Abortion......I will now use my psychic powers to predict the most popular....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Actually Boris there are many thousands of people waiting to adopt children. There is not a lack of willing parents who could raise an unwanted child. Anyway, surely killing the kid should not be an option, or should it?

People always say this, yet the foster homes remain full. People are willing to adopt the babies they want to adopt. Regardless, thousands does not make up for the face that an exponentially larger number than that will now be introduced to the system.

I saw a talk show on TV once where a father was pleading for his girlfriend not to abort their baby. He was roundly condemned by the audience for being so selfish in not wanting to kill the child before he had a chance to live with a mother who did not want him. I think that logic is rather twisted.

It's a shame these people were airing a private matter on television and in front of an audience. I'd hope the mother would seriously consider the father's opinion. They are the only two whose opinion matter.

Shi:

Boris, no doubt there will be difficulties for that child if it is born. That doesn't meany they have a right to murder it.

You didn't answer--is using a condom murder? Or the pill? If not, explain how, biologically, an embryo is any more a human being than a sperm cell. If you use the "potential human," explain why such an argument wouldn't work for a sperm cell (if killing sperm isn't murder), given that it is also potentially to be a human. Arbitrary delineations not accepted.

[Drogue]

I agree (with Kirnwaffen). However the boat is the captain withdrawing his own services in looking after the inhabitants, like the mother, whereas the life support one puts the emphasis on the foetus not being able to communicate its own opinions, and thus the next of kin deciding. While that would also work, I don't see a foetus as a person, and thus I would argue that it is more about the women being able to withdraw her services for own reasons, rather then solely the good of the child, with the mother deciding on what is best for the child. To me, the child still doesn't exist as a human until it is able to live on its own. After which, the women can have a C-section to remove the foetus rather than an abortion.

[Drogue]

That talk show brings up an interesting point. Should the father have any say at all in whether the baby is aborted?

I always thought the father should have some say, but the mother should have the main, overriding say. However that means the women can do what she wants, and thus the man has effectively no say. There was a court case here a few years ago where the girl wanted to have an abortion, and the guy tried to force her to keep it. He lost.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Then they shouldnt of had sex-or should of used better protection. Responsibilities for your actions? I know-its a foreign concept in our society.

That's not an answer, as responsibility is too late of an issue after conception, should abortion not be an option. They've been irresponsible, here comes the kid...so, is the welfare of that kid magically no longer your concern since it's at least going to be born?

Would you rather be in a foster hoom, or not born? You know the answer to that.

Now, if I was never born, I wouldn't know what I was missing, would I? Do you feel remorse that every sperm you don't use for conception doesn't become a person?

Your drawing other-wordly conclusions..... people make it sound like our countries adoption/foster care system is the seventh level of the thirteenth pit of hell...... most people come out of them fine...... Im not a liberal or conserative btw, I have views of both sides(and wish both the Republicans and the Democrats would fall into the sea).

Most people come out fine? I think if you did case studies of the system, you'd fine a predominant number of extremely problematic cases. Add to that the huge increase in need for foster care should all pregnancies be forced to be carried to term, and you'll see the problems increasing even more dramatically.

Keep in mind that since abortion was made legal in the 1970s, the crime rate in this country has dropped considerably, even during tough economic times. I think the correlation is very significant. I have no compunction about being utilitarian in this regard--stopping "potential life" from being is neither immoral nor should it be illegal, any more so than my wasting sperm when I don't procreate.

I have no love for abortions and would really love them to be eliminated through lack of necessity. But that isn't happening anytime soon, and until then, simply banning them and giving one's self a pat on the back won't solve anything, except maybe to whitewash your moral conscience.

If you want to see fewer abortions, the answer is simple: teach sex ed to kids that stresses both abstinence AND protection, and make sure kids have access to protection should they become sexually active. Not arming our kids with these things is tantamount to being complicit in their irresponsibility.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drogue
That talk show brings up an interesting point. Should the father have any say at all in whether the baby is aborted?

I always thought the father should have some say, but the mother should have the main, overriding say. However that means the women can do what she wants, and thus the man has effectively no say. There was a court case here a few years ago where the girl wanted to have an abortion, and the guy tried to force her to keep it. He lost.

In the end, a father can't force a woman to go through a psychologically damaging pregnancy and painful, potentially hazardous procedure so he can have the kid. It is her body, and he isn't the one to have to carry it, after all.

If a woman didn't want to continue her pregnancy, but the father was willing to accept responsibility for the kid and wanted it, I'd hope she'd consider it seriously. His feelings are important. But no, it's her decision, ultimately.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Do you feel remorse that every sperm you don't use for conception doesn't become a person?

I feel a burst of "Every Sperm is Sacred" from Monty Python and the Meaning of Life coming on

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I have no compunction about being utilitarian in this regard

I never understand why people have compunction about being Utilitarian. I used to feel like that, for some reason, until I suddently thought that there is nothing morally bad with wanting to create the most 'happiness', the most 'good' and doing what is best for people overall.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In the end, a father can't force a woman to go through a psychologically damaging pregnancy and painful, potentially hazardous procedure so he can have the kid. It is her body, and he isn't the one to have to carry it, after all.

If a woman didn't want to continue her pregnancy, but the father was willing to accept responsibility for the kid and wanted it, I'd hope she'd consider it seriously. His feelings are important. But no, it's her decision, ultimately.

I agree with that. However, what happens when it's the other way round. If the woman does not want an abortion, but the man does not want a child, I believe it is still the woman's perogative to choose, but should the father still have to pay maintainance when he wanted not to have the child?

