When are embryos first alive?

[Just_A_Guy]

Amen sister! I think it is important to reference D&C 121:41 - 44. If we are to lead others to moral high ground, let us lead by persuasion and love. And let us persuade women not to have abortions. And let us do it in a way that they know our faithfulness to and love for them is stronger than the cords of death (I'm still working on that part with my political opponents).

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it is ultimately the case for revoking all laws penalizing socially undesirable behavior. And so, while the "agency" argument is helpful, it is not the be-all, end-all approach to the question.

The simple truth is that as a society we've decided that "agency" is less important than verifiable human life, but more important than un-verifiable (or potential) human life.

A fetus has no agency.

How d'you figure? Just because it's temporarily imprisoned within another being that demonstrably does have agency?

However, you appear to be in favor of taking away (destroying) the agency of millions of women throughout the entire country.

Again--how you figure?

If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she carries the child to term and keeps it, the man has to pay child support--no ifs, ands, or buts. That's not taking away his agency. That's merely holding him accountable for his previous actions.

The only way I could back up the view that abortion truly deprives a woman of agency is if I were to adopt the radical feminist view that all sex is rape. Otherwise--she chose to engage in behavior, knowing what the consequence would be. I'm not a militant who demands that women keep and raise unwanted children; but I think the least she can do (barring serious health or emotional repercussions) is carry the child to term and give it a fighting chance in this world.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

...even though The Pill usually works by preventing fertilization, sometimes it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting...

Alana, I think you have to define The Pill. If you mean the regular birth control pill, then it just prevents ovulation. If you are referring to The Morning After Pill then it is defined as such:

Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo).

[JohnnyRudick]

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it is ultimately the case for revoking all laws penalizing socially undesirable behavior. And so, while the "agency" argument is helpful, it is not the be-all, end-all approach to the question.

The simple truth is that as a society we've decided that "agency" is less important than verifiable human life, but more important than un-verifiable (or potential) human life.

How d'you figure? Just because it's temporarily imprisoned within another being that demonstrably does have agency?

Again--how you figure?

If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she carries the child to term and keeps it, the man has to pay child support--no ifs, ands, or buts. That's not taking away his agency. That's merely holding him accountable for his previous actions.

The only way I could back up the view that abortion truly deprives a woman of agency is if I were to adopt the radical feminist view that all sex is rape. Otherwise--she chose to engage in behavior, knowing what the consequence would be. I'm not a militant who demands that women keep and raise unwanted children; but I think the least she can do (barring serious health or emotional repercussions) is carry the child to term and give it a fighting chance in this world.

Thanks;)

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 27, 2009 by JohnnyRudick

[MarginOfError]

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it is ultimately the case for revoking all laws penalizing socially undesirable behavior. And so, while the "agency" argument is helpful, it is not the be-all, end-all approach to the question.

The simple truth is that as a society we've decided that "agency" is less important than verifiable human life, but more important than un-verifiable (or potential) human life.

And that's exactly where the difficulty in government arises. You make the valid point about the agency argument. Namely, whose agency do we protect? Imprisoning someone for murder encroaches on the murderer's agency. Fining someone for tax evasion encroaches on his agency. In all legal issues, if we are to impose a law, we have to encroach on someone's agency. The difficulty is in deciding upon whose agency we will infringe.

How d'you figure [a fetus doesn't have agency]? Just because it's temporarily imprisoned within another being that demonstrably does have agency?

This is a matter of opinion. For starters, it's difficult to demonstrate agency without demonstrating life, and even then we aren't entirely sure (in LDS doctrine) that life is a necessary and sufficient condition for agency (think plants and animals). Any statement about whether a fetus has agency comes attached with the [at least] implicit "I believe."

One possible line of reasoning that would lead to the conclusion that a fetus (particularly a young fetus) doesn't have agency is that it is solely being acted upon. There is very little evidence (if any) to indicate that a fetus is interacting in its environment. We might recall Lehi's explanation of the plan of salvation--the earth exists that there might be things to act and be acted upon. And it was given to man to act for himself. (See 2 Nephi 2:13 - 16) Agency seems to be inseparably connected to action. Fetuses, it would seem, are acted upon, but take no conscious action, which brings into question the idea that they have agency.

If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she carries the child to term and keeps it, the man has to pay child support--no ifs, ands, or buts. That's not taking away his agency. That's merely holding him accountable for his previous actions.

