Abortion

Originally posted by TrixieBella
i understand, but i think that with keeping abotion legal, it's either all or nothing. you can say, abortions are only legal to those with pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, or health problems. but then, i can see a lot of 15 year old girls crying rape unfairly just to get an abortion. abortions for everyone, or abortions for no one.

I disagree, If abortion was made legal with a few excecption yes it would get abused, however there could be a law enacted that would require an investigation as to the validity of the case and that would cut down on the number of false reports. Even so I think even if it saved one life a year it would be worth it, that person could have been you.

Originally posted by TrixieBella
no, of course not. abortions should be well-thought out. they should be a last resort. (however, a "breaking point" is a highly personal thing). but it's like what i said above about all or none. there's isn't a way to set limits on who should get one. and if there were limits, people would find ways around them.

Again - you going to the issue of legality.

No one is drawing a bright line across which none shall pass.

I think you and I essentially have agreed.

Keep it legal and safe. Do what you can to avoid ever having to be faced with the decision. If faced with the situation - weigh all options and try to avoid the one that denies a child the opportunity to have life.

Originally posted by TrixieBella
i've got an amazing amount of moral sense when it comes to abortions.

But your previous comments said you didn't have a moral sense of abortion being either right or wrong.

You now retract that comment or did you mean other in the previous statement?

Originally posted by TrixieBella
but all of my sentiment and emotion doens't mean anything when it comes to the legality of it all, does it?

one's emotional reaction to a law is not relevent to the law - correct. It is however entirely relevent to your opinion of that law - and you are entitled to both - the emotional reaction and the opinion and each are quite valid.

Originally posted by TrixieBella
and if abortion is made illegal, then providing one will become a criminal act. and recieving one will be a criminal act.

I am unaware of anyone who advocates this position who is taken seriously. There are many who wish abortion did not happen - I wish it didn't happen. But there are few who would make the act criminal - and I doubt any in position of legislative power who would ever vote to do so. There's a pretty infamous exchange on Hardball where Dennis Kucinich claimed such people existed in the Congress - he got pressed hard to name one - Matthews wouldn't let him make the allegation without naming a name - Kucinich eventually did - the guy he named was on Hardball the next night claiming the charge was absurd. The point of this is that the most conservative guy Kucinich could name would not make abortion a criminal act. So- there is going to be no return to coat hangers in back alleys. many conservatives - like myself - believe in keeping abortion safe and legal - many of us base the rational on the notion of privacy. To say it in few and strong words....it is absolutely no goddamn business of the government to know what is or what is not going on inside our bodies. This does not mean we shouldn't be saddened at the termination of a potentially wonderful life beofer it happens.

Again - I think we pretty much agree here.

No one is saying one must have a justifucation for having an abortion. Let me say it clearly - no justification is needed - nor should one ever be required - nor does it seem likely that one will ever be.

Originally posted by TrixieBella
so if you need one, then your chances of ending up with some type of disease from dirty instruments, some type of internal injury or scarring from unskilled "doctors", and some jail time are looking pretty good.

This part again goes to an argument that hasn't been made.

no one is advocating crimninalizing abortion.


OK - here comes the big caveat soap box part - and it is probably better served by starting a new thread but.......


Partial birth abortion late term...........

In the ninth month, partially delivering a baby to kill it is more likely to save the mother than completely delivering the baby how?

It seems to me that the extra step actually increases the likelihood that the mother will die.

I do find this procedure to be difficult to accept - in legal terms and in moral terms.

This is nothing more than killing a baby when all the other options are considered - the mother still has to deliver the baby - dead or alive - if she doesn't want it - why deny eager adoptive parent the chance to give that child a life?

hoppin off soap box

Originally posted by Dj Bastard Mike
I disagree, If abortion was made legal with a few excecption yes it would get abused, however there could be a law enacted that would require an investigation as to the validity of the case and that would cut down on the number of false reports. Even so I think even if it saved one life a year it would be worth it, that person could have been you.

Good grief man...you're advocating an investigation as to whether the gov't will permit an abortion?

The next step in that line of reasoning is in determining when the gov't will permit the mother TO HAVE the child.

<shaking head walking away bewildered>


It is no busines of the gov't to say who may have children or who may not and when.




Do I sound like a screaming liberal some times - admittedly - on some few specific issues - but still?

Originally posted by xiannaix
Good grief man...you're advocating an investigation as to whether the gov't will permit an abortion?

The next step in that line of reasoning is in determining when the gov't will permit the mother TO HAVE the child.

<shaking head walking away bewildered>


It is no busines of the gov't to say who may have children or who may not and when.