If you say yes to that (as I would tend to) what about if the manis duped into being the father, say the woman claims she is on the pill, when she isn't? This was another case in the UK, where the courts ruled that even though she claimed to be on the pill when she wasn't (the woman admitted that), he still should have used other precautions, and that he still had to pay maintainance for the child.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drogue

I agree with that. However, what happens when it's the other way round. If the woman does not want an abortion, but the man does not want a child, I believe it is still the woman's perogative to choose, but should the father still have to pay maintainance when he wanted not to have the child?

If you say yes to that (as I would tend to) what about if the manis duped into being the father, say the woman claims she is on the pill, when she isn't? This was another case in the UK, where the courts ruled that even though she claimed to be on the pill when she wasn't (the woman admitted that), he still should have used other precautions, and that he still had to pay maintainance for the child.

Interesting scenario, but should a father not be held responsible for the kid in that situation, I forsee every louse who knocks up a girl claiming she lied to him about using contraception in order to get out of child support.

It reeks of a double-standard, I know, but perhaps the way it should be. It gives men added incentive to be responsible and avoid impregnating women. Since they don't have to carry a baby, it is easy for men to become roving inseminators. Making them fiscally responsible for the kids might make some of these walking sperm banks think twice and put on a rubber.

[Drogue]

Well, if I was in that situation, and a women I liked a lot said that she wanted to have unprotected sex, but that she was on the pill, I can't say I would pass it up, just on the off chance she was tricking me. She even admitted that she did it because she wanted to have a baby. Yes, men should be responsible, but if surely that constitutes fraud. She lied in order to get money. I understand that there needs to be a message to people to be responsible, but that includes the women. That women wasn't being responsible, in duping a bloke into giving her a kid.

[Boris Godunov]

It takes two to tango, though. Honestly, he should have been more responsible. Why he wouldn't wear a condom anyway is baffling, just because of STDs. He played with fire, he got burned. The woman was being a manipulative *****, yes, but that doesn't make the man's irresponsibility irrelevant.

In the end, the kid will have to eat, and I'd rather the father be required to provide for him than he not be provided for in order to satisfy a point of moral indignation.

[Bosh]

What people forget in this debate is how completely pointless banning abortion would be in a world where transportation is cheap. It really wouldn't be terribly hard to go to a country where its legal and just get the abortion done there. This is what happens in Ireland where abortion is banned, it being legal in the UK completely undermines that law.

This is especially the case as I doubt that it would ever be possible to ban abortion in the entire US, the most that will probably happen is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and states will be free to do whatever the hell they want. Which means that the bible belt will all ban it but that won't make more than a small dent in abortion statistics as people would just drive north, and this wouldn't be a bad things since if taking a few hours trip is enough to dissuade someone from getting an abortion it probably isn't a good idea for them to get them, that and the whole legal argument of Roe v. Wade doesn't really make much sense...

That said, I think I'd go half-insane if I ever found out that a fetus of mine was ever aborted, but then finding out that any hypothetical mother of my child wanted to abort it but couldn't because abortion was banned would be almost as bad of a mind-****...

[Skanky Burns]

I'm surprised that anyone would advocate people who have already proven to be irresponsible (those who want abortions, for the most part) to be parents. Sure, the child would have a great life being cared for by them.

[Kirnwaffen]

Sure, the child would have a great life being cared for by them.

I believe the argument tends to be that the child will be cared for by others.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
So what if a guy offers to take you deep sea fishing, and never promises not to abandon you. Does that give him the right to abandon you in the middle of the ocean?

Ah, you missed the point completely. Since the woman has never wanted the baby in the first place, your analogy crumbles.

[Elok]

Elok enters the fray...
First of all, why don't we stop hiding behind analogies and argue the actual point? The best, most relevant illustration of the possibilities of abortion is, (drum roll) an unhappy pregnant woman. Leave the damn captain out at sea where he belongs. Otherwise this will turn into a ludicrous argument of semantics.
With that said:
Boris, the precise distinction between sperm and embryo is that the embryo is essentially destined to become a human being. It is a human being for all intents and purposes. 46 chromosomes in a distinct combination different from the mother's. Given time, the embryo will most likely become an infant. Given time, any one given sperm cell will spend several days running headfirst into the endometrium before perishing of exhaustion. A sperm cell contains only the DNA of its father, is replicated to nearly identical specifications several times a week, will never be viable prior to fusion with an egg, and from a biological perspective is generally no more than a bastard member of the father's body on a single-minded mission. I thought the difference was obvious. For further information consult your local library. Many of the books you'll find there have very colorful illustrations; you should enjoy them. Check 'em out.
With that said, who gives a rat's ass what kind of fortune the kid is likely to have? I live near D.C., within a hundred miles of legions of people who live for their next fix and nothing else. Such people contribute nothing of value to society, will probably never know true happiness, and apparently spend a good deal of time screwing over their former friends for money. It's still murder if you shoot them. Likewise the guests on "Jerry Springer." It's not your responsibility to determine in advance the possible, or even probable, fortunes of anyone. It's a wacky world. Anything can happen. Miss Cleo might have a dissenting opinion on the matter, but I don't care.
And yes, it is not fair for a raped woman to have to birth her bad memories. What contract have you signed with the almighty, prior to your conception, to the effect that you signed on for your life provided it was totally fair? If you have such a contract, God's a cheat. Life is not fair. In the abortion issue we have an excellent illustration for the lesser of two evils-force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she never wanted, or eliminate a human life for the reason that one or more of its parents was a creep, careless or a fool? I've only been on this earth for two decades but even I know that there's a strong element to life of weighing off possible risks and consequences and picking among several less-than-ideal choices. If none of you were aware of this, I'm not the one here who can't face reality.
The rant ceases, the sun shines once more.