It is an infringement upon his agency. However, it's an infringement for which our society has decided the the benefit outweighs the cost.

The only way I could back up the view that abortion truly deprives a woman of agency is if I were to adopt the radical feminist view that all sex is rape.

This is absolutely ridiculous and serves no other purpose than to try to tie the agency of women to a ridiculous argument. I'll happily ignore it because no one here wants to accept such a premise.

Otherwise--she chose to engage in behavior, knowing what the consequence would be. I'm not a militant who demands that women keep and raise unwanted children; but I think the least she can do (barring serious health or emotional repercussions) is carry the child to term and give it a fighting chance in this world.

This argument boils down to the "Once a woman has sex she's made her decision already and so she should bear the consequences of her decision." This argument fallaciously extends eternal principle to temporal reality. The eternal principle is that you are able to choose your actions, but you can't escape the consequences. In reality, you can escape the consequences...in this life.

For instance, consider the man who holds a temple recommend. He decides to view pornography, and he views it on a regular basis. He has made his decision, and the consequences are clear. He is no longer worthy to hold a temple recommend. Under the so-called "Law of Consequence" that man cannot renew his temple recommend. But what if he goes to his temple recommend interview and lies. He lies to his bishop, and he lies to his stake president, they both sign his temple recommend, and the man continues to attend the temple even though he is viewing pornography. Has he not escaped the consequences of his decisions?

The answer is that, although he may have escaped some of the temporal consequences of his actions, he has not and cannot escape the eternal consequences (except through repentance). Likewise with abortion, some of us feel that making one bad decision does not necessarily mean a person should be forbidden from making another bad decision. She may be able to escape the temporal consequences of pregnancy and child care, but she cannot escape the eternal consequences of her decision.

Now I would caution again that those of us arguing for abortion rights are arguing just for that--abortion rights. We do not like abortion, and we do not want abortions to happen. Each and every abortion is a tragedy, regardless of the circumstances, and we hope that the only abortions that will take place will be a result of even more tragic circumstances (rape, incest, health of mother, etc.). Our concern is not about the morality of abortion, but about the encroachment of religious morality into pluralistic and secular government.

You'd be hard pressed these days to find anyone anxious for abortion. The vast majority of clinics that provide abortion services would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies over aborting them. They could provide thousands of prophylactics for the cost of one abortion. The mantra of liberals on abortion is becoming legal, safe, and rare. I just want to get that out there before the baby-killer comments start flying.

[foreverafter]

Alana, I think you have to define The Pill. If you mean the regular birth control pill, then it just prevents ovulation. If you are referring to The Morning After Pill then it is defined as such:

The makers of the regular birth control pill have stated & I have read it from them, that the pill works in either 1 of 3 ways, the third being preventing implantation. It works the same as the Morning After Pill, except with a lesser dose but they both prevent implantation. And we know there are probably many babies conceived while on the pill, & then prevented from living, because so many women still get pregnant while on it.

[Just_A_Guy]

"Once a woman has sex she's made her decision already and so she should bear the consequences of her decision."

Insomuch as the argument is a response to "you're taking away a woman's choice!", I think it's a very adequate rebuttal. We're not forcing anyone to have sex.

Likewise with abortion, some of us feel that making one bad decision does not necessarily mean a person should be forbidden from making another bad decision. She may be able to escape the temporal consequences of pregnancy and child care, but she cannot escape the eternal consequences of her decision.

Except that, again, taken to extremes, this justifies bailing out on the consequences of one's actions any time one can get away with doing so.

By this logic, we should release Bernie Madoff from jail. We can go after his assets without throwing him in the slammer; by keeping him there, we're just depriving him of his agency.

Come to think of it, if bad choices don't warrant preventing a person from making more bad choices, then what's the point of putting anyone (except perhaps incorrigibly violent offenders) in jail in this age of offender registries and tracking ankle-bracelets?

The vast majority of clinics that provide abortion services would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies over aborting them.

I wish I could believe that. But the consistent opposition to new laws requiring certain types of disclosures, and the repeated documented instances in which abortion clinics have flouted existing laws in order to get women/girls into their clinics, causes me to doubt it very strongly.

