there are, and they’ve already been quoted in this thread.
You seem to be one of those people who can’t distinguish between being skeptical of an argument and being against the potential conclusion you desire.
—Do you support the ability for a woman to have a late term abortions for a non life threatening reason?—
Depends: can I demand that people stop slaughtering veal for food too? I’m sure I’ll get a lot of flak for that statement, but to me, very honestly, the ethical considerations are roughly the same. I think it’s WRONG that women do it that late for anything other than a strongly countering moral reason, (and wrong period to simply do it all other things equal) and at that point, discomfort or not wanting to give up a baby for adoption has ceased to be a good enough reason.
However, I’m not sure that I can make such a decision for others anymore than I can force my vegitarianism on them.
Killing a fetus is no different morally than killing a rat. What makes us uniquely human is our intelligence and personality, which fetuses and newborn babies lack.
Is it OK to kill comatose patients? Assume the patient is “brain-dead” from hypothermia, a condition that is reversible.
No, because there already is an established conciousness and personality that is just beneath the surface (if it is reversible). A newborn has never had an established sense of self, they don’t even recognize themselves in the mirror until around age 2.
I am not sure from a religious point of view it is appropriate to keep the “brain-dead” alive artificially, in terms of those in a permanent vegetative state (not hypothermia). After all, might that not stop their soul from being able to travel to Heaven?
SoujournerSamson (cool name, welcome) has hit the nail on the head for me. There will ALWAYS be abortions. There ALWAYS have been. There will ALWAYS be times that they are medically necessary. Let’s try to make the procedure as well-informed and uncommon as possible, but when it needs to happen, let it happen with dignity, and proper medical treatment, and not vilification of an already traumatised and suffering woman.
The thing that gets me with the NO! ABORTION! EVER! crowd is how do you guys really view these late term abortion women? I mean how many of them are callous, uncaring women who just couldn’t be bothered to get rid of the foetus several months earlier? Whereas how many of them are actually hugely traumatised individuals, suffering physically and mentally, probably wanting desperately to have the child, but making the difficult, tragic choice through medical need or concern for the life quality of that child to have to end its life?
And yes, I do call it a “child.” Because it doesn’t really matter what you call it. The point is, that these women and their doctors are NOT murderers, and vilifying them in that way to my mind is crime against God. Forgiveness, compassion, understanding anyone???
Let’s not euphemize, okay? What there is, is a flat-line, a completely lack of brain activity. It will likely emerge when the hypothermic symptoms are remedied. But this entity currently has no consciousness or personality. None. Maybe he will someday. Maybe a fetus will too.
Consciousness and personality were your standards, not mine.
Look, you don’t like people climbing on their soapboxes, how about you get down off of yours? Do you understand one could just as easily ask you where your “compassion and understanding” are with regard to the unborn. You would find fault with that charge, because of the axioms you hold. If so, then don’t hold others in contempt for the same thing.
Sorry to resurrect this thread. I’ve been away from a computer for a few days and haven’t been able to respond. However I did want to make one final response.
Consuela
The reason why you might plausibly (not necessarily that I do) say abortion is ok at 8 weeks and not at 24 weeks is that at 8 weeks there really isn’t any kind of central nervous system. Many people strongly believe that we get our humanity and self identity at it’s basic physical level from our brains. At that stage we don’t have brains but at 9 months that baby is definitely (in my book anyway) a person. At 9 months it’s really only a technicality of position. IMHO There’s no difference from a human rights perspective between a healthy baby in a mother’s womb at 9 months and that same baby one hour later after delivery. For you to equate abortions at 8 weeks with abortions at 9 months is disappointing and saddening.
Bob Cos
Yes. I agree that the argument isn’t necessarily sound. However, to me, it is highly suggestive and when used in conjunction with Dave’s cites I think it does make a stronger case that abortions are performed (even in the late term) for predominantly non-life threatening reasons.
We’re in the same boat then Bob. I can understand where you’re coming from wrt your objections about the strength (or lack thereof) of the statistics that I’ve posted as it pertains to this topic. I appreciate your honest criticism of my argument even though for practical purposes we agree on the conclusion (late term abortions shouldn’t be allowed for non life threatening reasons). I think it speaks well of you.
Apos
I will accept that there are better ways of determining the reasons why women have late term abortions. I hope I didn’t suggest otherwise. However I would argue that the statistics I’ve posted, while not being absolute 100% proof (one extreme) are similarly not absolutely worthless (the other extreme) with regard to this topic. I believe there is some merit in the information gleaned from those cites and that they are supporting evidence (not primary evidence, supporting evidence) for other information posted.
Well Apos, I can understand that I may have come across that way. I believe I can accept criticism regarding my argument without needing to categorize posters as “the other side”. I realize that you haven’t said “anything conclusive to this issue” and rather that you’re pointing out what you believe to be a flawed argument. That’s all well and good as far as it goes but I would have liked it more if you had posted something more conclusive about the issue. How do you feel about it? Why? What is your supporting evidence? How did you arrive at your conclusion(s)?
