Abortion issue, your thought?

[stebo0728]

So had a family get together this weekend. My family, or most of it, falls into the right wing fundy baptist fringe of conservaties. Im not quite as far gone as that, although some of my views might qualify. But I was having a conversation with my grandfather, mainly about abortion, and he made an interesting point. Im not sure how accurate or logical it is, probably no way of knowing, but his point was that, if you were to rewrite history having all of the children over the past few decades who have been aborted, instead have them alive, and functioning in society, that perhaps our economy would not be in such a state as it is. There would be more people in the job force, hence social security would be in better shape.

Now thats the point he made, and Ill go ahead and give my thoughts. First, social security is a joke, we should be worrying about getting rid of it instead of fixing it, doing our best to get the funds back to people who have contributed of course, but shift back to private retirement savings. Secondly, Im pretty sure if you were to do an exhaustive study of the segment of our society who have had the abortions of the past few decades, you would most likely find that the abortions really saved us additional drain on the welfare system. Dont mistake that for me condoning the abortion, but I think trying to assume those children would have all made it to complete functionality in society is a bit far fetched. Finally, the problems with unemployment lead me to believe, more people in our population would mean right now our unemployment would have been even worse.

So in summary, it might be possible to say that in some way, the fact that we allow abortion in this nation may have saved our bacon, or at the very least, have prolonged our slow ride to the bottom. Thats not meant as a cold heartless statement, I value and respect life in all forms and loathe the whole idea of abortion, but the cold hard truth is, it may have been a positive influence to our economy.

[Cold_Zero]

Super Freakanomics attempts to make this point. That the Roe v. Wade decision and the proliferation of abortion in this country is what led to the drop in crime in the 1990's. Theorizing that starting in 1973, society killed off a large portion of the population that (at that time) would have then, come of (crime) age. I dont subscribe to this theory, but it appears that you are basically using the same argument. I kind of dismissed the argument as being very similar to Margaret Singer's and the Eugenic philophy's approach to society.
I am not going to touch this discussion with a 10 foot pole as it will go down hill, fast.
bud

[stebo0728]

I hear ya, well really the meat of the argument is one that is unsustainable, being that theres no tangible way to know how things would have progressed had other choices or decisions been made. Its purely a speculative thing.

[dusred]

Interesting theory, Stebo, but I have to disagree. Lets say 50% of aborted babies end up on welfare. And lets say 1 million babies are aborted per year - that's 500,000 on welfare. That's a drop in the bucket when you look at the vast numbers who are on welfare.

How about this theory: Because of abortions the populace is becoming comfortable with the thought of murder and therefore we have higher crime rates, including murder? Sure sure, most rationalize it with "life doesn't start til birth" and reason away the possibility that they are murdering a child but still, it is my belief that everyone who aborts knows damn good and well they are murdering babies.

Disclaimer: Just in case it's not obvious I'm not changing my mind in any way, shape, or form on the issue of abortion so don't even try to convince me (this is for you, IB). I admit 100% bias. Hope I wasn't unclear.

[IBCoupe]

Weren't anything worth addressing in this thread, Dus' - no need to send anything my way.

Abortion is an open-and-shut thing in my mind. It's not about what is an is not a life or what is and is not a person, it's not about the economics of it - it's about government power. Keep the government away from people's crotches, I say.

Debating what the world would be like without abortion is nothing more than mental masturbatlon.

[heliochrome85]

I am not going to touch this discussion with a 10 foot pole as it will go down hill, fast.

as someone who had to reveal to a woman that she was 4 weeks pregnant today, and then hear that she wanted to terminate it, ive had enough of the subject for the day.


on a side note, where in the yelling about big government and how we need the government out of our lives, is it logical for the GOP to campaign for the government to say what you can and can't do with your body?

[dusred]

. . . the government to say what you can and can't do with your body?

It's not your body you are killing. It's the body of the child inside you.

Just so you all know I'm pro choice. . . . I respect the choice of anyone who decides to have sex. Unless I've been informed wrong, it does take sex to make a child.

[heliochrome85]

maybe so, but thats something that religion has a part in determining. under islam, it is legal in the cases of rapes, or when there is danger to the mother. current discussions make that look like BABYKILLIN' since the major voices on the GOP are foaming at the mouth that abortions are happening at all. Like i said, where does the GOP and christian right justify their intrusion into the bedroom of america, despite their rabid campaign to undue all government intrusion into society?

[IBCoupe]

It's not your body you are killing. It's the body of the child inside you.

Even accepting this as true, what's the government's path to protecting the rights of the child without violating the rights of the citizen?

Your reasoning, if applied liberally, would have us outlawing pregnant women from extreme sports like bicycle-riding, on the basis of the risk to the unborn child. Where does the government get the authority to do that?

[dusred]

Abortion is outright killing a child with full knowledge and intent. Sports and that kind of thing are in a while different category because they aren't intentional (in most cases).