Over-generalizing is, of course, a dangerous thing. That said: Frankly, if abortion providers are so uncomfortable with the practice, then why aren't they providing their own criteria to screen out some of the well over 90% of abortions that are purely elective? I think we both know the answer to that. While a lot of pro-choicers have the best of intentions, abortion is--to be blunt--big business.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just to be clear: I am not saying that we ought to prohibit abortion for the purpose of "punishing those skanks".

What I'm saying is that, that's potential life in there. And a woman insisting on her right to destroy it on the basis that "well, I didn't have a choice!" is just bunk in the vast majority of cases. She did have a choice. And my positing about the view that "all sex was rape" was not an attempt to smear anyone. I think it's very logical--if you can say that a woman was pressured into sex, by economic or social dynamics or whatever, then I think that fundamentally changes the equation.

But otherwise, it all (IMHO) comes back to the question of "what kind of value will we place on potential life? What things are more important than it, and what things are less important than it?" Everything else strikes me as smoke and mirrors to obscure the uncomfortable bottom line: Our society places more value on consequence-free sex than it places on an embryo.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

The makers of the regular birth control pill have stated & I have read it from them, that the pill works in either 1 of 3 ways, the third being preventing implantation. It works the same as the Morning After Pill, except with a lesser dose but they both prevent implantation. And we know there are probably many babies conceived while on the pill, & then prevented from living, because so many women still get pregnant while on it.

That is incorrect. The regular birth control pill that is specifically taken to prevent pregnancy works by preventing ovulation. If you have read something else could you provide a source?

How Do Birth Control Pills Work?

It's pretty common for people to be confused about how birth control pills work. Here’s what it boils down to: birth control pills are made of hormones. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of our bodies work.

Some birth control pills contain two hormones — estrogen and progestin. These are called combination pills. Some are progestin-only pills. Most women on the pill take combination pills.

The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.

Birth Control Pill - Planned Parenthood

M.

[foreverafter]

If you have read something else could you provide a source?

I have read & known about the pill preventing implantation for years now, but I don't copy everthing I read. It is easy to find the info on the web. Just now I googled the words 'birth control pills abortion' and alot of good information came up that will tell you the truth. Many doctors will not perscribe contraceptives because of this reason.

Edited March 28, 2009 by foreverafter

[JohnnyRudick]

I have read & known about the pill preventing implantation for years now, but I don't copy everthing I read. It is easy to find the info on the web. Just now I googled the words 'birth control pills abortion' and alot of good information came up that will tell you the truth. Many doctors will not perscribe contraceptives because of this reason.

I can't believe these people who quote "Planned Parenthood" as a reliable source:confused:

That would be like asking IG Farben about the use of it's products sold to Germany during the 1940s.

Bro. Rudick

[Wingnut]

Frankly, if abortion providers are so uncomfortable with the practice, then why aren't they providing their own criteria to screen out some of the well over 90% of abortions that are purely elective?

Because it's against the law. Abortion is legal, and if someone goes to an abortion clinic seeking an abortion, the clinic has no legal recourse to prevent them from receiving the procedure, unless they are too late-term.

I have read & known about the pill preventing implantation for years now, but I don't copy everthing I read. It is easy to find the info on the web. Just now I googled the words 'birth control pills abortion' and alot of good information came up that will tell you the truth. Many doctors will not perscribe contraceptives because of this reason.

Perhaps it is because you are Googling the wrong thing. There is the typical Oral Contraceptive Pill (which suppresses ovulation in the first place); there is the Morning-After Pill, sometimes also called Plan B (which is unclear how it works, but it can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy, though its efficacy decreases the long you wait, which would suggest it prevents implantation); and there is also RU-486, which is an abortion pill. Women can be prescribed a two-dose abortion pill in their doctor's office, take the first dose there, then leave and after so many hours, take the second pill in the privacy of their own home, and with their own partner. If you are Googling the phrase birth control pills abortion, you are most likely finding information about the third of these options, and presenting it here as evidence of the first.

[foreverafter]

Perhaps it is because you are Googling the wrong thing.

I was googling the right thing, the typical Oral Contraceptive Pill.

[Just_A_Guy]

Because it's against the law. Abortion is legal, and if someone goes to an abortion clinic seeking an abortion, the clinic has no legal recourse to prevent them from receiving the procedure, unless they are too late-term.

Which law?

When President Obama repealed the Bush-era provisions in the C.F.R. giving additional protection to doctors who found abortions morally reprehensible, we were assured that existing statutory law still allowed doctors to refuse to perform abortions with which they personally disagreed.

