When are embryos first alive?

[JohnnyRudick]

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

Yeah, wasn't that all around some straw girl that did not even exist?

Well, ya got cher law in anyways didn't cha:D

Congrats:p

That's the way it was done then and I am sure that is the way things will get done in the near future.

Sheesh!!!

I think I had better get to ned before I say something I will regret.

Good nite:cool:

Bro. Rudick

[MarginOfError]

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.

It's $300 - $400 million in revenue. Subtract the costs and you'll find that the profit margins are pretty minimal. As far as a business model goes, it's pretty poor (although, ironically, perhaps more honest than many businesses in the financial industry )

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.

No, your point is quite clear. Neither side has an objective premise. That's why the debate is so difficult to move and often so heated. It really boils down to what your gut tells you. I have no problem with people being pro-life, but I do try to make them consider the fact that the issue is a little more complex than the moralistic contingency tries to paint it.

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?

My apologies, I didn't have in mind economic cost. I made reference to Freakonomics in which the author discusses the rising rates of violent crime in the early 1990's. At the time there was speculation that the crime rate, if it continued to grow at the same rate, would reach a level at which no one could imagine what the effect on the country would be. Then, in what seemed like overnight, the violent crime rate dropped dramatically.

Upon review, it turns out that the people most likely to commit violent crimes are between the ages of 18 and 25, particularly if they are from poor socio-economic background and/or single parent families. The early to mid-1990's witnessed a sudden drop in the population of 18 to 25 year olds, which correlated with the drop in violent crime.

So the big question is what could have resulted in such a drop in people of that age group? Turns out that 1973 (Roe v Wade) was about 18 years before the early to mid-1990's. These were the costs I had in mind when I asked what the cost of making abortion illegal would be to society.

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.

I agree with all of those things, actually. Unfortunately, the surplus of children available for adoption would still greatly outweigh the demand for adoption. I'd never considered "banking" embryos, and it may be something worth looking into.

Ultimately, however, I still feel that to make abortion illegal isn't the best way to go about this. Essentially, it appears to boil down to your approach (end abortions and find a way to deal with any problems that follow) and my approach (find ways to change people's perceptions and attitudes so that they don't seek abortions) are a matter of style and opinion, unless, of course, we can determine an objective premise that suits a secular society.

[MarginOfError]

Yeah, wasn't that all around some straw girl that did not even exist?

Well, ya got cher law in anyways didn't cha:D

Congrats:p

That's the way it was done then and I am sure that is the way things will get done in the near future.

Sheesh!!!

I think I had better get to ned before I say something I will regret.

Good nite:cool:

Bro. Rudick

Not existing and not using your real name for your own safety and protection are very different things. Her name was Norma McCorvey, but she was listed as Jane Roe to protect her from the controversy that surrounded the issue. Particuarly, the whack jobs out there that would find themselves convinced that God had commanded them to harm and/or kill McCorvey.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

Wingnut, I am naturally familiar with Roe. But if you're saying it forces a doctor to perform an abortion regardless of his own moral compunctions, I can only quote the great Lawgiver Himself, Indigo Montoya:

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Just_A_Guy]

It's $300 - $400 million in revenue. Subtract the costs and you'll find that the profit margins are pretty minimal. As far as a business model goes, it's pretty poor (although, ironically, perhaps more honest than many businesses in the financial industry )

It'd be interesting to see a financial breakdown, but I'd be very surprised if the doctor performing the procedure came out of it with less than $100 in his pocket. Less than other doctors make, to be sure, but that's still not too shabby for an hour's work.

No, your point is quite clear. Neither side has an objective premise. That's why the debate is so difficult to move and often so heated. It really boils down to what your gut tells you. I have no problem with people being pro-life, but I do try to make them consider the fact that the issue is a little more complex than the moralistic contingency tries to paint it.

