A couple notes before you continue reading:
- The official statistics and citations are on the Second Look Project.
- I posted this as a comment on a past blog post, and then realized I had encompassed my views well, so I decided to post it on my blog.
- I am not an uber-social-conservative person. If you read the whole post, you will see that I agree with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor when she believes in abortion only when there is an "undue burden" on the mother. This statement, in my interpretation, is explained in the following post.
__________
Women who have had abortions cite the following reasons:
42% unmarried
38% would interfere with education/job/career
38% have completed my childbearing
34% student or planning to study
28% can't afford baby and child care
25% don't want people to know they had sex or got pregnant
22% don't feel mature enough to raise a child
22% unemployed
14% not enough support from husband or partner
13% possible fetal health problem
12% physical problem with my health
1% was a victim of rape
<0.5% became pregnant as a result of incest
Statistics are from the Second Look Project (http://www.secondlookproject.org), which cites the following:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 (September 2005).
__________
The top reasons are purely selfish reasons that show complete immaturity. If you weren't ready for a child, you shouldn't have created it (even though it might only be a zygote). And, in these cases, why not consider adoption? At least thousands of couples in the US alone yearn for children and don't have the opportunity to have any. IVF doesn't work for everyone. I know because my uncle and aunt have been trying for more than 10 years and have tried so many treatments including IVF.
Note that rape and incest, together, are less than 1.5% of abortions.
I support Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her belief that abortion is not okay except in cases of "undue burden" for the mother-->when the mother's life is at stake, which occurs in rare occasions.
__________
From the Second Look Project:
Abortions occur at the following gestational times:
23% in the first 6 weeks - 301,300 annually
34.5% in the seventh or eighth week – 451,950 annually
19.5% in the ninth or tenth week – 255,450 annually
10% in the eleventh or twelth week – 131,000 annually
6.0% in the thirteenth through fifteenth weeks – 78,600 annually
4.5% in the sixteenth through twentieth weeks – 58,950 annually
1.5% at twenty-one weeks or more – 19,650 annually
__________
Compare above to the following to see comparable times of zygote/embryo/fetus development.
(Second Look Project, see site above for complete citations)
First days: Human development begins at fertilization, when sperm penetrates the ovum. The early embryo moves through the fallopian tube to the uterus, where it inbeds in the uterine wall approximately 5-12 days after fertilization.
14-21 days: The cardio-vascular system is the first major system to function in the human embryo. Blood is circulating and the heart begins to beat at 21 or 22 days, and can be detected on ultrasound.
21-28 days: The first rudiments of the nervous system appear in the third week; in week four main divisions of the central nervous system are established: forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain and spinal cord.4 Upper limb buds appear in days 24-26 (lower limb buds follow a few days later), and the primordia of the lungs, liver, stomach, pancreas and thyroid are evident.
5th week: The foot plate appears on lower limbs, and pigment appears in the retina of the eye.
6th week: The embryo measures about one inch in length; trunk is beginning to straighten.
At 40 days, brain waves are recordable.
7-8 week: The embryo bears the familiar external features and all internal organs of an adult; its length is about 1-1/2 inches.
By day 51-52 upper limbs bend at the elbow, by day 54, toes have formed.
By the second month, early movements are apparent via ultrasound.
__________
Which means, by the time most abortions are done, the embryo is completely developed and only needs to grow into the size of a baby at 40 weeks. Sure, it won't be able to survive on its own until at least 5-6 months, but it sure is developed by 8 weeks.
__________
From Second Look Project:
1.29 million abortions took place in the U.S. in 2002.
Over 42 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2002.
48% of women now seeking abortion have had at least one previous abortion.
The U.S. abortion rate is among the highest of developed countries.
The U.S. abortion rate per 100 pregnancies is 24.5.
__________
25% of pregnancies are aborted in the US! Does that mean 25% of pregnancies are because of rape, incest, or risk the death of mother and/or child? Not according to the first set of statistics.
48% of women are seeking repeat abortions? How many might have been put under "undue burden" or life, rape, or incest more than once? The latter two-->not very likely. The first? Yes, there are conditions where a woman cannot give birth to a child at all for health reasons (i.e. mixing of blood in the womb), but it's not likely that the 48% of women in the above statistic represent very many of repeat health-related abortions.
Great statistics. Thanks, I've been meaning to go research this topic. And there you have it, all those "valid reasons" that people continually spout off, "what about rape?", don't hold water, because so few people get abortions for those reasons.
At this very moment, somewhere a committee is deciding your life, only you weren't invited
I'm glad this post was helpful for you! :D
Why is not having a job or wanting to stay in college not a valid reason for having an abortion?
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
I know many pro-choice people don't agree with this statement, but to me, that's like asking "why is not having a job or wanting to stay in college not a valid reason for" murdering your child?
Why not put the baby up for adoption? I'm hoping that someone who wants to stay in college is responsible enough to use protection or just practice abstinence. If protection doesn't work, well, then, I seriuosly hope that any woman who has high goals for herself will realize that she can give the baby up for adoption, as I stated in the post.
Not to mention, there is a lot of traumatic stress associated with abortion that many women don't think about before getting an abortion. I'll write about that in another post, I guess. Too much to cover in a comment. :o)
And if we consider the traumatic stress associated with abortion vs. adoption, we can at least see that with adoption, at least a mother can be sure that her child is with nice parents-->in fact, she can even see her child in most cases. Abortion is permanent, which is often something hard to understand for a person who has never dealt with serious loss before. Is a less than 40 week sacrifice too much to ask for one life? People like caregivers give up their entire lives to help a few people, and 40 weeks is incomparable to a lifetime.
I realize I sound very conservative as I say these things, and I am absolutely don't see myself as a social conservative in any other topics; however, I honestly cannot see a positive side to abortion, either for a woman or her zygote/embryo/fetus.
You can't just get pregnant and then give the baby up for adoption. There are still a long 9 months between the two possibilities... Which you seem to conveniently forget about.
And most women who want an abortion feel relief afterwards. Unless you're talking partial birth which is wrong and disgusting. But not even a few months into a pregnancy? I've known people that went through that and their fear was that they wouldn't be able to... I don't know where you're getting the "post-traumatic stress" thing from. My health teacher tried using that one because she's against abortion. She also tried to say it could be linked to breast cancer... though to her everything was linked to breast cancer... Not the point. People against abortion try to create guilt trips and so many supposedly-valid reasons to keep people from choosing abortion. And while, sure, you have every right to feel that way- any other woman has the right to feel the opposite. And they're not trying to convince you to have an abortion- so why are you trying to convince them to change their mind?
because people are soposed to be responsable for their own decisions... at least that's what my father's taught me from my youth....
That and who are we to trade a life for the betterment of our own?
I like your comments! :D
You're right again, in my mind. We are, ultimately, responsible for ourselves and legally responsible for our children as well. I would hope that some people also feel as I do: that we are responsible for the wellbeing of others who aren't always as lucky as we are.
I think it's ironic that you have this signature, esuffern: Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Would it be common sense to party hard and get drunk and then not expect a hangover the next day? Pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex - even if you are using every method of protection available. It makes no logical sense for someone to have sex if they do not want a child.
