The argument about the unwanted children doesn't apply in the First World. But, it does sound like the late nineteen century argument for forced sterilization. Not a surprise as it, as well as abortion, are derived from the same roots. I'm with Hilary Clinton on this- abortion should be legal, safe and rare.
Abortion
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
You realize that these states which are legislating allowing late term abortions are also allowing non doctors to be able to perform them. That is their way of getting around the medical doctor ethics question. Yes the vast majority of abortions are done before 20 weeks gestation but even at say 1% of 750,000 abortions each year that is 7,500 viable fetuses terminated each year.
And just how many such states are there?
•Who says every one of that hypothetical number would have been viable?
•How many of those would only be late-term because getting an earlier procedure was so difficult or expensive?
•How many of the mothers in your hypothesis would have sufficient dependable support available?
•How many of those unwanted children forced on mothers who knew they didn't want them will grow up as happy contributing members of society, if those abortions are prevented?
•How many will grow up without hope, as misfits, deviants and criminals?
And most to the point: If a mother knew she would have adequate resources support, during pregnancy and after birth as she raised the child, what do you suppose suppose your 1% number would drop to? Not to mention, the overall rate for 'ordinary' abortions of 1 woman in 4. It's not like any woman seeks an abortion for the fun of it.
All well and good to pull a number out of the air and speculate, but keep going and fill in a few of the real details.
Making the state responsible and doing 'good' by force is no way to build a responsible citizenry.
Of course, there are countries that create more babies than they can feed. The result is starvation.
You should take a little closer look at China's demographic policy and the consequences.
Generally, in those countries those folks were making cheap agricultural labour, in the hope they would prosper from the surplus they could grow. Climate and crop failures often defeated that strategy. Times have changed and most of the planet's people are urban now. But established habits and inherited customs change much slower. People who hope for a better life in cities don't have so many babies, because the schooling necessary for a cash economy is expensive.
In an urban society, people who have many babies are either rich, and have the means to provide, or have lost hope and have nothing else.
You can be the first to quote one person on the 'progressive' left — or anywhere — who is for late-term abortions. So far, in this thread that's all come from abortion opponents, guys who have made it up.
And not one of them can find a quote to support their fabrications about what women — or their 'progressive' left boogeypeople — want. Bet you can't either.
As for human rights, doing as you choose with yourself and your body is about as basic a human right as there is. And that certainly includes the right to choose whether you will accept the risks and uncomfortably bear and painfully birth a child whose health and well-being will be your responsibility, perhaps to adulthood and beyond.
What a stupid statement.
And if not for Bocelli there would have been another musical genius. Sorry but if your argument is that some amazing talents would never have existed then you also have to take credit for the disgusting ones as well.
And they don't exist anywhere as far as I'm aware. Canada and recently New Your State allows for abortions in past 24 months in cases where doctors believe the woman's heath is at risk which is very different from your elective and irresponsible claims.
At least in places where abortion is allowed.
Women choosing an abortion is similar to forced sterilization? Who knew.
Huh? First you remove a single sentence of mine from its entire context, then you respond to it with an partial sentence that merely names an entirely unrelated topic. A hopelessly broad and generalized one at that, compared to the topic: laws compelling individual women to endure nine-months of pregnancy and child birth.
Do you think the law forcing us to pay taxes makes us a better society, a worse one, or do they have no effect either way? What about a law forcing you to house and feed a genuinely reformed ex-con — or some MP's kid from outta town — for nine-months while she finds a job?
The state can't make people good, and shouldn't try. That's what morals, religion, culture and ethics do. The state just keeps us orderly and functioning as it directs the social traffic in the direction it was going anyway. That's why every 'good' conduct imposed only by law has failed: Prohibition, Established Religion, War on Drugs, laws against Birth Control, and …, Abortion. Legal or illegal, people will do what they want.
But the state can successfully limit, control and regulate, because people don't want danger, ill-health, or other evil consequences, and will accept lawfully imposed inconveniences if they're needed to prevent them.
How could you bring yourself to post that horrific image of partial-births!!Eggs to be legally reclassified as chicken in Alabama restaurants
Don't you know the good, God-fearing folk of Alabama lovingly feed every hen while she broods and brings each precious egg to full-term and hatches it? Then each baby chick is supported and fed until fully grown, according to a law enforced by CA (Chicken's Aid) inspectors paid out of state funds.
Then they're slaughtered and eaten.