Sure. And while you haven't changed my mind (much!), I appreciate being able to discuss it with you. You've really made me question myself, and that's always a good thing.

My apologies, I didn't have in mind economic cost. I made reference to Freakonomics in which the author discusses the rising rates of violent crime in the early 1990's. At the time there was speculation that the crime rate, if it continued to grow at the same rate, would reach a level at which no one could imagine what the effect on the country would be. Then, in what seemed like overnight, the violent crime rate dropped dramatically.

Upon review, it turns out that the people most likely to commit violent crimes are between the ages of 18 and 25, particularly if they are from poor socio-economic background and/or single parent families. The early to mid-1990's witnessed a sudden drop in the population of 18 to 25 year olds, which correlated with the drop in violent crime.

So the big question is what could have resulted in such a drop in people of that age group? Turns out that 1973 (Roe v Wade) was about 18 years before the early to mid-1990's. These were the costs I had in mind when I asked what the cost of making abortion illegal would be to society.

It's probably my evil conservative nature that tends to boil things down into dollars and cents.

In all seriousness--I see your point. But population reduction brings in its own set of problems, both economic and social. And again, we have to ask--are we really willing to pay the price? I'm sure I don't need to lecture you on the finer details of how abortions are performed. It's horrific and grotesque. Is it worth it?

Ultimately, however, I still feel that to make abortion illegal isn't the best way to go about this. Essentially, it appears to boil down to your approach (end abortions and find a way to deal with any problems that follow) and my approach (find ways to change people's perceptions and attitudes so that they don't seek abortions) are a matter of style and opinion, unless, of course, we can determine an objective premise that suits a secular society.

Frankly, the pro-choicers have had thirty years to eradicate abortion "their way". It hasn't worked, and we pro-lifers have watched the cumulative number of post-Roe abortions soar into the tens of millions.

Our patience is wearing thin.

[JohnnyRudick]

Not existing and not using your real name for your own safety and protection are very different things. Her name was Norma McCorvey, but she was listed as Jane Roe to protect her from the controversy that surrounded the issue. Particuarly, the whack jobs out there that would find themselves convinced that God had commanded them to harm and/or kill McCorvey.

Back then as now there were those who have an agenda.

I did not mean to say that she "did not exist" but that she did not exist in the way the media portrayed her to the public,

You see she was in the midst of a very heated divorce when her lawyer and friends seen potential in her situation and talked her into performing in this controversial drama in history.

She would never she said had gone about this on her own nor pursued the course she was steered into.

We had activist lawyers back then too folks (surprise!) and they used her divorce case to promote their pro-abortion agenda.

I was used in a similar movement against the trading posts out on the Indian reservations a long time ago to all but destroy them and believe me, I know how they work first hand.

If you can't get the laws you want by the constitutional way, you go about it this way.

It was all political.

Not some poor pregnant girl just trying to get a leagal abortion.

There was a lot more to it then that.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Not existing and not using your real name for your own safety and protection are very different things. Her name was Norma McCorvey, but she was listed as Jane Roe to protect her from the controversy that surrounded the issue. Particuarly, the whack jobs out there that would find themselves convinced that God had commanded them to harm and/or kill McCorvey.

Back then as now there were those who have an agenda.

I did not mean to say that she "did not exist" but that she did not exist in the way the media portrayed her to the public,

You see she was in the midst of a very heated divorce when her lawyer and friends seen potential in her situation and talked her into performing in this controversial drama in history.

She would never she said had gone about this on her own nor pursued the course she was steered into.

We had activist lawyers back then too folks (surprise!) and they used her divorce case to promote their pro-abortion agenda.

I was used in a similar movement against the trading posts out on the Indian reservations a long time ago to all but destroy them and believe me, I know how they work first hand.

If you can't get the laws you want by the constitutional way, you go about it this way.

It was all political.

Not some poor pregnant girl just trying to get a legal abortion.

There was a lot more to it then that.

Bro. Rudick