Also, if abortion is not murder, then how come if someone kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with double murder?
I find it interesting that you liken sex to getting trashed and being pregnant to having a hangover (although they both make you feel nauseous). Not every pregnancy is due to some one night stand where you were so drunk you forgot to use protection. Everyone on the post who agrees with the poster makes it sound like that.
In response to your "it makes no logical sense for someone to have sex if they don't want a child" comment: So married people that don't want to have another baby shouldn't have sex?
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Sorry, I should have phrased that differently. It makes no logical sense for someone to have sex if they are not prepared for the possibility of having a child.
The real issue of abortion is: when is a fetus considered a person? By six weeks, the fetus has distinct arms and legs, and the brain and major organs have begun to form. How can that not be considered a person?
You can get pregnant even when you're using birth control responsibly. And there is "a lot of traumatic stress associated" with being pregnant. Could you imagine succeeding at Standford while being pregnant? You can't get a job while you're pregnant either. And who's going to pay for the doctor visits to keep you and the unborn child healthy? Whose going to pay for the hospital stay when you give birth? How can a college student go to school, be pregnant, and go search for adoptive parents that will support her while she's pregnant? There's no point in giving birth to a baby just for the sake of giving birth to a baby.
If you're so supportive of every woman with an unwanted pregnancy having her child and giving it up for adoption, I hope you're going to adopt a few of them, because there a few thousand extra out there parentless.
You may not like it, but there is a positive side to abortion. There are fewer children growing up in the world fatherless, poor, and/or in foster care. There aren't as many people growing up totally screwed up because their lives would have sucked, because they were never born.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/03/13/zell-miller-is-wrong-but-he-isnt-crazy/
This guy says that not only does it prevent a lot of would-be criminals from coming into being, but it has little effect on population growth, since so many of them are being done in order to put off parenthood until the mother is in a more secure position.
Abortion is bad, but so many hardcore religionists are opposed to birth control/safe sex measures that would prevent the possibility of an abortion in the first place that I don't buy their 'think of the children!' argument. It seems to me an easy target for them to dig their claws in so they can push their larger agenda of sexual morality. That's the flagship issue, and the reason they get so bent out of shape about homosexuals. Sex for fun is a big no-no.
It's a cold view, I'll admit it, but I think it's good for keeping our numbers down, much better than mass murder of people who are already here. A child is not an adult, a baby is not a child, and a fetus is not a human being. I might be a little more flexible when it's at an age that it would stand a chance of surviving outside the body in the event of an early delivery, but a conglomeration of cells, especially the first few that can be extracted as embryonic stem cells in order to grow new tissues and whatnot, does not qualify.
I AM disturbed by the idea of getting an abortion because the child could end up gay. This may necessitate a shift in my position; we'll see.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Fetus is a Latin word that means "little child"; it's a human being that lives in the womb. If a fetus is not a human being until it is outside the womb, then check this out:
http://i.xanga.com/TheVoice/ABORTED%20%20FETUS.jpg
Not human enough to you? Life begins at conception. Even if it looks like a "conglomeration of cells" to you, it's alive.
I don't treasure fetuses more than I treasure other stages of life, and I agree there's too much emphasis on abortion and too little emphasis on the sanctity of life elsewhere. I'm just sick of people giving bogus reasons for abortion, going as far as calling a fetus "cell clumps" to justify killing someone else for the sake of convenience. If you want to resort to wordplay, try "zygote" or "embryo"; either might get you somewhere.
If you want to take a life, fine. Just admit that it's a life you're taking and not "part of a woman's body."
I always imagine succeeding wherever I am because I will be abstinent. Ultimately, I think that is at the root of the rise in abortions. I know a lot of people in college, and even high school, aren't abstinent, but I know that I will never put myself in such a position where I even have to consider abortion. And if I had to? I still wouldn't have an abortion.
Why can't you hold a job while you're pregnant? You can get a job or already have a job and just need to be on maternity leave for 1-2 months. I know many women who have kept their babies do that.
I can't do anything if a women can't pay for a child. Again, this is where responsibility comes in. Ask for help from an organization, look into Medicaid or a governmental aid program. Also, only 22% of women cite unemployment as a reason for abortion. Only 28% cite that they can't afford a baby and child care.
As I state in an earlier comment, about the 7 months of your life that you know you are pregnant aren't worth (for me) ignoring a lifetime that can arise from those 7 months. And a woman does not need to search for adoptive parents herself; an agency will find it for her. She need not spend any more time than necessary. In fact, she doesn't even need to meet the parents or see her child if she doesn't want to (in extreme cases).
I will adopt when I have the chance. I'm a bit too young right now, but I plan to adopt and support as many people as possible. In fact, I hope that I'm doing my part as such even today when I support orphanages internationally, volunteer at hospitals, make donations to charities, and help at places for battered women and children. My biggest wish is to make a change in inner-cities where there is so much crime and poverty that necessitates abortions for some women. I also just hope that I'll have the money and/or the means to continue doing what I do on a larger scale.
Children grow up fatherless if their father dies in a war or because of cancer or for any other reason. They continue living. Are you going to kill/abort a life/possible life because they'll be screwed up? Where's the support for diversity then? Tolerance and acceptance is supposed to be a great characteristic of American society-->it's not common in public media and on hot-button issues, but I know that it's valued in most places.
And what, exactly, is wrong with foster care? There are a few extreme cases of disgusting foster care, but the system as a whole is quite helpful. And there are so many celebrities and famous people who made a rise from being poor? Look at the man who just won the Best Actor Oscar.
I hope I clarified my opinions just a bit more. It's such a controversial issue, and I know I have an unpopular stance on it, especially since I'm a Californian from the San Francisco Bay Area. I hardly expect that many people on this site will agree with me, but I'm glad that I can have sensible debate with people who know what they are talking about so that I can develop my own opinions further. :o)
I said IMAGINE being pregnant and trying to succeed at Standford. Saying you never will be isn't the point of the exercise. The point is that you can't succeed at university while trying to be pregnant just so you can give your baby up for adoption. I didn't say you couldn't have a job and be pregnant. I said you wouldn't be able to get hired for a job when you're pregnant.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
then why not just ...not have sex? Is abstenance such an out dated idea now?
Forgive any spelling errors please.
I absolutely agree with you. When birth control is never 100% effective, why risk creating something that you don't want?
If succeeding at Stanford is her main concern, then she should have thought about there before she had sex. What is the point of having sex for the sake of being sex? If it was sexual pleasure she was aiming for, she could've used a cucumber. Abortion isn't cheap either.
Have you ever had an abortion to be sure if the positive side outweighs the negative side? As I understand it, abortion mainly hurts those who do abortion themselves, as opposed to the society as a whole. What is wrong with growing up fatherless, poor, and in foster care? Seriously. And what about people who were "wanted" who still have lives that suck? Your rationale only excuses their suicidal inclination.
As a matter of fact, I intend to adopt a child soon. I have no spouse, though, so he will be fatherless. I'm also not that rich. I hope that doesn't mean my future child should have been aborted.
Then we've struck the nail right on the head, haven't we? Abortion isn't a small issue of whether or not to have a baby. It's an issue of morality as a whole!