I disagree that the ethical considerations are the same (though they may be for you). That is a topic for an entirely different thread altogether so I’ll just acknowledge it at this point and move on.
On this point then we’re largely in agreement.
This question is largely dependent on the “person status” of the fetus. If it can be agreed (big “If” I know) that a fetus at 9 months is, in fact, a person then the decision to prevent a non life threatening abortion in that case is no different then making the decision to prevent a person from murdering a new born.
Grim
This thread has been interesting and I appreciate all the stats that was brought into the discussion. It was an eye opener for me.
I have two questions that have been burning in my mind for a few years now and I wonder if anyone yet has a answer for them. They are: (1) Exactly what life threatening condition(s) could exist for the woman and (2) why are partial birth abortions performed exactly in the manner that they are? Everyone dances around it, but no one seems to discuss it clearly and frankly.
cj: You really surprised me the most in this thread.
istara: You forgot one in your list. At least one form of birth control has ALWAYS been available and it’s extremely effective.
And I have to add this comment since Apos brought it up. If a woman foresees risk to her health if she became pregnant, why would she not get her tubes tied? Wouldn’t that be the responsible thing to do? Just a thought. 
Burner, you’re post is ludicrous. (and so is whatever point you were trying to make. HA! You make me laugh)
quote:
“Adopting 3 children is a good start. Now if all of the other pro-lifers would follow the example then there wouldnt be anymore unwanted children.”
Yeah, that’s it, let’s just make the responsible people of the world “clean up” after everyone else. If that’s the way you would have it, it would probablly come with conditions (like sterelization for repeat shirkers). People “put down” not just puppies, but the adult dogs that would create them at alarming rates unchecked.
quote:
It’s a damn shame that no pro life group will step up and provide legitimate alternatives and help for the mom and child.
Wrong again. These groups have given of their time and money to help. Just because you don’t like the advice doesn’t mean it aint legitimate. It’s the Pro-choice groups that don’t have legitimate answers, only profit making ones.
quote:
“Let me say it again, if you arent the one carrying the baby then you should mind your own buisness. No one has the right to tell another person what to do with their own bodie.”
Hears a better one for ya,…
If it aint you producing every single beat of my heart…BACK OFF!
At least if their born and go through the Hell of an orphanage, they STILL have a chance (look at Dave from Wendy’s Fame - Orphan himself and BIG $$$$ supporter of programs).
People that hide behind the self serving quise of “it’s better off this way” disgust me.
WAIT! Let me change my position!
I AGREE TO PARTIAL BIRTH! MATTER OF FACT WHY STOP WITH BIRTH? LET’S MAKE IT WHERE WE CAN ABORT ANYBODY AT ANY AGE IF IT WORKS OUT BETTER FOR US AT ANY JUNCTURE!!!
“sorry son, your mother and I have decided to abort you. And I was really looking forward to teaching you how to drive NEXT WEEK TOO!!!”
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS PARTIAL MURDER. PERIOD.
If you make abortion illegal then you must accept responsibility for your actions. If you are unwilling to take in the unwanted child then you have no right to force another person to. A.K.A. put your money where your mouth is.
Advice you would do well to follow yourself. Asking for others to “back off” while going on the attack is the tactic of a coward. I also find it interesting that you would mention orphanages as being better than abortion. I guess you dont have what it takes to raise a child and would rather force the burden on someone else. Way to create a double standard.
In closeing I would just like to say that letting your temper get out of hand with outbursts like this cant be good for your health. Please try to remember that this is just the internet. A little bit of common courtesy goes a long ,long way towards makeing you seem like less of an extremist loony.
BURNER, near my house is an enormous public park, stretches on for acres and acres. It was established over 200 years ago and has served generations of local citizens who loved and appreciated it. On clear summer days it’s a true idyll. I like to go there with my friends and play football and rugby and also visit the local museums that reside therein.
The local council, however, wants to run a dual carriageway through it. They say it will help local businesses function more effectively by clearing traffic congestion on both sides of the park.
Naturally, I am opposed to the destruction of the park(and believe me, the dual carriageway will destroy it.) and I’ve made my views known to the council. However, that doesn’t mean I’m under any obligation to pay the local businesses the money they would lose by not having the dual carriage way ruin this area of outstanding national beauty.
In other words, it is totally logically consistent to object to the destruction of a think without being willing to pay for its upkeep. As such, your “You wanna save it? You pay for it” argument really does fall flat on its face. Hopefully you won’t try to pick it up.
Central park in NYC has several carrage ways, allong with roads and jogging paths and it is doing just fine. Also , “you wanna save , you pay for it” is totaly aplicable here. If buisness is already getting slow and the town wants to use this project to jump start it, and people oppose it, then if thoes buisnesses fold up you will pay by haveing to go to another town to aquire things that were once just up the street. It wil cost you more time and gas money to travel, whereas if you had let the plan go , you would have a renewed local prosperity and no need to travel.