PJM/ On Liberty and Abortion

[Riggo-toni]

My apologies TWA - I was not meaning for it to sound as though I was addressing you directly, or to hijack this thread into a theological debate. I was merely trying to provide an additional and hopefully thought provoking (without being overly contentious, if possible) perspective.

[twa]

No apology needed, though I'd prefer not to go to religious centric arguments

[Thiebear]

It would be nice to cut back on the 3-4-5 repeat abortions and partial birth abortion.
New technology and education should be key to cutting back on using it as birth control.
This is where the contraception issue comes back into play.

[Birdlives]

So the fact that some women have 5 or 10 of them means nothing because it causes them pain? What you say makes no sense at all. Obviously the pain isn't bad enough for them to actually have a kid and take care of it.

IMO they should be "Fixed" after the first one and even make the procedure free to all. This would further serve the real reason it was made legal in the first place.

Some women have 5-10 abortions? Really? Care to prove that point?

---------- Post added October-21st-2012 at 04:22 PM ----------

Sorry, but your anecdotal experiences don't reflect reality (a good example of why anecdotal evidence is unreliable as a basis for most decision making). In just the last year, I have talked to two women who told me point blank that they used abortion for birth control. One is one of the most famous, powerful, and successful attorneys in the country. She volunteered the information over lunch, told me she did it because she got pregnant at an inconvenient time in her career, and told me she would do it again. The other is a mother of three and relatively new grandparent who told me she did it because she simply didn't want to have a baby at the time, then got pregnant a year later. She regrets the decision.

But that's just anecdotal evidence, of course.

According to the most reliable statistics, rape and incest count for no more than 1.5% of all abortions in the US, and verified maternal health concerns are no more than 10% (most put the number around 3-5%). That leaves at least 88% of abortions--all of which are designed as birth control in one form or another. The reality is, after a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion is the only form of birth control.

I love how you throw out my point as anecdotal, make another anecdotal point, and then throw out a few stats with no link as somehow proving that women often use abortion as a form of birth control.

Again, the idea that there are women, and lots of them, that routinely go through abortions because they can't be bothered or won't use contraception is ridiculous and there is no basis in fact for this idea.

[twa]

Some women have 5-10 abortions? Really? Care to prove that point?[COLOR="Gold"]

.

A woman in Minnesota was reported by social workers to have had 20 abortions. The woman was suicidal. Rovinsky (1972) reports a case of a woman who had 17 abortions and Fisher (1986) describes a woman who reported 15 abortions in 23 years. The woman reporting 15 abortions was described as "chaotic" and "childlike".
Abortion statistician Christopher Tietze (1978) claimed "The increasing number of repeat abortions reflects the increasing number of women who have had a first abortion and are therefore at risk of having a subsequent abortion" considering the limitations of contraception. But this is neither an accurate nor appropriate response to the problem. Despite intensive contraceptive counseling, abortion counselors are troubled and frustrated by abortion repeaters. It is recognized as perhaps the most difficult issue in abortion counseling. (Berger 1984), (Roe 1985), (Francke 1978).
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ai...2no3_1989.html

[twa]

interesting choice case

surrogate mom who refused $10,000 to abort her baby with birth defects
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...-baby.cnn.html


wonder if the father has to pay child support

a bit more background
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...save-baby.html

[talk show host]

Funny this thread got bumped. I was having a conversation with a friend about this earlier today. I think that as I've gotten older, my personal views on abortion have changed. I wouldn't choose to have an abortion personally, obviously this wouldn't include instances of rape, or a serious risk to my health. But, I still feel like it's a woman's right to choose, despite my own personal objections.

I don't think any government/group/or person has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body even if she's perfectly healthy. OTOH, (and I know this is somewhat contrary to what I just wrote), there is really only one instance when I get really frustrated with being pro choice- when women choose abortion as a means of birth control and have them numerous times and completely take advantage of it.

IMO, after the first one, you should have learned your lesson. I wouldn't be opposed to some stipulations put in place that limit the number of abortions you can have (with exceptions for health reasons, rape, incest), but honestly I have no idea how to begin to put something like this in place.

Your opinion completely ignores the most critical element of the issue, and the one that is the basis for the thread - is the unborn baby human or not? If its human, then the woman's "right to do what she wants with her body" is not an acceptable answer. The human baby has the right to live. If one says she has the right to terminate its life, that that would mean her rights were more important than the human baby's. one human life is not more valuable than another's.

when rights are in conflict, you have to weigh the cost of either party sacrificing its rights for the benefit of the other. If an abortion is performed, the human baby's life is forever terminated. If an abortion is not performed, the woman may be inconvenienced for a few months. The only logical conclusion is that the damaged caused by temporarily infringing on the woman's rights over her body is far outweighed by the damaged caused by the baby's right to life. If an unborn baby is human, there simply is no ethical justification for allowing the abortion. If the unborn baby is human, then abortion is no different than any other murder. Of course, if it is a choice between one life or the other, that's another matter as a choice must be made between one human life and the other.

[DeaconTheVillain]

nvm..................................

[alexey]

Your opinion completely ignores the most critical element of the issue, and the one that is the basis for the thread - is the unborn baby human or not? If its human, then the woman's "right to do what she wants with her body" is not an acceptable answer. The human baby has the right to live. If one says she has the right to terminate its life, that that would mean her rights were more important than the human baby's. one human life is not more valuable than another's.

when rights are in conflict, you have to weigh the cost of either party sacrificing its rights for the benefit of the other. If an abortion is performed, the human baby's life is forever terminated. If an abortion is not performed, the woman may be inconvenienced for a few months. The only logical conclusion is that the damaged caused by temporarily infringing on the woman's rights over her body is far outweighed by the damaged caused by the baby's right to life. If an unborn baby is human, there simply is no ethical justification for allowing the abortion. If the unborn baby is human, then abortion is no different than any other murder. Of course, if it is a choice between one life or the other, that's another matter as a choice must be made between one human life and the other.

Society cannot force some humans to serve as temporary hosts for other humans.

[twa]

Society cannot force some humans to serve as temporary hosts for other humans.

society does not condone executing guests either

except wee ones obviously

[alexey]

society does not condone executing guests either

except wee ones obviously

Society cannot force you to provide your body for usage by another person, even when it does not condone a refusal to provide it voluntarily.

[twa]

Society cannot force you to provide your body for usage by another person, even when it does not condone a refusal to provide it voluntarily.

a natural result of the usage you consented to except in rape cases

don't invite me in the living room then shoot me for sitting on the furniture...tis uncivilized

[GhostofSparta]

don't invite me in the living room then shoot me for sitting on the furniture...tis uncivilized

But if you overstay your welcome, then you're trespassing.

And we all know how you Texans react to trespassers.

[twa]

But if you overstay your welcome, then you're trespassing.

And we all know how you Texans react to trespassers.

I can't allow you in then shoot you for not leaving....even here.

[HeluCopter29]

I hate that the abortion argument has come down to you either think it's ok to kill babies, or you don't.

Why can't it be that I don't believe that a fetus is a child. Considering the vital signs of life don't begin until the 3rd trimester.

You're welcome to your beliefs. Just don't invade mine.