It's an issue of responsibility, and considering the possible outcomes of our actions.
Abortion is more than an issue of the life of a child. It also speaks to responsibility and morality. Of a person, and a society.
Instead of being so concerned with the "a few more thousand will be parent-less", maybe we should be concerned with WHY this situation happened in the first place? Sure, the "quick fix" (notice not the easy fix) is an abortion, but couldn't this all have been avoided (in most cases) by simply abstaining from sex? Or are we too obsessed with having premarital sex that we can't see the consequences? The fact that this is an issue at all brings me back to my main point. Abortion isn't just an issue of one baby's life. It's an issue of responsibility and morality. Both of which are apparently lacking.
A) Who is anyone to judge or hate any woman who has made the hardest choice in her life to have an abortion for whatever her PERSONAL and PRIVATE reasons are ??
B) Not a lot of women care to for the thought of ANYONE else raising their child, to make matters worse, once the child is actually born, many women cannot go through with the adoption. This can effect many other people outside of the pregnancy.
C) Sandra Day O'Connor was for the right of a woman to choose what she was to do with her body.
D) Abortion is NOT murder.
E) Just because the infant can breathe on its own outside of the womb DOES not mean it can surive on its own. It still needs the love, comfort and to be clothed, sheltered and fed. A girl in high school who has a part-time job and Mickey D's might have problems being able to supply her child with these things.
F) Abortion is legal for a reason. Let it go.
and
G) If abotion was made illegal, women and girls would still have them. To make matters worse we would see a major drop in economy system. How much money do you think it takes to give welfare to the mother's who opt to keep their children even with "UNDUE" circumstances like not having an eduction or a proper sourse of fuds, nor the emotional capasity to raise a child. AND let's not forget my point A
Who is anyone to judge or hate any woman who has made the hardest choice in her life to have an abortion for whatever her PERSONAL and PRIVATE reasons are ??
Let that resonate,
Moni
"Remember: knowledge is still power"
I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal at all. I think it's a matter that should be solved at the state and local level. Such rulings will be more representative of the US because it is such a diverse country. I will also never judge a woman who has had an abortion. I do not judge people at all, in fact. These are just my reasons as to why abortion is wrong.
And the Encarta Encyclopedia article on Sandra Day O'Connor states the following:
"O’Connor’s pragmatic, case-by-case approach was perhaps most evident on the issue of abortion. In 1983 she proposed her own test for evaluating restrictions on abortion, asking whether the restriction “unduly burdened” the right to choose. O’Connor used this test throughout her tenure to decide whether she considered a particular abortion restriction permissible. From 1983 to 1992, O’Connor upheld every abortion restriction put before the Court. But in a 1989 case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, O’Connor refused to provide the swing vote to overturn Roe itself. Three years later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, she joined liberal justices in upholding the “core holding” of Roe—namely, that states may not place serious restrictions on abortion prior to a fetus’s “point of viability.” However, this ruling abandoned the trimester framework that had been established in Roe, which had set a fetus’s viability at six months" (Encarta, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571922_2/Sandra_Day_O'Connor.html).
I will find more details and post again.
If many women cannot go through with adoption because they get too close to their child, then how do you think they might feel after they actually want to have children and realize that they had an abortion?
In terms of welfare and economy, I can't do anything about where our government is spending its money. I definitely think that those who need help and are living in poverty can be helped with the amount of money that the government makes each year; unfortunately, the government doesn't always spend billions of dollars where they should be spent. Also, the above statistics show that only 28% of women cite "can't afford baby and child care" as a reason for abortion, and only 22% of women cite unemployment as a reason.
Women and girls may still have illegal abortions (if they are made illegal)-->that doesn't make it right in my mind though. Especially if something is illegal. I'm not going to go into civil disobedience, though. I'll save it for another post. :o)
"A girl in high school who has a part-time job and Mickey D's might have problems being able to supply her child with these things" (Moni, above).
This is another thing I can't control, but this girl shouldn't even be having sex, especially if she is underage.
My first comment is in regards to this statement...
> The top reasons are purely selfish reasons that show
> complete immaturity.
...And my question is, "so what?" The point isn't WHY people make the choices they do, but rather do they have the right to make that choice? In a free society, there will always be people who make choices that you may not like.
My second comment concerns the disingenous way in which you present the stages of fetal development. You said...
> At 40 days, brain waves are recordable.
And, that is true. The nervous system and proto-brain have begun to develop at his point, but it is not yet functional. Higher brain functions, including the ability to trasfer pain signals from the nerves to the brain and the areas of the brain that permit consciousness do not begin to function until 26 weeks (6 months).
The kind of editorialized presentation of the scientific facts surrounding the development of the fetus not only undermines the CREDIBILITY of your position, but it quite frankly leaves your allies staggering about in confusion as to why they can't seem to gain any ground in support of their beliefs.
percivale
I have no objections to selfishness. Our country was founded essentially on pure capitalism. And yes, there are many people who make choices that I don't agree with. Again, this is purely my own "pro-life" opinion: why should people's selfish choices be at the cost of a baby-->a potential person? Honestly, I can't answer the "so what?", but we can ask that question for almost any topic.
I never said that a zygote or embryo can survive on its own. This is just my analysis of the statistics and a representation of my opinion. I never stated that anyone has to accept it. If someone does, I'll be very happy. If someone doesn't, I'm just as happy because I get a test of my debate skills, which I always enjoy. :o)
> If someone doesn't, I'm just as happy because I get a test
> of my debate skills, which I always enjoy.
Then we may actually get along quite well. :) I love a good debate, and have even been known to argue positions that I don't actually hold, just to ensure that both sides of an issue are well-represented. (Which is not the the case NOW, however...lol.)
> why should people's selfish choices be at the cost of a
> baby-->a potential person?
There is a logical flaw in your position, since the premise of this argument--i.e. that a fetus in the early stages of development is a "baby," (or more precisely a human person who possesses rights)--is not an objective point that has been proved to be true.
The ENTIRE argument of whether or not abortion should be legal hinges on this one issue. IF a fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception, then it has all of the same rights as other people, and abortion MUST be made illegal. If a fetus is NOT a "person" until some later point in its development, then there is no legal basis for preventing abortions until after that point is reached.
The PROBLEM is that most (though certainly not all) of the people who believe that personhood begins at conception do so for purely religious reasons, and our Constutition does not allow us to pass laws based solely on the religious beliefs of citizens.
The NON-religious arguments for this position are profoundly unconvincing, since no one has yet been able to come up with a scientific definition that can encompass the fetus at the moment of conception in any way that suggests that it should be considered a "human person" at that point.
In the absense of any clear and objective means of defending your underlying premise, it becomes inappropriate for the government to DICTATE that opinion to other citizens.
IMHO,
percivale
Thank you! I'm excited for an honest debate as well!
I wrote in one of my above comments that I feel abortion should be handled at the state and local levels to truly be representative of what people want.
And I would like to clarify the religion thing (although in the end I don't think it matters in my case): I am not Christian, and I am certainly not conservative, as I stated in the first few notes of my original post. I am Hindu, but my religion does not really cover abortion to the best of my knowledge (which is not too expansive considering the nature of Hinduism, even though I'm semi-devout). I'm steering away from religion to a moral/ethical/legal argument though. Add some more ethos, hopefully.
