Abortion?

[thierry henry]

The one thing that we never teach is that there might be people hurt by our actions. Our society has worked so hard at mitigating the need for responsibility that we have largely forgotten what responsibility even is.

Our society is the most selfish in history and the abortion rate is merely one (albeit foul) consequence of that.

Yeah, this pretty much.

All through this thread (and it has been a good one, and I thank you all, because I feel a bit more sane than usual by actually making an attempt to engage in a proper discussion) I still see this massive disconnect between the very real, indeed rather massive, risk of unwanted pregnancy, and the "pro-choice" posters' apparent appreciation of said risk. I know you're all clever people, I'm sure I could hit you over the head with statistics all day and I wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't already know, but somehow most people just don't react to this risk the same way I do.....I could give various reasons why but then I would be venturing in to such a broad, unprovable social/psychological analysis that it wouldn't help the debate in any way.

Suffice to say the whole thing is tinged with an almost surreal madness for me that things are the way they are. It's like....if I can't get absolutely off-my-head mad about literally tens of millions of abortions every year, how am I supposed to get mad about any of society's other ills? Does anyone on the other side of the debate at least understand what I mean?

[silentstriker]

Does that mean we can euthanise two year old children because they could not survive on their own if they turn out to be inconvenient?

No because there are options like adoption.

A big problem here, and one that we're evolutionarily working to address ourselves (should only take another hundred generations or so) is that the "parenthood" hormones do not kick in until the child is nearly fully developed. Parenthood hormones are designed to protect the offspring even though it may cost the parents (they are particularly strong in women). Currently our hormones are designed around the way in which our ancestors procreated. First work on screwing and then once the child is almost there worry about the nurturing, providing and protecting.

Let's not go evolution here - it really has no bearing on the type of society we should aim for.

I find that much of our modern culture is very self-centric. It is all about what is best for me, not what is best for society.

Standard East vs. West argument. Personally, I think the west a better philosophy - at least the one I'd rather live in.

We train our children through media that the goal of teenage boys should be to get into the pants of teenage girls.

I think that's pretty much hormones.

We train our girls to be "empowered" by using sex as both a weapon and a social lever.

Meh, I think it's more the other way around where there is still too much stigmatizing of sex, especially for women who are sexually active.

We encourage cures rather than prevention because they're easier. Then we wonder why the divorce rate and single parent rates are so high and why there are no "good men" and why all the women are "bitches" who are just after us for our money. There are no "good men" because there are few masculine role models who model responsibility as well as strength and power. Most male role models (look at Charlie in two and a half men) are portrayed as "cool" because they use their power to do nothing more than take advantage of as many women as possible. Our society is the most selfish in history and the abortion rate is merely one (albeit foul) consequence of that.

Whoa nelly. You're going way too far on all accounts. Fact is, though it can still be better, gender equality is better now than ever. You talk about the most selfish in history but it's likely the most equitable in history too. I know I'd rather live in this society than probably any other in history personally - precisely because of the value of each individual.

[Redbacks]

Once born, the state assumes responsibility for children, U/18s if you like, at least in the west. Prior to this you could say that the individual mother is solely responsible for the unborn child. I agree with what SS has said. At two years old there is the option of adoption, and most developed countries would have a social secrurity system to deal with such occurances, to use 'can't survive on it's own' as a point of arguement doesn't provide a valid rebuff.

[stephen]

Once born, the state assumes responsibility for children, U/18s if you like, at least in the west. Prior to this you could say that the individual mother is solely responsible for the unborn child. I agree with what SS has said. At two years old there is the option of adoption, and most developed countries would have a social secrurity system to deal with such occurances, to use 'can't survive on it's own' as a point of arguement doesn't provide a valid rebuff.

But neither does it provide a valid argument. Eventually we'll be able to breed from conception to "birth" in a test tube. At this point the "can't survive outside the womb" crowd will not have an argument and that is the point. Convenience should never be an excuse for termination.

[silentstriker]

But neither does it provide a valid argument. Eventually we'll be able to breed from conception to "birth" in a test tube. At this point the "can't survive outside the womb" crowd will not have an argument and that is the point.

Then I have no problem with replacing abortion with the extraction of fetus so that it can grow in a test tube - provided it's as safe as abortion.

The issue is, and what I find repugnant, is the state forcing a woman to go through a dangerous pregnancy and deliver a child against her will. That is abhorrent where I am concerned.