[srellim234]

My personal feeling is that abortions in the case of rape, incest, serious defects, threatened health of the mother, etc. should be allowed. In my eyes those all have serious issues attached to them that warrant the decision to abort. The use of abortion as another form of birth control shouldn't. At some point people must take responsibility for their actions. As such, citizens have freedom of choice prior to conception.

As science progresses, the ability of science to allow fetuses to survive to become viable human beings at earlier and earlier stages of development continues. No one (including the Supreme Court) should be allowed to arbitrarily put a date after conception defining when a fetus becomes a human being or it is "non-human being" that can be aborted as the date keeps shifting. First trimester? Second trimester? Third? Sorry. The only clearly defined time anymore is the point of conception. Use that as your definition for protecting the child over the rights of the citizen.

[heliochrome85]

Abortion is outright killing a child with full knowledge and intent. Sports and that kind of thing are in a while different category because they aren't intentional (in most cases).

and this is based on your religious view. my religious view says any sexual contact before marriage is a serious sin carrying a grave punishment. should we BAN premarital sex too?

[srellim234]

Which is why I base my statements regarding this issue on the advances in science and not on religion. The religious side of it needs to be kept out of the argument justifying the law. The scientific side, however, is pushing the viability of the fetus closer and closer to the "no abortions as a method of birth control" that many of the religious arguments are calling for. We're not able to accomplish conception to birth in an artificial environment yet but preemies are surviving at earlier and earlier stages with the advancements of medical science. Who knows how far and how fast that envelope will be pushed?

[heliochrome85]

Which is why I base my statements regarding this issue on the advances in science and not on religion. The religious side of it needs to be kept out of the argument justifying the law. The scientific side, however, is pushing the viability of the fetus closer and closer to the "no abortions as a method of birth control" that many of the religious arguments are calling for. We're not able to accomplish conception to birth in an artificial environment yet but preemies are surviving at earlier and earlier stages with the advancements of medical science. Who knows how far and how fast that envelope will be pushed?

you are right. the difference is that ulitmately society can not legislate morality. science is exploring this because people like the duggars regularly have vastly premature children and so there is a need to sustain infants born prematurly. i dont think that abortion will be replaced by premature fetus incubation.

[IBCoupe]

Abortion is outright killing a child with full knowledge and intent. Sports and that kind of thing are in a while different category because they aren't intentional (in most cases).

And how does the government actually get to enforce it? By violating individual sovereignty. The government should stay away from people's crotches. The government's jurisdiction should end where my skin begins.

I welcome all of you to live by your own individual moral codes, and even to proselytize to others (besides me, of course), but stay the frack away from my government.

[srellim234]

IB- then where you you draw that line? Making abortion legal through all three trimester until birth? I haven't specifically researched the court rulings but it's my understanding that a lot of the determination by the courts regarding the time limits for having abortions was based on how viable the fetus is at different stages. That is constantly changing.

[IBCoupe]

Until the kid's born, Srellim, you can legally have an abortion in the United States. Third trimester abortions are very rare, partly because there are so few doctors willing to perform them.

The Courts aren't drawing a line, because as long as it's inside the woman's body, it's out of the government's reach.

[IBCoupe]

I should add: the only restriction on abortion is because it is a medical procedure, it must be performed by or under the supervision of a trained medical doctor.

[heliochrome85]

I should add: the only restriction on abortion is because it is a medical procedure, it must be performed by or under the supervision of a trained medical doctor.

which most medical schools dont teach i might add.

[srellim234]

Thanks for clarifying that. For whatever reason I was under the impression that there had to be a medical necessity for late term abortions. It doesn't particularly change my mind about the subject but I will give it some more serious thought. I'm still inclined to make people responsible for their actions regarding other human beings and not allow it as birth control after conception but I'm always open to revisit my thoughts about an issue.

As someone already pointed out, there should be more education on the subject.

[mattblancarte]

Make abortion completely illegal. With one caveat, however...

Childbirth and parenting licenses will be required to mate and reproduce.

U mad?

[AppleBonker]

The Courts aren't drawing a line, because as long as it's inside the woman's body, it's out of the government's reach.

This. I'm in full agreement with IB. It doesn't matter if I agree or not. It just simply isn't my right to push my beliefs on you.

[stebo0728]

Wow this thread blew up over night.

Dus -
I'm feeling ya there, but lets make one distinction. You've labeled abortion murder. While abortion is INDEED killing, because no one can scientifically dispute that life begins at conception. You can argue whether its valued human life at that point perhaps, but its is life none the less. The distinction comes in, that murder is UNcondoned killing. Currently we condone (according to law) aborting unborn children. We have all sorts of condoned killing, capital punishment for example, war time killing, self defense killing. Much of the other side does like to try and ignore the fact that life is being terminated, and this is disingenuous. To properly proceed in the debate, we need to properly frame the argument. Abortion is killing, do we want it to be a condoned form is the question at hand.

IB -
I applaud your notice of the issue as being an intersection of rights. This indeed acknowledges that the fetus does indeed have rights that are bing abridged, but the argument must abridge someone's rights, the question is who's to abridge. But in my opinion, the fact that there is no clear cut road out without abridging someones right to life or liberty, then this is grounds to require the law to just stay out of it all together.