Although, I'd have to say there is a legal basis, so far, on when life begins. In court cases, aren't pregnant women's murders considered double murders? I'll look more into this because the one example I can think of (Laci Peterson) is flawed b/c Connor could have survived on his own. I'll look into it during school or something b/c I have to finish studying for calculus right now. :o(
Scientifically? My cousin found out she was pregnant within two weeks of conception. Getting closer and closer every day, though. Someone mentioned that so many pregnancies fail in the first couple weeks anyways without the mother knowing.
Okay, so just a brainstorm. I'll get back to you sometime today hopefully. Thanks for giving me something to research! I really think what you've mentioned really gets at the root of the abortion debate, so it'll be great to clarify my own opinions on this as well.
> Thank you! I'm excited for an honest debate as well!
As am I. It is rare to find anyone these days who can enjoy a good argument simply for its own sake.
> I wrote in one of my above comments that I feel abortion should be
> handled at the state and local levels to truly be representative of
> what people want.
I have two (closely related) issues of contention with this point. The first is that the Consitution does not permit the States to enact legislation which is infringes upon the basic rights that ALL citizens of the United States possess. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." The basic rights of citizenship are not subject to local interpretation, and I feel that this question clearly falls into the realm of basic rights. Do you disagree?
My second and more fundamental objection has to do with the idea that people's rights are subject to the majority's whims. The very reason that the United States was founded as a constitutional republic instead of a direct democracy is based on a belief that individuals possess certain rights that are unalienable, and that those rights must by necessity be protected regardless of the weight of numbers in opposition of an individual's exercise of his or her rights.
> And I would like to clarify the religion thing (although in the end I
> don't think it matters in my case): I am not Christian, and I am certainly
> not conservative, as I stated in the first few notes of my original post.
> I am Hindu, but my religion does not really cover abortion to the best
> of my knowledge (which is not too expansive considering the nature
> of Hinduism, even though I'm semi-devout).
I am not an expert on hinduism--so, please forgive me if my comments are imprecise--but it is my understanding that the Reg Veda condems the practice, and that modern hindu philosophy considers abortion to be contrary to the dharma of the reincarnated soul, and is an impediment that prevents souls from reaching their next stage of the reincarnation cycle. In my opinion, this point of view fails for the same reasons as christian argument, primarily because the "soul" cannot be proved to actually exist.
> I'm steering away from religion to a moral/ethical/legal argument though.
> Add some more ethos, hopefully. Although, I'd have to say there is a
> legal basis, so far, on when life begins. In court cases, aren't pregnant
> women's murders considered double murders?
That is certainly a very controversial point that is hotly debated in legal circles. In most jurisdictions, however, the application of a fetal homicide law is contingent on the "viability" of the fetus. Here is a link to a more in-dept examination of the state by state laws governing this kind of crime...
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm
It is important to note, however, that there are significant differences in the contexts of a criminally malicious fetal homicide and an voluntary abortion. It is not uncommon in American jurisprudence that the law is forced to weigh the relative importance of conflicting rights. Even if one considers the fetus to be a "person" from the moment of conception, its (theoretical) rights can easily come into conflict with the rights of the mother (again, theoretically). In an abortion, the rights of the mother and the rights of the potential person have to be measured against one another. In this case, both parties have a (theoretically) valid claim, though the weight of those claims may or may not be equivalent.
In the case of a fetal homicide, hovever, the criminal has no claim which could serve as a counterbalance to the rights of the mother and her unborn child. In the case of the volunatary abortion the mother's rights are significant, and in leiu of any compelling evidence that would suggest that the rights of the mother should be sublimated to the potential rights of the child, the appropriate (or so it is argued legally) action of the State is to err on the side of the known quantity (i.e. the mother's personhood and rights) in favor of the unknown quantity (i.e. the theoretical rights of the fetus). In a fetal homicide, there is no motivation for the state to weigh such a consideration, since the murderer is behaving in a maliciously criminal fashion, regardless of whether the ultimate issue of fetal personhood is resolved, and thus often rules that the known quantity of criminal intent outweighs the possibility that the fetus is NOT a person and so would not have rights.
> I'll look more into this because the one example I can think
> of (Laci Peterson) is flawed b/c Connor could have survived
> on his own. I'll look into it during school or something b/c I
> have to finish studying for calculus right now. :o(
You are right, it is a bad example. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant at the time of the murder, well beyond the point where BOTH sides of this issue agree that the unborn child has rights.
* Oh, and I HATED calculus. Have fun if you can.
> Scientifically? My cousin found out she was pregnant within two
> weeks of conception. Getting closer and closer every day, though.
> Someone mentioned that so many pregnancies fail in the first couple
> weeks anyways without the mother knowing.
You also have to consider the potential consequences of changing the law to recognize a fetus as a full human person, will all of the rights and privileges so associated, since there are so many dangers that can lead to the death of an unborn child. Suppose we did come to legally recognize the fetus as a full human person from the moment of conception. What if a mother is driving and has a car accident (her fault), which results in a miscarriage? The killing of another human person without malice is still manslaughter in most jurisdictions. If the unborn is the same as the human person on the sidewalk, this scenario would make the mother potentially guilty of involuntary manslaughter, at least.
> Okay, so just a brainstorm. I'll get back to you sometime today hopefully.
> Thanks for giving me something to research! I really think what you've
> mentioned really gets at the root of the abortion debate, so it'll be great
> to clarify my own opinions on this as well.
I look forward to your response,
percivale
You accuse abortion-havers of being selfish. I'm curious to see if you can come up with any unselfish reasons to have a baby.
I don't think you can.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
I'm sorry. I'm not quite sure what you mean...As in someone wants to have a baby, so that's selfish? I see your point, then. I go over selfishness in one of my comments above:
"I have no objections to selfishness. Our country was founded essentially on pure capitalism. And yes, there are many people who make choices that I don't agree with. Again, this is purely my own "pro-life" opinion: why should people's selfish choices be at the cost of a baby-->a potential person? Honestly, I can't answer the "so what?", but we can ask that question for almost any topic."
This is where we can really go into when/where a zygote/embryo is legally/morally considered a person, and this is something I will be posting on later. I have to go to school now. :o( And this site is so addictive! I'll have a better response ASAP.
The top reasons are purely selfish reasons that show complete immaturity.
"Unmarried" is not a selfish, immature reason. Single parents are more likely to be poor and disadvantaged. Step-parents are more likely to be abusive. Waiting until marriage to have children is not selfish at all.
"Would interfere with education/job/career" is not selfish or immature. A good education and a career are the exact opposite of "selfish and immature."
"Have completed my childbearing" is NOT selfish and immature. You would honestly call a 40-year-old mother of five "selfish and immature" for not wanting a sixth child? Ridiculous!
"Can't afford baby and child care" is not selfish or immature. You can't give what you don't have. Having more babies even though you're homeless and unemployed would be "selfish and immature."
If you weren't ready for a child, you shouldn't have created it (even though it might only be a zygote).
Unfortunately, not all pregnancies are intentional. If they were, there would be no need for abortion.
And, in these cases, why not consider adoption?
