Abortion debate (moved from 2012 election thread)

[Christenson]

There is a definite trend in the republicans/conservatives to go for the simplistic. This divide got started in the 1960s, when the democratic party decided to support civil rights, and all those opposed, especially in the south, were called "dixiecrats" and eventually became republicans.

The republicans are appealing to simplistic worldviews -- let's take abortion as an example. Republicans would like to make an abortion impossible, or difficult to obtain. This is a simple, appealing, and ineffective solution -- scientific evidence shows abortions happened anyway, even when they were illegal. The cognoscenti on the issue don't like abortion, but recognise that in the circumstances that lead to people wanting abortions, it is often the best choice -- and therefore want to do those things necessary to avoid the need. Those things necessary to avoid the need are anathema to conservatives: Recognising sexuality in all its flavors (especially gay conservative political figures), and providing both meaningful sex education and the meaningful opportunities that motivate people to want to not get pregnant.

You can call being homosexual a sin...but you are denying, as do the "creation scientists", a pile of scientific evidence that says humans have been being born that way for a long time. Again, it's a very simple, appealing thing to do...but doesn't solve the problem.

[Zeta-Flux]

Christenson,

Your post is full of non-sequiturs.

1. Just because a behavior happens when it is illegal does not mean we should make it legal.

2. Previous circumstances should not be an excuse for present behaviors.

I would submit for your consideration that nearly all abortions in America are abortions of convenience. From wikipedia:

Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[39]

25.9% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

Abortion is a disgusting practice. It involves the killing of innocent human life.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Abortion is a disgusting practice. It involves the killing of innocent human life.

The death penalty is a disgusting practice. It involves the killing of innocent human life.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by xilman

The death penalty is a disgusting practice. It involves the killing of innocent human life.

If anyone seriously doubts the truth of Paul's statement, I recommend browsing the following information:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I would submit for your consideration that nearly all abortions in America are abortions of convenience.

My guess is that you are calling all the primary reasons for choosing to have an abortion an "abortion of convenience" except the last three in that list from the study - risk to foetus. risk to mother, and possbly "other".

Another way of looking at it is that these abortions of convenience, without exception, are a result of a nasty mistake: an unintended, unwanted pregnancy. That is a very serious situation.

An abortion is also a very serious and unpleasant way of dealing with the situation. I don't believe any woman ever takes such a horrible decision lightly. The moral implications are huge whatever the pregnant woman decides to do, and she will have to live with her decision for the rest of her life.

Christenson is however right, in my opinion, that outlawing all abortions is not a realistic option.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by xilman

The death penalty is a disgusting practice. It involves the killing of innocent human life.

Which is why I'm only for the death penalty when: (1) the evidence is overwhelming, such as video recordings of the act with dna evidence,and possibly the person admits their crime and continues to pose a serious threat, etc..., (2) the crime is sufficiently serious, etc...

It still isn't perfect. I'd happily reconsider my position if it could be shown that the number of fatalities to the general populace would not noticeably change with the above rule in place

Now, back on topic.

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I don't believe any woman ever takes such a horrible decision lightly.

Any woman ever? Late term abortions are illegal in this country; but the number performed is non-zero. I would say that someone who performs such a late term abortion probably does not approach the decision "lightly", but that does not mean it is not unequivocally wrong (except possibly in a VERY small percentage of cases, such as a mother's life is in danger, and they are not near a hospital where it is just as safe to remove the baby alive as it is to kill it).

But who said anything about lightly? I said personal convenience. The self-reported statistics make it abundantly clear that almost all abortions in the US are done for personal convenience, even if not done "lightly".

Christenson is however right, in my opinion, that outlawing all abortions is not a realistic option.

Neither of you have yet to provide a compelling reason not to protect the life of the unborn child.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

But who said anything about lightly?

No-one. I was making my own point.

Who said anything about late-term? If all you are saying is that late-term abortions (say, after around 24 weeks from conception) should be illegal, then you and I are in broad agreement.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Neither of you have yet to provide a compelling reason not to protect the life of the unborn child.

Nor have you given a compelling reason to call a fetus a child. A fetus
is not a child.

This is one of the fundamental disagreements. Some people believe
that a fetus is not a child; others believe it is a child from the moment
the egg is fertilized.

There will never be a consensus on this topic. The two views are inherently
incompatible.

BTW, I do agree that late term abortions should be illegal unless the
life of the mother is at risk.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Nor have you given a compelling reason to call a fetus a child. A fetus
is not a child.

This is one of the fundamental disagreements. Some people believe
that a fetus is not a child; others believe it is a child from the moment
the egg is fertilized.

There will never be a consensus on this topic. The two views are inherently
incompatible.

BTW, I do agree that late term abortions should be illegal unless the
life of the mother is at risk.

Let's take the "abortion debate" to another thread.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

No-one. I was making my own point.

Fair enough. I hope I made it clear why, even if an act is not taken "lightly", that doesn't mean it was not taken for the wrong (or even trivial) reasons.

I also hope I made it clear that the evidence supports the case that almost all abortions are made for convenience.

Who said anything about late-term?

No-one. I was making my own point.

If all you are saying is that late-term abortions (say, after around 24 weeks from conception) should be illegal, then you and I are in broad agreement.

I did not only say that. I was was making my own point that your phrase "I don't believe any woman ever takes such a horrible decision lightly." doesn't really capture what is going on.

------

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Nor have you given a compelling reason to call a fetus a child. A fetus is not a child.

Here is my compelling reason to call it a child. It is one of the standard definitions, given on dictionary.com:

1.
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2.
a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3.
a baby or infant.
4.
a human fetus.
5.
a childish person: He's such a child about money.

If you wish to exclude a fetus from the nomenclature, make your case. I meant nothing more from calling a fetus a "child" than that that is what the dictionary word means.

This is one of the fundamental disagreements. Some people believe
that a fetus is not a child; others believe it is a child from the moment
the egg is fertilized.

There will never be a consensus on this topic. The two views are inherently
incompatible.

Fortunately, whether one calls a fetus a child is irrelevant. The relevant questions are: (1) when does a the fetus begin thinking? and (2) does the person whom a group of cells is becoming have a right to existence?

We may differ on the answer to #2, but science has been answering #1 for a long time, and it is nowhere as late as 24 weeks (which was Brian-E's cutoff date for abortions). The brain and spinal column start to develop around week 5.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I also hope I made it clear that the evidence supports the case that almost all abortions are made for convenience.

Yes. I agree with your point too, supported by the study whose results you provide, insofar as I think most women who choose to have an abortion could also possibly have chosen to have the baby and bring it up. However, I do object to the word "convenience". It smacks of a woman choosing to have an abortion as if she was choosing whether or not to have some luxury item, and that is a misrepresentation of the reality of the situation a woman finds herself in if she becomes unintentionally pregnant. That is the point that I was trying to make.