As far as partial birth abortion goes, I abhor it, its ghastly and anyone with half a conscience who was forced to watch a video of the procedure as part of their consideration would no doubt have second thoughts. At least when considering it as a birth control measure, when fear of life or limb is involved it ups the ante a bit. Ive seen statistics that hint toward this measure as having no real impact on the life or death status of the mother. Its still extremely risky. But even so, I just have a hard time placing myself in a hospital room with a possibly dying person, with what they see as a possible route to survival, whether it truely is or not, and telling them "NO, you cant do it".

I do however love the retribution of nature, in that many women who abort early in life, have one hell of a time having a child later. I think thats only fair of nature, dont you?

And just for what its worth, when I think of abortion in the frame of my religion, perhaps it is a sin, but that deals with the mother, of whom im not much concerned, or not as much anyway, but my belief tells me that the fate of the unborn child eternally is a bright one. Im sure no one cares, and Im not putting it out there for debate, just throwing it in the air.

[Crazyirish]

A few years ago someone brought some pro-life materials into my shop for printing. I don't know their source or level of accuracy, but they stated that 40 million abortions had been performed in the US since the procedure became available.

Now I'm not arguing for or against (atm), but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the US would be better off with 40 million more people. And no offense to anyone's grandpa, but I'm pretty sure the top 5 economists in the world couldn't hazard any more than an educated guess as to what economic effect that population difference would make today.

Of course I just hear Phil Collins singing Land of Confusion.

[Cold_Zero]

It is kind of ironic that both sides like to use the Federal government to exact their social will on others. The only difference between left and right, Democrat and Republican, Pro Lifer or Pro Choicer is just the cause. It is all the same tatic.

[IBCoupe]

IB -
I applaud your notice of the issue as being an intersection of rights. This indeed acknowledges that the fetus does indeed have rights that are bing abridged, but the argument must abridge someone's rights, the question is who's to abridge. But in my opinion, the fact that there is no clear cut road out without abridging someones right to life or liberty, then this is grounds to require the law to just stay out of it all together.

I'm not saying that I agree that there are protected rights assigned to the fetus - if nothing else, you're not an American citizen until you're born here, right? But, as you might imagine, that's purely an academic discussion, and doesn't factor into my policy stance.

The reason why I frame the argument the way I do is because I'm unwilling to frame the argument in any way that might distort one side's perception of their own arguments. Too often we lie about our opposition to make ourselves feel better, when, really, our arguments should be strong enough to convince us on their own, not as a choice between two evils. Pro-choice people see themselves as protecting a woman's autonomy, and anti-abortion (this seems a far more honest label; I don't like the use of "pro-life") people see themselves as protecting the rights of fetuses. Framing the discussion as anything other than a battle between freedom from government meddling and a "right" to be carried to term and be born is dishonest, in my opinion.

And I think you and I agree completely: requiring that the government stay out of it altogether means letting people do their own thing. Maybe you don't like government tax credits for health insurance, and would rather see a simpler system that had no deductions, and lower rates. But given that we don't have that system, I think there should be room enough for us to agree that the government shouldn't be penalizing you for choosing certain additional coverage.

[Cold_Zero]

But that is exactly what the government has gotten into. By invoking their job to regulate interstate commerce (because a female can cross a state border to have an abortion performed) they step in to regulate activity. Why can't we let the states handle this matter?

[IBCoupe]

I don't think that's the reasoning used to overturn antiabortion laws, but I'll get back to you on that one.

EDIT:
Supreme Court in Roe found:
1. There's a fundamental right to privacy.
2. That fundamental right to privacy is broad enough to extend to a woman's decision to terminate or not terminate her pregnancy.
3. Fundamental rights may only be violated where there is a compelling State interest, and the legislation that does so must be drawn narrowly in order to only address the State interest.
4. State laws that criminalize the act of abortion are unconstitutional denials of due process rights.

Roe did stipulate that the right to an abortion is not unlimited after the point of viability, so I must amend my previous comments: what you're allowed to do probably varies from State to State. In 2007, a Nebraska law was held up by a 5-4 decision as constitutional, where it prohibited doctors from performing a certain type of partial-birth abortion. Sorry for giving you bad information, Srellim; the Courts are leaving it up to States to put limitations, but they still seem unwilling to draw an explicit line.

[C-Kwik]

While abortion is INDEED killing, because no one can scientifically dispute that life begins at conception.

I won't do so unless you really want me to, but I can. Don't make such a poor assumption.

Or such a poor sentence.

[stebo0728]

While abortion is INDEED killing, because no one can scientifically dispute that life begins at conception.

I won't do so unless you really want me to, but I can. Don't make such a poor assumption.

Or such a poor sentence.

Oh, do proceed. But please understand I did make the distinction that you could argue whether the fetus is valuable as human life, but there can be no denying that it is life none the less. I would love to hear your reasoning to the contrary.