Now you're telling me this isn't the case. Is this a provision of federal law, or state law? Can you provide a citation?

[bodhigirlsmiles]

i thought i would add my .02 to the conversation as a buddhist regarding abortion.

:)

some of what i will say will be personal in nature, but i will try to give traditional buddhist views....

as with all religious traditions, there are varying opinions among buddhists, especially western buddhists, concerning abortion.

abortion is widely performed in some countries in which buddhism is influential, such as japan and south korea. in other buddhist countries, such as sri lanka, thailand, and burma, abortion is more restricted.

i do not understand even the slightest allowance. this is one thing that greatly divides me from those buddhists who acknowledge that there are times and circumstances in which abortion is justified. i cannot agree with this.

out of curiosity, do members of the lds faith allow for circumstances in which abortion is permitted?

for a true follower of the buddha, conciousness begins at the very moment of conception. it is felt to be fully human at that moment.

if a pregnancy is a danger to the mother, all precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the mother....short of aborting that child. if it is the will of the universe (god) that this child has been brought into being, who gives anyone the right to take away that life?

life is sacred and should be treated with dignity and the greatest respect. to do so is to honor the first precept.

the first of the precepts is to refrain from taking life. the most serious instance of killing is taking a human life. the reasoning behind this prohibition is that nothing is as dear to a living being as its own life.

the injunction against taking life, then, is rooted in compassion for living beings in danger of losing what they hold most dear. placing more importance on one's own welfare (such as a mother may do when considering the "incovenience" of having an unwanted child)than the welfare of other beings is often cited as the reason beings continue to circle within the vicious wheel of samsara.

abortion, because it is seen as taking the life of a fetus, poses a serious moral, spiritual, and personal dilemma. in buddhist texts, taking life applies to taking the life of a "sentient" being, a being with consciousness and hence the potential to achieve enlightenment. for me (and my recent studies), this rings true with christian teachings....that is, to have the right to live up to god's potential for each person.

taking life includes performing the action of killing, having someone else kill, or encouraging someone to kill. killing a human being is considered more serious than killing an animal and taking the life of a fetus is regarded as killing a human being.

as i mentioned earlier (and this is certainly true for most buddhists who are honest with their assessment of the buddha's teachings), the life process of sentient beings begins at the moment of conception, when a being's consciousness “enters" the conjoined egg and sperm of the parents. because life begins at the moment of fertilization, there is thought to be no qualitative difference between an abortion in the first trimester versus the last trimester.

in the end, most Buddhists recognize the incongruity that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while they do not condone the taking of life, they do advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a lovingkindness that is nonjudgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

an aborted child has no ablility or freedom to make choices.

all buddhists do not agree with me, or course. in the very near future i will be starting a movement (i've been planning for some time now) for buddhists to partner with christians and other pro-life advocates to help bring an end to abortion. anyone want to join?

i know that the things i've said here are not new or groundbreaking, but i thought it might be interesting to hear a little on this issue from a buddhist perspective (mixed with my own beliefs, of course).

[JohnnyRudick]

i thought i would add my .02 to the conversation as a buddhist regarding abortion.

:)

some of what i will say will be personal in nature, but i will try to give traditional buddhist views....

as with all religious traditions, there are varying opinions among buddhists, especially western buddhists, concerning abortion.

abortion is widely performed in some countries in which buddhism is influential, such as japan and south korea. in other buddhist countries, such as sri lanka, thailand, and burma, abortion is more restricted.

i do not understand even the slightest allowance. this is one thing that greatly divides me from those buddhists who acknowledge that there are times and circumstances in which abortion is justified. i cannot agree with this.

out of curiosity, do members of the lds faith allow for circumstances in which abortion is permitted?

for a true follower of the buddha, conciousness begins at the very moment of conception. it is felt to be fully human at that moment.

if a pregnancy is a danger to the mother, all precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the mother....short of aborting that child. if it is the will of the universe (god) that this child has been brought into being, who gives anyone the right to take away that life?

life is sacred and should be treated with dignity and the greatest respect. to do so is to honor the first precept.

the first of the precepts is to refrain from taking life. the most serious instance of killing is taking a human life. the reasoning behind this prohibition is that nothing is as dear to a living being as its own life.