Do I sound like a screaming liberal some times - admittedly - on some few specific issues - but still?

I"m sure that does sound absurd, but think about this; so so so many people are having kids that they should not have, people who can't afford one kid are having 5. People who can't provide anything are having children and some are just aborting them like disposable cameras. If these people were not allowed to have childen then we could nip the problem in the bud. This is just my beliefs and I don't expect anyone to agree but i thin k the govt. should be able to make certain people sterile and unable to produce young. I'm sorry but theres alot of stupid fucking peole in this world, we've overpopulated ourselves and it's just gonna get worse and noone is going to do anything about it. Yes it's a crazy idea to regulate who can and cannot have children but extreme times call for extreme measures. I think if the govt. didn't allow people under a certain IQ to reduplicate we'd have a decent society, but that's only my .02.

Originally posted by Dj Bastard Mike
I"m sure that does sound absurd, but think about this; so so so many people are having kids that they should not have, people who can't afford one kid are having 5. People who can't provide anything are having children and some are just aborting them like disposable cameras. If these people were not allowed to have childen then we could nip the problem in the bud. This is just my beliefs and I don't expect anyone to agree but i thin k the govt. should be able to make certain people sterile and unable to produce young. I'm sorry but theres alot of stupid fucking peole in this world, we've overpopulated ourselves and it's just gonna get worse and noone is going to do anything about it. Yes it's a crazy idea to regulate who can and cannot have children but extreme times call for extreme measures. I think if the govt. didn't allow people under a certain IQ to reduplicate we'd have a decent society, but that's only my .02.

Your commetns on the facts are mostly true. However, we are not in extreme times that call for sterilization of people with low IQs.

Your proposed solution is frightening.

This technique has been applied before in the not too distant past - it was a horrible idea then and it is no less so today.

How would you identify those not permitted to reproduce? Just an IQ test? Who'd create the test? Who'd administer it? Who would you permit to make the decisions?

Why don't we also sterilize those with genetic diseases so we can wipe out things like spina bifida, Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell, Cystic Fibrosis, left-handedness, color-blindness, tone deafness etc. If the goal is to improve society we can really clean up and create a super race of Americans!

You don't see lots fo problems with this?

[alexican]

Originally posted by Dj Bastard Mike
I"m sure that does sound absurd, but think about this; so so so many people are having kids that they should not have, people who can't afford one kid are having 5. People who can't provide anything are having children and some are just aborting them like disposable cameras. If these people were not allowed to have childen then we could nip the problem in the bud. This is just my beliefs and I don't expect anyone to agree but i thin k the govt. should be able to make certain people sterile and unable to produce young. I'm sorry but theres alot of stupid fucking peole in this world, we've overpopulated ourselves and it's just gonna get worse and noone is going to do anything about it. Yes it's a crazy idea to regulate who can and cannot have children but extreme times call for extreme measures. I think if the govt. didn't allow people under a certain IQ to reduplicate we'd have a decent society, but that's only my .02.

eh, i think thats a bit rash to consider us in "extreme times". overpopulation is a problem but mosty in the metropolis areas where there simply isn't enough space to support the number of people living in it. i know China has a govermentally regulated system regarding how many children a family is allowed to have (one child per family!) due to their overpopulation but there, people are practically living on top of one another. even with these regulations in place, you can't stop people from having sex and accidentally conceiving (hmm..this reminds me of one episode of the Outer Limits....) it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practical use, you run the risk of discrimination in all areas (race, disabilities, intelligence, etc.).

[Bridger]

What if the law said that the mother and father had to aborted from their own life to abort the child, all in the name of jihad.
A mandatory suicide/homocide pact.

Its the kind of law that could get passed here in Texas. Maybe they could do it by lethal injection.

Then they could all live happily in Hell.











and then again......



What if we were all grapes

and like,

some big giant came along and ate us



that would suck man!

Originally posted by Dj Bastard Mike
What if abortion was still legal but the mother had to do it with a coathanger, you think abortion would drop?

this thread is horrible........

I'm not so sure overpopulation on the global scale is a realistic issue. There is evidence displaying an enormous and rapid decline in the fertility rates of our population, which indicates "sub-replacement" fertiliy. Meaning, all things remaining equal, the population could soon begin a trend of decline. The speed of such a decline would only be increased if fertility levels continue to drop at this rate.

Life expentency is additionally NOT on an upward trend in a fairly large percentage of the world; primarily in third world countries stricken by rampant AIDS/HIV infection, but also in more modernized nations. Statistically, our rate of population growth peaked around 1970 has been slowing ever since, and the world fertility rate has dropped 33% in the past 20 years.