Because most women don't want to go through all the bonding of pregnancy and birth only to hand their infant over to strangers, never to see him/her again. The post-birth surge of hormones compels the new mother to keep her baby close. Adoption can be extremely traumatic to mothers, and the trauma lasts a lifetime.
It's much easier to have an early abortion or a "miscarriage" and never create a baby in the first place.
At least thousands of couples in the US alone yearn for children and don't have the opportunity to have any.
Well, they're in luck: there are 114,000 children in foster care awaiting adoption RIGHT NOW, and they could really use some loving, responsible adults in their lives. Perhaps your aunt and uncle would be interested.
At 40 days, brain waves are recordable.
This is baloney. The fetus is incapable of feeling, experience or thought before the third trimester.
25% of pregnancies are aborted in the US!
Yes, and 25% of pregnancies would continue to be aborted even if abortion were illegal. Abortion bans don't work. Nearly half the world's abortions happen in places where it's illegal.
Outlawing abortion doesn't save babies, but it does kill and injure women. Legalized abortion does not necessarily encourage abortion: some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in countries with illegal abortion, and the lowest abortion rates occur in countries with legal abortion. Birth control and sex education make all the difference.
But pro-life groups in the US are not interested in preventing abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancy. They care only about enforcing Puritan sexual morality on the entire country, hence their disdain for birth control and sex education, as well as their "coincidental" opposition to gay rights.
I would appreciate comments that reflect that you have completely read my post as well as the comments that follow. My comments to previous comments cover almost everything that you have mentioned in your comment.
I repeatedly stated that I do not feel abortion need be illegal. This post was a personal analysis of statistics that I have found from reliable sources. My intent was not to "change views;" rather, I wanted to clarify my own opinions. I don't morally agree with abortion, but I have *never* stated that it should be illegal. That is something the country as a whole needs to do. Or, abortion legaltity (as I have also stated repeatedly) should be decided at state and local levels to be more representative of US diversity.
If you also read the post and comments, you would find that I am not Christian, Puritan, or conservative. I am pro-gay marriage and pro-gay rights. I am all for birth control. I've just stated that it is not always 100% effective. Sex education? I never found it helpful, but I'm sure it is for many students.
If you are unmarried and don't want to have a child, then why put yourself in a position that you might become pregnant? And are the majority of step-parents abusive? No. Do people still not take care of their children after divorces? Do parents not get married again after divorce? Of course not. If we think that step-parents are more likely to be abusive, divorced parents just shouldn't get married again anyways.
If someone is worried about career interference (once again), why did she put herself in a position where she could become pregnant? I realize that birth control does not always work, but as I have stated many times earlier: less than 40 weeks will not kill your career. Just take the time--less than 40 weeks--to allow a zygote/embryo/fetus to have a life.
Completed childbearing? I'll take into account an extreme example here. If a couple decides they have had more children than they want, will they go and kill one or two of their children who have already been born? I doubt it. Just because a 40-year-old mother of five children does not want another child does not give her the right to decide after having already conceived one.
"Can't afford baby and child care" is selfish or immature. They should have thought of that before putting themselves in a position where they could get pregnant. There are so many organizations that will help. Albeit it's harder, but there is government money for families who cannot take care of themselves financially. Poor people still have families, regardless of situation. Is that so wrong for them to want to have children?
If a woman cannot handle "bonding" with a child over less than 40 weeks, perhaps she shouldn't be having an abortion in the first place. Imagine someone who bonds with an unborn child--imagine them when they actually want a child and bond with a child that they want--how will they feel about having an abortion or not giving the fetus aborted for adoption?
And thank you, but my aunt and uncle are considering adoption after a last attempt at having their own child.
Statistics say that brain waves can be recorded at 40 days. I never said the fetus can feel. I'm not sure where you got that idea b/c I have also repeatedly stated that a zygote/embryo cannot feel.
25% of pregnancies are aborted. Okay. That statistic just points out that the US has the highest rate of abortions in developed countries. It highlights how high the percentage of abortions truly are. Not everyone knows that. I never discussed rates of illegal abortions because I never stated that abortion should be illegal. And if you say that places where legal abortions happen have the lowest rates of abortion, why does the US have the highest rates of abortion? Abortion's legal here.
I hope I have covered everything that you mentioned. Please do see that I covered a lot of these topics in my earlier comments, however.
I repeatedly stated that I do not feel abortion need be illegal.
Then you shouldn't have written:
I support Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her belief that abortion is not okay except in cases of "undue burden" for the mother-->when the mother's life is at stake, which occurs in rare occasions
...and then spent the rest of your post bemoaning legal abortion. That would seem to indicate that you believe the government should be able to prohibit abortion except to save the pregnant woman's life.
I don't morally agree with abortion, but I have *never* stated that it should be illegal. That is something the country as a whole needs to do. Or, abortion legaltity (as I have also stated repeatedly) should be decided at state and local levels to be more representative of US diversity.
Are you under the mistaken impression that all Texans and Kansans are pro-life and all New Yorkers and Californians are pro-choice? What makes you think it would it be "more representative of US diversity" if we left basic civil rights decisions to the individual states? Would it also have been "more representative of US diversity" if we had continued to allow southern states to deny black citizens the right to vote?
If you also read the post and comments, you would find that I am not Christian, Puritan, or conservative.
Good. All the more reason for you to stop calling yourself "pro-life." The pro-life movement in the US is against everything you stand for.
If you are unmarried and don't want to have a child, then why put yourself in a position that you might become pregnant?
Because sex is good and natural and healthy, and in a free society, it is not your place to tell others that they don't deserve to have sex.
Also because not all pregnancies are caused by someone (female) putting themselves in a position to become pregnant. And most rapes go unproven and unpunished.
If someone is worried about career interference (once again), why did she put herself in a position where she could become pregnant?
What are you saying? That male students can have all the sex they want, but if a woman wants to have a successful career, she has to remain a virgin and avoid rape until she's graduated, successful and married? That's ridiculously sexist, and (coincidentally?) Puritan.
Completed childbearing? I'll take into account an extreme example here. If a couple decides they have had more children than they want, will they go and kill one or two of their children who have already been born
Not all people believe that a fetus is the same thing as a real, living, born, breathing, named, beloved child.
Your example isn't "an extreme example," it's an irrelevant "example." It's completely unrelated. Murdering an actual child has always been illegal. An abortion is not the same as killing a child. Not everyone sees it that way.
Just because a 40-year-old mother of five children does not want another child does not give her the right to decide after having already conceived one.
No, the fact that it's inside her body where no one else knows about it gives her the right to decide after having already conceived.
Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it. Abortion is a natural right, just like birth. You can't just ban it and expect it to go away. Banning it creates more problems than it solves.
"Can't afford baby and child care" is selfish or immature. They should have thought of that before putting themselves in a position where they could get pregnant.
So now poor women have to remain celibate, too? Are you sure you're not a Puritan?
Poor people still have families, regardless of situation. Is that so wrong for them to want to have children?
Of course not; that's irrelevant. The real question is: is it so wrong for them to NOT want any more children?
In my opinion, that is not wrong at all.