the injunction against taking life, then, is rooted in compassion for living beings in danger of losing what they hold most dear. placing more importance on one's own welfare (such as a mother may do when considering the "incovenience" of having an unwanted child)than the welfare of other beings is often cited as the reason beings continue to circle within the vicious wheel of samsara.

abortion, because it is seen as taking the life of a fetus, poses a serious moral, spiritual, and personal dilemma. in buddhist texts, taking life applies to taking the life of a "sentient" being, a being with consciousness and hence the potential to achieve enlightenment. for me (and my recent studies), this rings true with christian teachings....that is, to have the right to live up to god's potential for each person.

taking life includes performing the action of killing, having someone else kill, or encouraging someone to kill. killing a human being is considered more serious than killing an animal and taking the life of a fetus is regarded as killing a human being.

as i mentioned earlier (and this is certainly true for most buddhists who are honest with their assessment of the buddha's teachings), the life process of sentient beings begins at the moment of conception, when a being's consciousness “enters" the conjoined egg and sperm of the parents. because life begins at the moment of fertilization, there is thought to be no qualitative difference between an abortion in the first trimester versus the last trimester.

in the end, most Buddhists recognize the incongruity that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while they do not condone the taking of life, they do advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a lovingkindness that is nonjudgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

an aborted child has no ablility or freedom to make choices.

all buddhists do not agree with me, or course. in the very near future i will be starting a movement (i've been planning for some time now) for buddhists to partner with christians and other pro-life advocates to help bring an end to abortion. anyone want to join?

i know that the things i've said here are not new or groundbreaking, but i thought it might be interesting to hear a little on this issue from a buddhist perspective (mixed with my own beliefs, of course).

Sad to say,

There are as many "Opinions" about abortion in the LDS faith as man has *** *****.

I speak for me and a few other "Mormons" I know.

We do not know when the Spirit enters the body.

Most seem to think it is when the Baby (some say potential life) takes it's first breath.

I do not believe that it is permissible to deliberately take the life of any human baby at any stage of his/her growth unless it can be proved beyond any doubt that he/she is guilty of some hanus crime worth of death.

Rape, Incest?

What did the Baby do?

The parent or parents sinned so kill the baby?

Right:huh:

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 28, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling (misstype)

[Maureen]

I was googling the right thing, the typical Oral Contraceptive Pill.

I would have to say your reading comprehension is poor. I just googled Oral Contraceptive Pill and I keep getting the same information, which is the opposite of what you believe. You are confusing an abortion pill with a contraceptive pill. Here's more of the same information:

What are Birth Control Pills?

The Pill (oral contraceptives) is the most popular type of birth control. There are many different brands and they come in packs of 21 or 28 pills. One pill is taken every day. The first 21 pills have a combination of synthetic estrogen and progesterone hormones. The Pill stops ovulation, preventing the ovaries from releasing eggs. The Pill also thickens cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to enter the uterus. The hormones in the Pill prevent fertilization. The last 7 pills of a 28-day pack have no hormones and are called spacer pills. The Pill is 92-99.7% effective as birth control. It does not protect against reproductive tract infections, including HIV/AIDS.

Birth Control Pill - Oral Contraceptive

M.

[MarginOfError]

"Once a woman has sex she's made her decision already and so she should bear the consequences of her decision."

Insomuch as the argument is a response to "you're taking away a woman's choice!", I think it's a very adequate rebuttal. We're not forcing anyone to have sex.

Except the rebuttal you've provided has no objective premise, which makes for poor legislation.

Likewise with abortion, some of us feel that making one bad decision does not necessarily mean a person should be forbidden from making another bad decision. She may be able to escape the temporal consequences of pregnancy and child care, but she cannot escape the eternal consequences of her decision.

Except that, again, taken to extremes, this justifies bailing out on the consequences of one's actions any time one can get away with doing so.

By this logic, we should release Bernie Madoff from jail. We can go after his assets without throwing him in the slammer; by keeping him there, we're just depriving him of his agency.

Come to think of it, if bad choices don't warrant preventing a person from making more bad choices, then what's the point of putting anyone (except perhaps incorrigibly violent offenders) in jail in this age of offender registries and tracking ankle-bracelets?

Congratulations! Now you're starting to catch on. Remember that discussion about deciding how to find the balance of when it was profitable for society to infringe upon one's agency? Re-read that and apply it here.

The vast majority of clinics that provide abortion services would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies over aborting them.

