# "Party of Death" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810 "2006-06-15T15:35:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/61 "2006-06-18T00:37:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > In my view when we get to the point in the pregnancy where the unborn child might survive a premature delivery or C section I have a hard time seeing abortion as an acceptable option. So do I, but according to the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm): > [@](#): > > In 2002, for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas), 59% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at \<8 weeks’ gestation and 87% at \<13 weeks (Table 6). Overall (42 reporting areas), 27% of abortions were known to have been performed at \<6 weeks’ gestation, 17% at 7 weeks, and 15% at 8 weeks (Table 7). **Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks’ gestation: 4.0% at 16–20 weeks and 1.4% at \>21 weeks.** Bolding mine. 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, which is halfway through gestation. I think (I’m sure someone here knows better) that fetal viability starts at about 28 weeks. Although statistics aren’t provided, I’d imagine that means that .75% or fewer of abortions occur after the point of fetal viability. It’s incredibly rare, and I would venture to say almost always medically necessary. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/62 "2006-06-18T00:49:15Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > …The statistics given didn’t indicate how many more people might adopt if there were babies available. Are you under the impression that there is a shortage of adoptable children? According to [this government report](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/waiting2003.htm), the number of children under 16 in state foster care systems alone still waiting for adoption by the end of September 2000 was 130,010. That doesn’t include however many may reside in non-foster-care situations. The fairly low number of adoptions that year is not due to a lack of children. Everyone deemed fit (loaded topic right there) who was of a mind to complete the process completed it, and there were at least as many kids left over as found homes. The number of adoptions might increase if same-sex couples wishing to adopt were smiled upon in more jurisdictions, if that’s acceptable. In my previous post I meant to suggest that 100% of the women who had abortions in 2000 wanted to end the pregnancy, not ncessarily that they disliked the idea of children in general. They may have found themselves wanting this because: a) they didn’t think they had the resources to raise the child b) they didn’t think they could be a good parent c) they wished to hide the pregnancy from someone whose reaction they feared d) they didn’t want to endure pregnancy in general e) they didn’t want to bear the expense of the child f) they had as many children as they wanted g) they had it on good information that the pregnancy would result in great and permanent harm to themselves or their baby h) they did not wish to bear the child of their rapist i) they could not bear giving up a child for adoption or a variety of other reasons. For whatever reason, at the time the choice was made, they wanted the abortion more than they wanted the child. You backed off your comment that most of these women would have fallen into category A. I agree, I think the numbers are nowhere near as high as you suggest. I also think women are smart enough to decide if they want a pregnancy to come to term, which is why God decided to place the responsibility of pregnancy in their hands. A lot of Democrats do too, and thus they get labeled the “Party of Death”. While I find “Abortion Alternative” counseling centers to be disingenuous by their very nature, I applaud you for at least having the guts, unlike a great many of your fellow pro-lifers, to put your money where your mouth is by doing something you believe will alleviate the problems these women face. Still, I would hesitate to risk potentially quintupling the population of kids with no parents on the dream that their plight will raise the number of adoptions by an unprecedented rate. What right have we to bring that many children into a world that does not, by and large, want them, based on a childish wish that it suddenly will? And how many women who get talked into the idea that they can afford a child and handle parenthood find out they were wrong, or that they do not in fact have love for their children? Is that right to do to the children? To the society that must deal with the fallout of their unloved existence? There are not plenty of families out there waiting to adopt children whose parents changed their minds about abortion. The world is not some welcoming wonderful place if only these Moms would refrain from ending their pregnancies. But this is too much for the Republican lobby to accept, so they come up with adorable epithets like “Party of Death”. What crap. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/63 "2006-06-18T01:00:58Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I actually thought it was a little weak, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the pro-life position. For example, when you say there is a question as to the personhood of embryos, that may be true for some people, but for others, there is NO question about this…they absolutely consider embryos to be persons. And although the sanctity of life is a major component of the pro-life position, a war could be considered neceesary to self-defense, which is acceptable to many pro-lifers. Whether or not this particular war is justified is a different issue, but you have to assume that if a pro-lifer is for the war, then they rightly or wrongly feel the war is justified for self-defense. You may argue that a person might be stupid or ill-informed if they believe the war is justified (I wouldn’t argue this, but you might), but that doesn’t mean that they are hypocritical. I don’t think it’s a matter of misunderstanding the pro life position. It’s disagreeing with it. If a person doesn’t see embryos as people but see civilians in a war as people then they aren’t contradicting their beliefs to not support the war but support stem cell research. I understand {even if I don’t agree} that a pro life person sees an embryo or fetus as a person. So let’s say that civilians in a war are equal to but not greater than embryos. The issue becomes if the argument is that collateral damage in the war on terror is perfectly acceptable then why isn’t similar collateral damage in the war against certain disease equally acceptable? I understand what you’re saying. It’s _possible_ in some situations for a pro life person to support a war they see as necessary and still be against abortion or stem cell research. I might agree if we were talking about Hitler and WWII. We’re not and the argument is about the war in Iraq with all it’s exposed lies and empty rhetoric in an attempt to justify it. That’s the specific argument. I can’t understand how anyone can be pro life and honestly look at the details and available information about this war and support it. IMHO {that’s honest opinion rather than humble} no one can claim to revere the sanctity of life and still support this war {there is no neutral} without being a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/64 "2006-06-18T01:21:30Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > So do I, but according to the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm): > > Bolding mine. 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, which is halfway through gestation. I think (I’m sure someone here knows better) that fetal viability starts at about 28 weeks. Although statistics aren’t provided, I’d imagine that means that .75% or fewer of abortions occur after the point of fetal viability. It’s incredibly rare, and I would venture to say almost always medically necessary. Thank you for the info. There’s some arguement about this. Some prolifers want to indicate that abortions after 28 weeks are pretty common. It doesn’t seem like realistic statistics should be that hard to find. feeling the way I do I hope your numbers are much closer to the truth. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/65 "2006-06-18T01:25:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I wouldn’t argue that my use of the word “most” might be overstating it. I really don’t know if it is most, but I wouldn’t necessarily doubt that this is the case, either. Perhaps the word “many” might be more accurate. However, this is a little beside the point anyway. I was just trying to show how flawed the argument is that the # of adoptions is somehow a valid indicator of how dedicated pro-lifers are to unwanted babies. In addition, if more women had babies who truly did not want the babies, and therefore gave them up for adoption vs. aborting them, there might be a lot more adoptions. The statistics given didn’t indicate how many more people might adopt if there were babies available. I just want to say I appreciate what you’ve offered in your posts. It is good food for thought. I admire that you are actually taking action. Since we’ve discussed this, have you met any liberals who actually participate in your work? Is the nature of your organization such that liberals would not know about it or be invited to help out? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/66 "2006-06-18T01:31:20Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > . > > While I find “Abortion Alternative” counseling centers to be disingenuous by their very nature, I applaud you for at least having the guts, unlike a great many of your fellow pro-lifers, to put your money where your mouth is by doing something you believe will alleviate the problems these women face. > > Still, I would hesitate to risk potentially quintupling the population of kids with no parents on the dream that their plight will raise the number of adoptions by an unprecedented rate. What right have we to bring that many children into a world that does not, by and large, want them, based on a childish wish that it suddenly will? > > And how many women who get talked into the idea that they can afford a child and handle parenthood find out they were wrong, or that they do not in fact have love for their children? Is that right to do to the children? To the society that must deal with the fallout of their unloved existence? > > There are not plenty of families out there waiting to adopt children whose parents changed their minds about abortion. The world is not some welcoming wonderful place if only these Moms would refrain from ending their pregnancies. But this is too much for the Republican lobby to accept, so they come up with adorable epithets like “Party of Death”. > > What crap. I appreciate your posts. They are also good food for thought. I’d point out that even “unwanted” children have the potential to be a huge boon to the world, sometimes _because_ they have endured some hard times. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/67 "2006-06-18T02:28:02Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That’s an improvement. > > You did however respond to my post , which made the same point you just agreed with, with a statement about the myth of pro lifers not helping. Did you misunderstand my post or were you merely clarifying just in case somebody thought that? > > Then you stated that I didn’t have a cite for a position I never held and never said, Care to clarify that? Just a simple apology would do. > > I realize you never said no liberals participate which is why I asked you a question rather than assume your position. > > FWIW I agree that pro choice people who claim to care so much should also be involved in these programs. Personally, I don’t think the choice should be taken away in most cases but I think our society should offer every assistance it can to make abortion the last choice. I actually composed an apology for you, and never noticed that it didn’t get posted (don’t know what happened to it…lost in cyperspace, I suppose…) Didn’t mean for you to think that this other post was meant to be your apology. I am sorry I misrepresented your postition. I was only trying to use it as an analogy…I didn’t mean that NO liberals were involved in assistance programs any more than you meant that NO conservatives were involved. I used your post to make a point to another poster, and I do apologize for that. In regards to your last paragraph here, I completely agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/68 "2006-06-18T03:01:28Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > Are you under the impression that there is a shortage of adoptable children? No, I am under the impression that there is a shortage of adoptable _babies_. > [@](#): > > In my previous post I meant to suggest that 100% of the women who had abortions in 2000 wanted to end the pregnancy, not ncessarily that they disliked the idea of children in general. They may have found themselves wanting this because: I agree that there are many women who simply choose to have an abortion. Some of your listed circumstances probably apply to such women, others do not… > [@](#): > > a) they didn’t think they had the resources to raise the child I guess we covered this one. > [@](#): > > b) they didn’t think they could be a good parent Oftentimes due to reason A that you mention. In addition, many people simply need some support to become good parents, and they desire that support. > [@](#): > > c) they wished to hide the pregnancy from someone whose reaction they feared Organizations like the one I’m involved with help with this, as well. If the woman has someone in her life she fears, she needs to be helped with this situation, not just the pregnancy. > [@](#): > > d) they didn’t want to endure pregnancy in general If the woman values the baby, they will generally not have a problem “enduring” the pregnancy (again, this is based on my experience). If she doesn’t value the baby, she falls into the group of people who don’t consider any option BUT abortion. > [@](#): > > e) they didn’t want to bear the expense of the child This can usually be grouped, in my experience, with your category A. > [@](#): > > f) they had as many children as they wanted Another person who is probably considering abortion as their only option, but not necessarily. Some of these women also fall into category A. > [@](#): > > g) they had it on good information that the pregnancy would result in great and permanent harm to themselves or their baby A reasonably valid reason to desire an abortion > [@](#): > > h) they did not wish to bear the child of their rapist Another valid reason > [@](#): > > i) they could not bear giving up a child for adoption As an adopted person, his is my all-time most despised justification for abortion. > [@](#): > > or a variety of other reasons. For whatever reason, at the time the choice was made, they wanted the abortion more than they wanted the child > > You backed off your comment that most of these women would have fallen into category A. I agree, I think the numbers are nowhere near as high as you suggest. I also think women are smart enough to decide if they want a pregnancy to come to term, which is why God decided to place the responsibility of pregnancy in their hands. A lot of Democrats do too, and thus they get labeled the “Party of Death”. I think the numbers are higher than you imagine. > [@](#): > > While I find “Abortion Alternative” counseling centers to be disingenuous by their very nature, I applaud you for at least having the guts, unlike a great many of your fellow pro-lifers, to put your money where your mouth is by doing something you believe will alleviate the problems these women face. First of all, it is pretty insulting to call what I do disingenuous. We don’t call ourselves an “abortion alternative” center. We just help women who want to have their babies. I appreciate your applauding my guts, but it really has nothing to do with that. We recognize that many women love & want to keep their babies. We want to help with that. That’s all. > [@](#): > > Still, I would hesitate to risk potentially quintupling the population of kids with no parents on the dream that their plight will raise the number of adoptions by an unprecedented rate. What right have we to bring that many children into a world that does not, by and large, want them, based on a childish wish that it suddenly will? That isn’t exactly what I said. > [@](#): > > And how many women who get talked into the idea that they can afford a child and handle parenthood find out they were wrong, or that they do not in fact have love for their children? Is that right to do to the children? To the society that must deal with the fallout of their unloved existence? First of all, no one talks anyone into anything. We help women who want an alternative to abortion. These women love their babies, believe me. What they want more than anything is to get some help. I feel pretty confident in asserting that they would be insulted at the implication that they were convinced that they should love their children, or that being poor means that they somehow aren’t entitled to love and want their children. > [@](#): > > There are not plenty of families out there waiting to adopt children whose parents changed their minds about abortion. The world is not some welcoming wonderful place if only these Moms would refrain from ending their pregnancies. But this is too much for the Republican lobby to accept, so they come up with adorable epithets like “Party of Death”. There are a lot of families who want to do this. But my point was that there are many ways to help mothers with unplanned pregancies. Adoption is, in my opinion, a minor one. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/69 "2006-06-18T03:05:41Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s a matter of misunderstanding the pro life position. It’s disagreeing with it. If a person doesn’t see embryos as people but see civilians in a war as people then they aren’t contradicting their beliefs to not support the war but support stem cell research. It has nothing to do with not seeing civilians in a war as people…it has to do with having a reasonable justification for killing those people. > [@](#): > > I understand {even if I don’t agree} that a pro life person sees an embryo or fetus as a person. So let’s say that civilians in a war are equal to but not greater than embryos. The issue becomes if the argument is that collateral damage in the war on terror is perfectly acceptable then why isn’t similar collateral damage in the war against certain disease equally acceptable? Because in a war, much more may be at stake than in fighting disease. > [@](#): > > I understand what you’re saying. It’s _possible_ in some situations for a pro life person to support a war they see as necessary and still be against abortion or stem cell research. I might agree if we were talking about Hitler and WWII. We’re not and the argument is about the war in Iraq with all it’s exposed lies and empty rhetoric in an attempt to justify it. That’s the specific argument. I can’t understand how anyone can be pro life and honestly look at the details and available information about this war and support it. IMHO {that’s honest opinion rather than humble} no one can claim to revere the sanctity of life and still support this war {there is no neutral} without being a hypocrite. That is your honest opinion. Not everyone holds it. Not everyone believes there are “exposed lies.” Not everyone believes the rhetoric is empty. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/70 "2006-06-18T03:15:31Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] > [@](#): > > I just want to say I appreciate what you’ve offered in your posts. It is good food for thought. I admire that you are actually taking action. I appreciate your saying so. > [@](#): > > Since we’ve discussed this, have you met any liberals who actually participate in your work? > > Is the nature of your organization such that liberals would not know about it or be invited to help out? Typically, it is conservative pro-life people who participate. It is a Catholic organization that I became involved in through my parish. Interestingly, I live in a very, very (VERY!) liberal community, and there are a lot of liberals in my parish. They would certainly be welcome to be involved, and we regularly request volunteers through the parish bulletin/newsletter, but it seems that this does not tend to be a pet project for them, as it is for us very pro-life folks. I certainly would not assume that no liberals participate in this type of program, but in my parish, at least, there are other types of organizations that they seem to be more passionate about. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/71 "2006-06-18T03:20:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I appreciate your posts. They are also good food for thought. > > I’d point out that even “unwanted” children have the potential to be a huge boon to the world, sometimes _because_ they have endured some hard times. I’m glad you said this. The overall point I have been trying to make is that the term “unwanted” is not exactly black & white. There are many reasons a child may be unwanted, and having no feelings whatsoever for that child may very well be a minor factor. Women who are poor or otherwise have troubles in their lives are just as entitled to love & cherish their children as anyone else, and it is our duty to help these mothers and children. And even the children who are truly unwanted by their mothers have the right to be appreciated by the rest of society as being worthwhile human beings. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/72 "2006-06-18T04:32:12Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > For example, when you say there is a question as to the personhood of embryos, that may be true for some people, but for others, there is NO question about this…they absolutely consider embryos to be persons. And although the sanctity of life is a major component of the pro-life position, a war could be considered neceesary to self-defense, which is acceptable to many pro-lifers. I would wager that the majority of women who have an abortion consider it self-defense. Why isn’t that acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/73 "2006-06-18T06:02:56Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, I am under the impression that there is a shortage of adoptable _babies_… PLease. At least some of the unadopted non-babies became such because they were unadopted babies. The shortage is not with the adoptees, but with the adoptors. Knowledge of an increase in babies available might increase the number of adoptions, but the reports I linked to suggest not much. Certainly not enough should you be wrong about how many of the 850,000 that would be on hand if there were no legal access to abortion. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I agree that there are many women who simply choose to have an abortion. Some of your listed circumstances probably apply to such women, others do not… > > \ > > …I think the numbers are higher than you imagine. Again, based on what, other than anecdotal evidence? > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > First of all, it is pretty insulting to call what I do disingenuous. We don’t call ourselves an “abortion alternative” center. We just help women who want to have their babies. I appreciate your applauding my guts, but it really has nothing to do with that. We recognize that many women love & want to keep their babies. We want to help with that. That’s all… > > …That isn’t exactly what I said… > > …First of all, no one talks anyone into anything. We help women who want an alternative to abortion. These women love their babies, believe me. What they want more than anything is to get some help. I feel pretty confident in asserting that they would be insulted at the implication that they were convinced that they should love their children, or that being poor means that they somehow aren’t entitled to love and want their children. I apologize. I was addressing not only your descriptions of your own work but also other practices and opinionsI am aware of, and I muddled everything together and came off as attacking a strawman. Not my intention, sorry. There are certainly women who want to raise their own children but are not privy to resources available to them, and anyone who provides that access is doing good work. It is, after all, all about increasing the choices available to the women, IMO. By “guts” I mean the courage of your convictions. I don’t see 83 million people doing the work you do, just as only a minute handful are actually stepping up to adopt the babies they demand must come into the world. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > There are a lot of families who want to do this… [But not enough](http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm). > [@](#): > > Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) included responses of more than 10,000 women who were interviewed about topics that included adoption. Analysis of the data led researchers to the following conclusions (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999): > > ``` > *In 1995 there were nearly 10 million ever-married American women ages 18 to 44 who had ever considered adoption, and this number amounted to more than one-fourth (26.4 percent) of all ever-married women. > *About 16 percent of those who had considered adoption (4 percent of the total of ever-married women), or 1.6 million women, had ever taken concrete steps toward adoption; this percentage may represent those seeking to adopt. > *Only 31 percent of those who had taken concrete steps (1.3 percent of the total of ever-married women), or 487,000 women, had ever completed an adoption. > > ``` Even if all the abortions in 2000 had not happened, and half the mothers in those situations kept their kids, you still end up with over a half million kids a year in need of families. Let’s say news of the plight of these children doubles the adoption rate for babies. That still leaves a quarter million kids unadopted at the end of each year, double what it seems to be now. The unadopted babies in the group grow up to be unadopted (and unlikely to be adopted) older children. And the sort of government that’s going to enforce a ban on abortion is not the same one that is going to fund the social services necessary to maintain this double-burdened system. Hence the Republicans are the “Party of Squalor, Neglect and Abuse”. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/74 "2006-06-18T07:39:38Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Yeah, the counterargument is absurdly simple. Fetuses aren’t people. They might someday become people, but they’re not “unpersons” or “parapersons” or anything else you want to call them. They’re not persons of any stripe. “Unpersons” is a word he uses to echo the way tyrannical regimes have declared that people they disagree with politically are not human, when everybody knows they really are human. But not everybody knows that fetuses are human; rather, most of us know just the opposite. This, ladies and gentlemen is the crux of the entire dispute. If you think that fetuses are not human, you may do with them as you wish. If you believe that fetuses are human, they deserve protection from those able to give it, no matter how they were conceived. A bit from the Bible, and a bit from DNA, I can’t see my way clear to see fetuses as “not people”. What else are they, then? You can’t distinguish genetically between them and us. “Not developed” in my mind is equivalent to “let’s kill the retarded”. Yes, I realize that there will be a dogpile on this post, since the general trend on this board is toward a bit of a leftist tilt (please don’t try to deny it, just go with it). But my opinion is not made from popular sentiment, and there you have it. I would appreciate it, though, if for ONCE, I could not be demonized for this idea (unfortunately, I’m not kidding, much). ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/75 "2006-06-18T07:42:42Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > Even if all the abortions in 2000 had not happened, and half the mothers in those situations kept their kids, you still end up with over a half million kids a year in need of families. Let’s say news of the plight of these children doubles the adoption rate for babies. That still leaves a quarter million kids unadopted at the end of each year, double what it seems to be now. The unadopted babies in the group grow up to be unadopted (and unlikely to be adopted) older children. > > And the sort of government that’s going to enforce a ban on abortion is not the same one that is going to fund the social services necessary to maintain this double-burdened system. Hence the Republicans are the “Party of Squalor, Neglect and Abuse”. And I have to reply that this is to the the horrible, horrible equivalency of “unwanted” (according to whom?) and “should be dead”. Jocelyn Elders was apparently a horrible person. No, I’m not backing down from that. Google her statements on Down’s Syndrom kids if you like. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/76 "2006-06-18T07:59:47Z")
Conservatives, in my view, tend to have less sympathy for other life forms (PETA and animal rights activists gets harassed on talk radio) and the life of humans in other nations than liberals generally do. So I don’t really feel either party has any claims to caring about life or categorizing life into levels of worth. A stereotypical conservative may give more value to an unborn American life than a stereotypical liberal would, but they will also give less value to an African life than the liberal would. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/77 "2006-06-18T08:08:29Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Conservatives, in my view, tend to have less sympathy for other life forms (PETA and animal rights activists gets harassed on talk radio) and the life of humans in other nations than liberals generally do. So I don’t really feel either party has any claims to caring about life or categorizing life into levels of worth. A stereotypical conservative may give more value to an unborn American life than a stereotypical liberal would, but they will also give less value to an African life than the liberal would. Which isn’t meant to denounce conservatives, just to point out that the idea that conservatism is inherietly pro-life is not true. There are many factors that go into whether life is considered worth it. Nationality viability outside the womb genetic similiarity (the less genetically similiar to humans, the less your life is worth) actions (evil people have less value) And people have opinions all over the board on this. I’ve heard conservatives denounce abortion and the millions of lives that are lost while saying Bush’s 3 billion in AIDS drugs to africa which will save millions of lives was a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/78 "2006-06-18T11:21:42Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I am sorry I misrepresented your postition. I was only trying to use it as an analogy…I didn’t mean that NO liberals were involved in assistance programs any more than you meant that NO conservatives were involved. I used your post to make a point to another poster, and I do apologize for that. > > In regards to your last paragraph here, I completely agree with you. Apology accepted. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/79 "2006-06-18T11:49:56Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It has nothing to do with not seeing civilians in a war as people…it has to do with having a reasonable justification for killing those people. I’m aware of this. I’m just pointing out that for most pro choice there is no contradiction of thier own beliefs. You’re saying that’s also true of pro life supporters but in this case I’m having a hard time seeing it. > [@](#): > > Because in a war, much more may be at stake than in fighting disease. Really? I don’t think so. Saving lives now and far into the future. Tremendously improving the quaulity of life for generations to come, which pretty easily equates to the freedom word that gets tossed around so much. I think the analogy is more equal than you think. > [@](#): > > That is your honest opinion. Not everyone holds it. Not everyone believes there are “exposed lies.” Not everyone believes the rhetoric is empty. It’s an opinion I’ve held since before we went to Iraq. Now it seems to be an opinion of most of the country. I see your point that if someone\* sincerely\* holds that opinion they are not being a hypocryte. At this point I think they are not seeing the truth either, either by choice or neglect. If we knew that most Iraqi citizens wanted us out of their country would we still be justified in staying? This is an interesting issue for me. Perhaps it deserves another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/80 "2006-06-18T11:55:45Z")
Reasons for abortions. > **[3711005.pdf](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf)** > > 257.22 KB pdf file 74% it would interfere with work, education or ability to care for dependents 73% cannot afford the baby right now 48% have relationship problems or do not want to be a single mother 40% said they were done having kids and had enough 33%ish said they were too young to have kids Finances does seem to be the big reason though. That and the added responsibility. Here is the Stewart/Ramesh interview. I’ve seen it before and Ramesh seemed too intimidated to put up much of an argument. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRXN1AGFwbA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRXN1AGFwbA) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=5)