Imagine someone who bonds with an unborn child--imagine them when they actually want a child and bond with a child that they want--how will they feel about having an abortion or not giving the fetus aborted for adoption?
Nobody has to have an abortion if she doesn't want to, so your question makes no sense. Why would she have an abortion if she didn't want to?
Statistics say that brain waves can be recorded at 40 days. I never said the fetus can feel. I'm not sure where you got that idea b/c I have also repeatedly stated that a zygote/embryo cannot feel.
If you know that an early embryo/fetus can not feel/experience/think, then I don't know why you give a damn about "brain waves at 40 days."
And if you say that places where legal abortions happen have the lowest rates of abortion, why does the US have the highest rates of abortion? Abortion's legal here.
The US doesn't have the "highest" rate of abortion; it has the highest rate among developed countries with legal abortion.
There are plenty of countries with illegal abortion, like Brazil and Peru, with MUCH HIGHER abortion rates than the US.
Why does the US have the highest abortion rate among developed countries? Because we have "abstinence-only" bullshit infecting our schools, and because we don't have universal health care or free birth control for every citizen. The US is the ONLY developed country in the world without universal health care and REAL sex education, and that's why our abortion rates are high. Birth control and sex education reduce abortion rates.
Thank the Lord, someone here has some sense! Thank you so much for your comment; I don't think I could have done half as good a job being so thorough.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
I also appreciate the thoroughness of nothingmuch's opinion, and unfortunately I won't be able to respond until at least tomorrow. Two big tests tomorrow. **sigh**
Anyways, I'd just like to make a small request to everyone. Not that anyone is doing this yet (or is going to do this, for all I know). I appreciate the good debate, but I'd like to not go into bashing and saying that one opinion is nonsensical, stupid, etc. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and I hope we can respect each other throughout at least this post.
Wow...sounds like a really weird request, but otherwise the whole discussion will lose it's fun.
1. Just because I support O'Connor's opinion and bemoan abortion doesn't mean I think the national government should make it illegal. O'Connor never even stated a strict opinion on what she felt about abortion, forget about her stating that it should be illegal.
2. Our country abides under a foundation of majority rules, minority rights. I'm not under the impression that all certain state citizens have the same opinion towards abortion, I'm just saying that creating regulations within state and local levels will be more representative than a national decision for this, or any other hot-button, issue.
I forgot to mention civil rights in my previous comment b/c I was running out of time. Perhaps I would be better able to address this topic if you related civil rights and abortion rights. If you look at my point number 7, you will see that I view a fetus from conception as a potential baby. In this case, the baby should have equal protection under the 14th amendment and, thus, have civil rights. Discrimination and racism is never right. Abortion can be made extreme, and, ultimately, I don't think you can compare regional voting based on that. One involves death (in my interpretation), and the other doesn't. <-- This part is pretty choppy and unclear. You'll have to let me think it through some more because I don't think it states what I want it to. :o(
This is definitely a biased piece, but I think that the conclusion wraps up my own opinions well (unless I overlooked something in my haste):
http://www.liberator.net/articles/abortion.html
3. Would you prefer I call myself "anti-abortion" then?
4. Have all the sex you want. I don't care. But be ready for the consequences and (as the article linked above states) don't use abortion as a fall-back.
5. Of course all pregnancies are not intentional. If it's rape, then adoption is an alternative to keeping the baby. It sounds cold-hearted, but is it the zygote's fault? No. Then why kill it. And it's most definitely not the mother's fault. As if rape isn't enough, should a woman go through the emotional stress of dealing with abortion later in life? Adoption or having a baby is not nearly as scarring because at least you know that the baby is alive. Even so, if a woman wants to have abortion, she is free to go ahead and do so. If she thinks that having a baby will be more scarring than getting rid of a zygote, then I will support that woman.
6. Successful careers are not dependent on become pregnant. Having children does not hinder career success. And males are just as responsible for conception as are women (unless rape is involved). Anyone can have all the sex they want, but, once again, they should be prepared for consequences. I don't see how two parents accepting responsibility of conceiving a child is either sexist or Puritan.
7. And defining when a baby is not a baby is the root of the abortion debate. I realize that not everyone believes a fetus is a baby, but I do. Ultimately, perhaps there will never be a consensus, but I am entitled to believing that from the moment of conception, a fetus is a potential person. For me, abortion is the same as killing a child. And I respect if you don't agree with that. As Voltaire stated, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
8. If a family doesn't want anymore children, just be prepared for the consequences, and don't use abortion as an automatic birth control fall-back. I would hope that a woman with 5 children would realize the importance of her children in her and her husband's life and then want to give up the "unwanted" baby for adoption so another family will be able to experience the same feelings that her family experienced when she had her children.
9. You have taken this quote out of context. I stated, right after that quote, that there are many organizations and federal help for poor families who cite that they are having an abortion because they cannot afford a baby. And, again, there's always adoption. No one has to remain celibate, although I believe that abstinence is the best policy if you don't want a baby. And yes, I am sure I am not a Puritan. I am 100% Hindu. ;o)
10. It is not wrong for poor families to not want anymore children. And for that, there's adoption.
11. Brain waves at 40 days was a direct quote from the Second Look Project's statistics. I did not write any analysis on that part. It just means that the brain is there and working. The statistics are there for everyone's information, and they're cited. There was no "hidden meaning" there. It's just a fact.
12. Are you saying that promoting abstience is wrong, then? It certainly teaches responsibility, I would think. Although I agree that we should have universal health care, I know that at least in my area, there is free birth control for those who want it. And I'm not sure what you mean by "real sex education." In my experience, the sex education we had was pretty real. And we had it for a total of two years between fifth grade and ninth grade. By ninth grade, although abstinence was recommended, everyone was told about birth control (if they decided they wanted to have sex) and where free birth control could be given. You're right, birth control and sex ed. do reduce abortion rates, and I think we have plenty of both in the US.
And this turned into a not so quick response. o.O;;
Hopefully I got to everything you wrote. :D
You have taken every thing I have been trying to say for years on this subject and made it sound rational. I praise and respect you for that.
Let that resonate,
Moni
"Remember: knowledge is still power"
Thank you! I truly appreciate compliments just as much as I appreciate debate! :D
I'm glad this post was helpful for you! :D
Even when I imagine being pregnant at Stanford, I think that I can take up to one academic year off without it negatively affecting me at all. If I were to be pregnant, I would have more than enough time off to work because I would keep that baby. You can also be finished with an adoption in that much time.
I don't see why someone who's pregnant would not be able to get a job, though. There's ideally no discrimination in the workplace, so that shouldn't be a reason. And there are maternity laws that deal with workplace situations.
But you couldn't take classes and be pregnant. Not every girl, especially ones on scholarship from the university, have the luxury of taking off school.
Just as a side note in regards to the general tone of your post and comments. You make it sound like its no big deal to just have a baby. Get pregnant, no big deal, just have the baby, its only nine months of your life. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how having a baby impacts a woman. And of course, you'll say, but an abortion impacts a woman. Yes, it does, but the consequences of having a child are so much more numerous and far reaching. Having a baby shouldnt be taken lightly and that's how you make it sound. Just have it and go pawn it off on someone else.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Anyone can take a year off from school without consequence. If someone cannot afford school without outside scholarships, then I would hope they would be on fin. aid. Also, I hope that any school would not begrudge a woman education because they want to take time off from school to have a baby.