I wish I could believe that. But the consistent opposition to new laws requiring certain types of disclosures, and the repeated documented instances in which abortion clinics have flouted existing laws in order to get women/girls into their clinics, causes me to doubt it very strongly.

Over-generalizing is, of course, a dangerous thing. That said: Frankly, if abortion providers are so uncomfortable with the practice, then why aren't they providing their own criteria to screen out some of the well over 90% of abortions that are purely elective? I think we both know the answer to that. While a lot of pro-choicers have the best of intentions, abortion is--to be blunt--big business.

Abortion is hardly big business. I was surprised when I looked into it, and actually have to correct an earlier comment. The price of an abortion is somewhere between $350 and $450, which would really only provide for about 400 - 500 condoms if bought in bulk. That really isn't a lot of money for a medical procedure. In fact, as medical procedures go, that's peanuts. In fact, just one of the blood draws alone for my wife's pregnancy--which was perfectly normal and had no complications--was $386.

The majority of abortion clinics operate under non-profit organizations. I think calling it big business is pretty inaccurate.

Lastly, you keep reiterating that society tolerates abortion only because it values consequence-free sex. This premise is accepted. This society, and many societies before it have sought for consequence-free sex. Those of us here arguing for abortion rights likely agree with you that the consequence-free sex school of thought is devoid of morality. But is our moral stance something that should be legislated? some of us just aren't comfortable with bringing that part of our religion into our secular government. Instead, we'd rather teach people and persuade them to adopt our morals into their lifestyles by their own volition.

Here's some more food for thought. What would be the cost of ending abortion in the United States. Would it benefit or hurt society? What is the cost to our society for bringing one million new unwanted children into our society? (Guttmacher Fact Sheet)

The answer I'm sure most would provide is that those children could be placed for adoption so that parents who want them can adopt and raise them. Now consider that in the US, about 120,000 adoptions take place each year AACAP. Now we've added more than 800,000 children to the adoption pool than we have demand more. What do you do with 800,000 unwanted children? And not just 800,000...800,000 annually. For interesting reading on this topic, you should check out Freakonomics. In any case, there is an argument to be made that legislating against abortion can be more damaging to society than it's legal presence.

[Traveler]

Inspired by recent threads on abortion, I wanted to go deeper into the philosophy of the issue and see how people define life via this question. Have fun!

Anyone that has studied the Row verses Wade realizes the question has never been about a fetus being alive but when it becomes human life. I believe that the discussions about abortion are a great indication of what is necessary for some to have respect for others (anything alive other than themselves). My greatest concern is for those that are convinced and trying to convince a mother that the best thing, a rational thing, or an acceptable thing for her is to destroy a living entity that for all things that exists in this universe is most like her and therefore somehow unworthy and undesirable to be allowed to continue living.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .

The answer I'm sure most would provide is that those children could be placed for adoption so that parents who want them can adopt and raise them. Now consider that in the US, about 120,000 adoptions take place each year AACAP. Now we've added more than 800,000 children to the adoption pool than we have demand more. What do you do with 800,000 unwanted children? And not just 800,000...800,000 annually. For interesting reading on this topic, you should check out Freakonomics. In any case, there is an argument to be made that legislating against abortion can be more damaging to society than it's legal presence.

Adoption?

Who says they are unwanted?

We have a no growth situation now of educated young people.

We need more children growing up in homes where they can get a decent education and be a credit rather then a deficit to society.

Bro. Rudcik

[MarginOfError]

Adoption?

Who says they are unwanted?

We have a no growth situation now of educated young people.

We need more children growing up in homes where they can get a decent education and be a credit rather then a deficit to society.

Bro. Rudcik

Those 800,000 "unwanted children" come from a hypothetical world in which we were to make abortion illegal. Those 800,000 would have been aborted if doing so were legal. I think it's safe to assume that a child that a woman would abort if she could legally do so is an unwanted child.

And how exactly are unwanted children--who are likely to be less loved and cared for than wanted children--going to be a credit to society?

[Just_A_Guy]

Congratulations! Now you're starting to catch on. Remember that discussion about deciding how to find the balance of when it was profitable for society to infringe upon one's agency? Re-read that and apply it here.

Indeed. I think I was sort of hinting at that in my post yesterday at 7:28 PM, when I wrote:

The simple truth is that as a society we've decided that "agency" is less important than verifiable human life, but more important than un-verifiable (or potential) human life.