[stephen]

Then I have no problem with replacing abortion with the extraction of fetus so that it can grow in a test tube - provided it's as safe as abortion.

The issue is, and what I find repugnant, is the state forcing a woman to go through a dangerous pregnancy and deliver a child against her will. That is abhorrent where I am concerned.

But that is a problem. In Victoria (at least) you can get an abortion up to the six month mark. Babies have been known to live from as young as five and a half months and grow into healthy adults. This moral stance does not pan out with reality.

The state did not force the woman to have sex. She made that decision on her own (well except in the rare case of rape but that's not what we're discussing here). She played with fire and got burned and now there is someone else involved that will get hurt if she aborts.

On a related topic, has anyone read "Children of Men"? It was made into a movie a few years ago. The basic premise is that noone can have children any more (for whatever reason all males have started firing blanks). The author postulated that in such a situation people lost a large part of their sex drive because they could not have children. Even casual sex was far less frequent than before. It is only speculation, but it is interesting to consider. After all, most men do not like using condoms and I'm sure it's not because of the comfort factor. I think, subconsciously at least, we all want to reproduce, which is mixed in with why we have sex.

[James90]

But neither does it provide a valid argument. Eventually we'll be able to breed from conception to "birth" in a test tube. At this point the "can't survive outside the womb" crowd will not have an argument and that is the point. Convenience should never be an excuse for termination.

I'm not entirely sure what the point is here. Because a woman has a few cells in her womb, she should be forced to carry it to birth because the same "life" could live without her in a test tube?

Then I have no problem with replacing abortion with the extraction of fetus so that it can grow in a test tube - provided it's as safe as abortion.

The issue is, and what I find repugnant, is the state forcing a woman to go through a dangerous pregnancy and deliver a child against her will. That is abhorrent where I am concerned.

This. And even that procedure must then be the choice of the mother. Regardless of the health risks and cases where consent isn't clear, there are a plethora of reasons why a woman wouldn't want to be responsible for bringing a child into the world. Just because they "can" have it removed and grown in a test tube doesn't mean that's desirable either.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned when people start raising their moral objections to abortion (which are perfectly valid) and their disapproval of laws such as Victoria, is that such legislation is for the benefit of the woman. It's much more healthy for a woman to be able to go to the doctor and get the procedure done with certain protections guaranteed than trying to do it herself in her backyard. Abortions will happen for as long as women have unwanted pregnancies (which we all agree should be minimised but can never be erradicated).

Before we start discussing the sexual culture in which we exist, has anybody else here read the book 'Female Chauvinist Pigs'?

[silentstriker]

The author postulated that in such a situation people lost a large part of their sex drive because they could not have children. Even casual sex was far less frequent than before. It is only speculation, but it is interesting to consider. After all, most men do not like using condoms and I'm sure it's not because of the comfort factor. I think, subconsciously at least, we all want to reproduce, which is mixed in with why we have sex.

I think part of the problem might be the overwhelming rate of world wide depression.....

[stephen]

I think part of the problem might be the overwhelming rate of world wide depression.....

Probably true too. I found it an interesting idea nonetheless.

[Redbacks]

Yikes!

Two abortion clinic employees plead guilty to murder | Reuters (a warning for the feint hearted, a bit distressing)

[Tricia McMillan]

Yikes!

Two abortion clinic employees plead guilty to murder | Reuters (a warning for the feint hearted, a bit distressing)

Articles like these make me occasionally reconsider being against the death penalty.

[Top_Cat]

Ban abortion and this sort of thing won't happen, of course.

[Howe_zat]

at what prosecutors have described as a decrepit and unsanitary clinic

...What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy...

Sheds some light.

[Redbacks]

Ban abortion and this sort of thing won't happen, of course.

Third trimester is past the point of return isn't it ?

I know at Quadrant they was a peice recently stating that there was 80,000 abortions over 09-10 and 61 adoptions in Australia. The number has increased exponetially over the past decade. To a religious pro-lifer I can see how this would play to their dislike of abortion, what he proposed though was in increas in adoption and then cited studies showing depression, stress, guilt etc. led to suicides and peverse outcomes in women who had an abortion. I would think adoption would place in their minds similar feelings over many years for a child who is likely to meet them one day and ask 'why?'

[Flem274*]

The modern anti-abortion movement in the U.S. has nothing to do with being pro-life and everything to do with keeping teh wimminz in their place.

If the Republican Party and those who fund their election campaigns were truly pro-life, their entire philosophy outside of abortion would be completely different.