I realize the importance of having a baby as well as its affect in one's life. Having a baby is hardly inconsequential, and I apologize if I made it seem like that is how I felt. However, how are the consequences of having a child more numerous and far reaching than abortion? And I would never consider adoption like pawning! Jewelry can never be worth as much as a life, just as jewelry will never be worth more to a family getting a baby than the baby itself.
Having a baby shouldn't be taken lightly, and neither should having an abortion, which is what it has become in many cases in the US.
I would think that bringing a person into the world, whose actions will affect thousands of people throughout their life is a more far reaching consequence than a terminated pregnancy. An abortion affects the woman who had it and maybe the father of the child, if he was even aware of it.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
I would argue, then, whether any harm can come of letting a fetus develop and survive as a person? Compare the harm in that to the harm that comes to a woman after an abortion. And I'm sure that when the psychological effects of abortion affect a woman, it will affect everyone who loves her as well.
First off I am anti-abortion but isn't it unfair to the child to be born into a situation where they aren't wanted??? o yea and the common answer for this is there is always adoption... of course you can put the baby up for adoption but who is to say that child won't become a victim of 'the system' and spend its' entire life in foster care or an orphanage without love and encouragment?? According to the US Census Bureau only about 1.6 million households have adopted children... and considering the several million abortions per year the main question lies with whether or not we as a nation can take in these children that are aborted.... also on the realm of foriegn abortion... my best friend's mother has had 3 abortions because she can't afford the children and adoption isn't an option in her country of Romania due to the government being charged with selling the children... so my question to you is: Is it right to have a child born into a life of poverty and despair with no hope of this wonderful adoption?
-Prosperity begins with Diversity
It's not fair for anyone to be born into those circumstances, but people still are born. That doesn't make them any less capable of someone who is born into different circumstances. I'm not sure about international regulations concerning abortion, but I will be sure to look some of them up and get back to you.
I do, however, believe that we can take in those children that are aborted. 1.6 million households have adopted children, but how many have just one and how many have more than one? More than 1.6 million children are adopted. Although there are negative stereotypes of foster homes, the majority of foster homes are not that way.
Let me bring in an international example here. I support an orphanage in India. I visit those kids almost every year. They are getting an amazing education and life, so I don't think orphanages are bad either. You can get just as much love and encouragement there as anywhere else. And these kids I'm talking about were abandoned or found on the streets begging, etc. Now, they are learning not just all the subjects, but they're working to become the foundation for a stronger nation with strong skills in computers, reading, analysis, etc.
Well why you do not ask a woman, who has had an abortion and gone through the judgments and outsiders opinions already, ask her “What did you do and how did you feel when you realized that after having your abortion that you wanted a child more than anything in the world?”
Do not know anyone to ask, you can ask me.
Statistically many women report feeling relieved after an abortion (the pamphlet they gave me after mine).
And abortion does not negate NOT wanting a child, only not being prepared for the child at that moment in time , moreover; “not being prepared” (for whatever reason) does NOT negate selfishness on her part, in fact, to bring a such a blessing into this world unprepared is indeed one of the most selfish things anyone can do.
Just in case no one knew this, Roe Vs. Wade, the supreme court ruling that Sandra Day O’Connor refused to give her swing vote to was in essence “the woman’s right to choose” up until the fetus is considered viable outside the mother’s womb and an with an emphasis on with artificial aide, around 24-28 weeks. (Roe n.pag.). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Moreover, no one is to judge anyone’s choice in having sex. Telling children and even adults not to have sex, as history shows us, does not work. Educational intuitions need to implement a safe sex practice curriculum, not focused on abstinence. As “horrible” as that sounds, it is the truth.
Let that resonate,
Moni
"Remember: knowledge is still power"
Thank you for your comment. You actually have an understanding of the issue at hand.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
And I believe that "undue" circumstances means that the child is actually not due.
All I can do is spread what I know (and/or believe) and hope it resonates with people (as well as learn from other people, because that's the important part). I don't try to "ruffle feathers", I just have to do it.
Let that resonate,
Moni
"Remember: knowledge is still power"
- No one ever learned anything from thinking they already knew it all
Obviously, condoms still break and birth control pills don't always work. Most people who have abortions actually know about safe sex practice; "accidents" just happen. Whoops!
If you really can't afford to get pregnant, abstinence works 100%. Of course telling people not to do something doesn't always work. With that kind of logic, how about we lift up rules of all kinds? No longer should we tell students not to cheat or plagiarize. No longer should we tell teenagers to say no to cigarettes and drugs. No longer should we tell pedophiles or rapists to stop doing whatever it is they're doing. After all, telling people not to do something doesn't work!
Someone argued what about unmarried couples who don't want kids? Well, according to statistics:
In New York alone, 73,885 are unmarried and 19,022 are married.
In a state like Utah, 2,261 are unmarried and 1,444 are married.
In Wyoming, 146 are unmarried and 33 are married.
Abortion is most often done by women between the ages of 20-24, followed by women between the ages of 15-19. Suffice to say most of them are not married.
All numbers are taken from this page, which I hope is not an overly biased one: http://www.abortionfacts.com/
As you can see, married couples are less involved in this, much like the rape victims who pro-choice often use as a shield in the abortion debate when they are in fact in the minority.
I'm sure bias exists on both sides, but from the same webpage, it is found that:
46.7% strongly agree that the abortion procedure was painful, 10.9% strongly disagree.
45.6% strongly agree that their decision (to abort) was inconsistent with their prior beliefs, 12.9% strongly disagree.
9.0% strongly agree that the memory of their abortion has faded with time, 52% strongly disagree.
And as a result:
2.1% strongly agree they felt happy, 62.2% strongly disagree.
2.1% strongly agree they felt liberated, 44.4% strongly disagree.
4.3% strongly agree they felt sexual freedom, 40.0% strongly disagree.
57.0% strongly agree they felt self-condemnation 1.2% strongly disagree.
Of course women are free to choose for themselves. Among other things, women can say no when they are pressured by their boyfriends to have an abortion. Remember "Hills Like White Elephant" by Ernest Hemingway? Boyfriend says he doesn't want girlfriend to go through it if she doesn't want to. Girlfriend understands he means she needs to do it or he'd call it quits.
Moreover, would I expect most "women" between the ages of 15 and 19 (the second largest age group to have an abortion) to actually have a choice? Hardly.
You mean no one cited that they like killing babies? That would be my reason.
--Mike
WOW! What's this--some actual FACTS about the abortion debate??? What a radical idea!
Thanks--I feel like this whole debate so far has been opinion-driven, lead by plattitude-spewing idealogues who obviously didn't earn their positions of power by their skills in discussion.
It's nice to get to the bottom of things, past the usual "abortion is bad," "abortion is good," dialogue.