That being said, I don't see the necessity of the government deciding which of its citizens are of proper genetic stock to procreate and which of its citizens are so inferior we want their genes to be the last of their kind. A government controlled selective breeding program is a somewhat frightening scenario to me. Not allowing a perfectly responsible, caring, loving couple to have their own child because they don't meet the government's intelligence or genetic standards denies our race the very thing which we owe our existence to. I don't think a future in which government agents run around sterilizing its citizens due to bad test scores is one to look forward to.

Additionally, a couple who both scorely highly on whatever IQ test the government should decide to use, will not automatically have children who score equally as well. There are highly intelligent people who do stupid things or are lazy; there are people who may not be so intelligent, but they are hard workers or good role models. Many of the "stupid" people you want to get rid of are not stupid because of genetics, but moreso because of their environment and bad decisions. Selective breeding will not rid us of much more than our humanity.

While I have stated my opinion and reasoning on whether abortion is right or wrong, I would have to agree that it remains an issue which should not lie within the realm of governmental control. I suppose this technically would make me 'pro-choice' in this matter, but in almost every case I would not advocate the abortion of a child or agree with a mother's decision to do so.

And just for reference, you can see the data regarding the rapid downward trend in world fertility rates and population growth here:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/ba...ojections.html

And there is a brief/shortened version of an article which appeared in Foreign Policy Magazine by Nicholas Eberstadt regarding underpopulation online at:

http://www.abortiontv.com/underpopulation.htm

Peace.

Originally posted by zen2k
A government controlled selective breeding program is a somewhat frightening scenario to me. Not allowing a perfectly responsible, caring, loving couple to have their own child because they don't meet the government's intelligence or genetic standards denies our race the very thing which we owe our existence to. I don't think a future in which government agents run around sterilizing its citizens due to bad test scores is one to look forward to.

Additionally, a couple who both scorely highly on whatever IQ test the government should decide to use, will not automatically have children who score equally as well. There are highly intelligent people who do stupid things or are lazy; there are people who may not be so intelligent, but they are hard workers or good role models. Many of the "stupid" people you want to get rid of are not stupid because of genetics, but moreso because of their environment and bad decisions. Selective breeding will not rid us of much more than our humanity.

OK - the suggestion of selective sterilization should not simply be objectionable.

It should be horrifying.

Hitler conducted such a program as have other horrible tyrants.

You absolutely correct that it would rid of us of our humanity.

Please read Brave New World - Aldous Huxley.

Perhaps "somewhat frightening" doesn't really describe the implications of selective breeding and sterilization It is definitely horrifying.

I've read "Brave New World" several times (on my own and as required reading). We had to compare and contrast it with "1984" and relate the future each described with the world's current social and political trends.

I tend to think many of the major problems in today's world have very little to do with human genetics.

[alexican]

Originally posted by zen2k

I tend to think many of the major problems in today's world have very little to do with human genetics.

i wonder if the human genome project will prove you wrong.....

Originally posted by zen2k
Perhaps "somewhat frightening" doesn't really describe the implications of selective breeding and sterilization It is definitely horrifying.

I've read "Brave New World" several times (on my own and as required reading). We had to compare and contrast it with "1984" and relate the future each described with the world's current social and political trends.

Me too. Although the older I get the easier I find it to distinguish one from the other - so much so that I'd not teach them together as any more comparable than 2 brilliant men look at examples of how totalitorian "utopiansim" can go awry. One looks to the political structure that emerges and the other the effect the political structure has on the social. blah blah blah.

Originally posted by zen2k
I tend to think many of the major problems in today's world have very little to do with human genetics.

On a social sense.....nearly none.

On a biological sense.....huge when the disease factor kicks in.

It is my understadnig that near 25% of Europeans tracing linneage through plague survivors have demonstrated AIDS resitence at a rate that canot be accounted for by availability of disease prevention devices and education alone. The plague survivor descendents a more prone to a genetic immunity to AIDS tha any other identifiable population on the planet.

But - I am unaware of any method of arguing for selective breeding to strengthen the ...race? nation? religion? take your pick and add more if you like... that meets any rational reaction that is not nearly convulsive in its rejection.


do you think thread starter was just trying to throw gas on a fire?

[Bridger]

do you think thread starter was just trying to throw gas on a fire?

*mental image of mike dancing around in his room to "firestarter" by the prodigy*

[darklibra]

It's the womans body, woman's choice. Some will abuse that notion, some won't. This world will never be perfect, this issue will never be resolved.