Abortion is hardly big business. I was surprised when I looked into it, and actually have to correct an earlier comment. The price of an abortion is somewhere between $350 and $450, which would really only provide for about 400 - 500 condoms if bought in bulk. That really isn't a lot of money for a medical procedure.

That's still somewhere between $300 and $400 million dollars per year, Moe. The fact that an entity operates as a "non-profit" does not mean that its employees cannot still be doing very nicely; and that they would prefer to grow their businesses rather than see them wither away.

Those of us here arguing for abortion rights likely agree with you that the consequence-free sex school of thought is devoid of morality. But is our moral stance something that should be legislated? some of us just aren't comfortable with bringing that part of our religion into our secular government. Instead, we'd rather teach people and persuade them to adopt our morals into their lifestyles by their own volition.

I would agree with you--if the only reason for opposing abortion was a retributionist "she did the crime, she should do the time" attitude.

But it isn't. The main reason for opposing abortion is that there's a potential life in there, and we shouldn't be messing around with it without a very good reason. The pro-choice views (as I understand them) are either that a) the "potential life"/embryo has no rights, or that b) the potential life/embryo's rights are subordinate to a woman's right to choose.

Where my counter-argument comes in is that the woman's right to choose (in the vast majority of cases) has already been exercised, and what we're really talking about is avoidance of consequences. What is the "objective premise" underlying the idea that the woman's right to a "second bite at the apple" trumps the embryo's right to continue the development process that the woman herself initiated of her own free will and choice?

I'm not sure I'm expressing myself well on this argument; if you want me to clarify, please let me know and I'll try again.

Here's some more food for thought. What would be the cost of ending abortion in the United States. Would it benefit or hurt society? What is the cost to our society for bringing one million new unwanted children into our society? (Guttmacher Fact Sheet)

Thought-provoking indeed. But then, if economic efficiency is the goal, why on earth do we live in a democratic republic, which history has shown to be woefully inefficient and (very possibly) nonviable over the long term?

The answer: Some things are worth more than money. Is potential life one of them?

The answer I'm sure most would provide is that those children could be placed for adoption so that parents who want them can adopt and raise them. Now consider that in the US, about 120,000 adoptions take place each year AACAP. Now we've added more than 800,000 children to the adoption pool than we have demand more. What do you do with 800,000 unwanted children?

Work to increase contraceptive use. Streamline the adoption system to reduce costs and wait times. Reform Divisions of Child and Family Services nationwide. Perhaps look into "embryo banking"--is there some way we could remove unwanted embryos from the womb intact, freeze them, and "bank" them for infertile couples? Heck, I could even get behind gay adoption if that were what it took to end elective abortions in this country.

Beats the heck out of the current practice.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

Work to increase contraceptive use.

That's a good idea, except that it doesn't work. Well, overall it might. But some women who currently choose to get abortions do so because they were using contraceptives, but got pregnant anyway since no method is foolproof (don't say abstinence, because we're not talking about abstinence...we're talking about people who have sex).

[JohnnyRudick]

Those 800,000 "unwanted children" come from a hypothetical world in which we were to make abortion illegal. Those 800,000 would have been aborted if doing so were legal. I think it's safe to assume that a child that a woman would abort if she could legally do so is an unwanted child.

And how exactly are unwanted children--who are likely to be less loved and cared for than wanted children--going to be a credit to society?

I am an adopted child who was very much loved but I was adopted way too late.

I was a wild child who only God could tame.

If only I had been adopted earlier or even as a baby.

I have talked to others who were adopted I was.

Some were not loved, but most like me their new parents would do anything that was right for them.

I would have half your number in homes like mine and some I have talked to over the years.

I suspect that if there were harsher laws against doing most of these abortions the need for them would also drop with them in time.

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 29, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought;-)

[JohnnyRudick]

(don't say abstinence, because we're not talking about abstinence...we're talking about people who have sex).

If we were talking about "abstinence" we would be talking about people who do not have sex.

Just a thought.

I get tires of writing stuff down and reading it and deleting it as I tend to be a little hot headed.

I know you can't read it but I apologize anyway:p

Better go.

Bro. Rudick

[Wingnut]

Which law?

It was a quiet little Supreme Court case in 1973...you probably haven't heard of it. It was called Roe v. Wade.