Allison Parker
"Be the change you want to see in the world" ~Mahatma Gandhi
I feel there is no exact answer to abortion. I am against it, but I am not against the right to choose. I just want to state two things:
There are many many children that are suffering through orphanages and similar because they have not been adopted. This is not always the "easiest" "best" option. We think, oh some lucky couple who can't have kids will get a child - when in reality we should be thinking, great now all the children out there who have lost their parents or similar who have been through the trauma of constant foster care and similar, are losing out on a chance because they're not young enough or as cute as a new born child.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
Look at the difference between the number of children adopted and the number waiting to be adopted. 114,000 vs 51,000.
"In 1995, about 500,000 women were seeking to adopt a child, and 100,000 had applied with an agency. [2] The same year, an estimated 1.3% of women adopted one or more children, a decline from 2.1% in 1973. [3]"
Who are all these people who are going to start adopting unwanted Caucasian babies? Those who can't have babies?
"It is estimated that 11% to 24% of couples who experience difficulty conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term pursue adoption".
Secondly, I would check to make sure your resources aren't biased before you use them to judge. Your resource for this article is sponsored by:
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Not exactly a resource I would trust to give me real statistics and allow me to choose my own opinion. Most likely, they are giving you statistics that will lean you towards what they want.
As I said, I am not for abortion nor really against, but I am for proper research and accounting for all possible consequences resulting from both sides :)
i think abortions are disgusting
'nuff said.
Sticking a little tube into your cunt and turning on a vacuum to suck the little bugger out? What's disgusting about that?
--Mike
Why do so many comment on another's sad situation. How would you like it when someone makes critizing comments about everything you did. I am not saying your position is wrong by your thoughts, but take a second and put yourself in that person's position. Seek not to judge, but to understand. Once you have been in that person shoes, you will know why women feel they must have abortions.
I think it's very easy for people to say that women are selfish for not wanting a child until they're ready for a child. Then why create one?, they ask. But are the asking the man that?
Although men are equally as responsible, no one reprimands them when the woman can not handle the child on her own.
Now some people assume that any woman to get an abortion is so amoral she won't know who the father is. This is completely false. All different types of women get abortions.
Perhaps in the 1970's and the 1980's when the world was still coming to grips with the fact that sexual issues need to be spoken about frankly in the modern world this "blame the woman" idea was relevant. But it isn't anymore.
Let's address the number of men who leave women, the number of men who are not careful about preventing pregnancy (it's not entirely the woman's job, it's a joint effort).
Let's address the fact that many Catholic areas, where abstinance only education is taught, have high abortion rates.
Let's address the fact that a religious belief about where life starts has no place in politics, according to our Constitution.
Let's address the fact that a bunch of MEN in Washington have no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body.
I grew up Catholic, and I was once vehemently against abortion. Personally, I'm still not sure how I feel about it. But my experience as a woman tells me that women have a tough role in the modern world, expected to carry on both men's and women's responsibilities. They should be free to make their own choices, and maybe that will finally allow them to live with men as equals, not child-factories.
Well, she can sue for child support (including retroactive child support) at any time, if she keeps the child. Regardless of the gender equality issues, I think the option should still be there, because people generally make their own moral code, regardless of the law (it just often happens to coincide).
--Mike
okay everytime someone brings abortion up, this is what i say: just because its not something i would do doesnt mean that i should tell other people to do the same. i would never have an abortion. i would have the child no matter what. i think that people should not have abortions either because its just not the right thing to do. i think part of what adds to having an abortion is guilt. guilt of the whole situation. i mean someone i am deary close with had an abortion and guilt was definitely a factor besides financial difficulties. part of the guilt that people feel is brought on my others that say, "oh geeze you screwed up skank" ect... why i am pro choice. i am pro choice because i believe in rights. its the democratic thing to do and that's what our country is built on. that and rebellion. the government can easily and slowly but surly take away our rights. our rights can slip away; right out of our hands. in conclusion, i do agree with you and it is sad why people have abortions. its selfish, however i cant live with out having rights, and i feel that controlling others actions is that of a dictatorship.
peace
this is my music for change: http://www.purevolume.com/rosie
I applaud you on a sound argument with facts to balance it out, rather than just religion or moral standings. I don't believe that abortion rates should be as high as they are.
I can't respond to everyone's comments now; it's been taking too much time. I posted this to make sense of my own opinions, and I am really glad that I was able to debate with others properly. Ultimately, I feel that if a woman is so pressured as to have an abortion then I can't begrudge her that choice. That doesn't stop me from saying and feeling it's wrong, however. Abortion is absolutely *not* a method of birth control, and it's even worse if you're using it
As some of you have said, I am not in a situation to truly understand a woman's situation when she wants an abortion. You're right. But I know for a fact that, no matter what the situation, I would never have one, even if I don't hold myself to premarital abstinence. And, ultimately, I do believe abstinence is the best choice. If you think that you are not responsible enough to care for a child or give it up for adoption, then, for me, you are not responsible enough to truly realize the consequences of being sexually active.
As for the sources, one of the sponsors is (I've realized) a Catholic one. Yes, they're against abortion. However, if you look at the statistics that I've provided, there are full citations to real articles and studies. These statistics weren't just made out of thin air by Catholic Bishops or pro-life activists. They're real.
I just wanted to toss into the mix that I am a 19 year old mother. My son is 8 months old, and as of right now his father and I are not together. I was pregnant in my senior year and held a job for half of my pregnancy. I never once considered abortion, but of course the father suggested it. I love my son very much and it hasn't been easy. I know I have very many obstacles to face, but I believe what I did was right for me. I decided that since I got myself pregnant I would be responsible, like everyone should. I don't agree with abortions nor do I think a woman should have her decisions controlled because it "seems immoral". It may not be the answer, but it is noone's choice except the woman's. It is likely that forcing woman to keep a child that they will do an abortion themselves, leave the child after birthing it, kill themselves, get one done illegally, or just go crazy and kill the child. Coercion never worked to make things better. Bans have good intentions, though they tend to be extreme. Please think about the consequences of ALL your actions, and don't think that it can't happen to you, you are only human and eventually we misjudge things. I know that I plan to continue school and become a maternity nurse, maybe even a doctor, because helping people makes me feel wonderful.
I am personally anti-abortion, and these statistics just showed me how so many women are using abortion just as a method of birth control and many times very irresponsibly. If someone is honestly in such a situation where they cannot even consider adoption--and I mean honestly and responsibly--then by all means, she should have the abortion. It is her choice (I am pro-choice). I have never suggested a ban. If one woman even reads this and decides to keep her baby, then that's all the better in my personal opinion. If anyone doesn't agree with me, that's okay as well. If a woman decides to have an abortion, I won't agree with it, but it is (as I stated earlier) ultimately her choice.
So your view is to not allow abortions. Here is my point, for those people who have abortions because they cannot provide for a child or had an accidental pregnancy and arent ready for a kid, Do think you should allow babies to be born into an unloving and house unable to provide for the baby? Wont those sort of homes just lead to a unhealthy children? The sort of children who are unhealthy and troubled because they did not receive adequate parenting.
I think its very uncompassionate to force babies to be born into homes that cannot provide, that is essentially damning that child to a troubled life. Perhaps its more humane to not allow those children to have to go through life, with an empty stomach, bad parenting and unloving parents. That is pretty heartless.
I am against abortion but I am pro-choice. I write about adoption as an alternative. These babies do NOT need to remain with their biological parents.