Obama's Abortion Stance

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This sounds elitist. A person's "rights" to reproduce, then are a matter of class? Furthermore, since when is having children always a "privilege"?

I revised my post immediately, I did not like the tone that I had typed that with originally.

I will effort to address your other points when I have more time.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I think we can all agree on that.

Agreed, I think we can all agree on that, but the devil is in the details. I've heard many pro-choice politicians describe their ideal state of abortions as being "safe, legal, and rare." The key is that last word: rare. It's been shown, time and again, that the best method to reduce the number of abortions performed is to first reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (obviously), and the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to provide comprehensive sex education that teaches how to acquire and properly use contraceptives.

The problem is that the same groups who most actively oppose abortion (typically religious conservatives) also oppose the teaching of comprehensive sex ed. So long as they keep a head-in-the-sand view that "abstinence only" programs work (they don't), the number of abortions performed will not decrease as rapidly as it could.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Agreed, I think we can all agree on that, but the devil is in the details. I've heard many pro-choice politicians describe their ideal state of abortions as being "safe, legal, and rare." The key is that last word: rare. It's been shown, time and again, that the best method to reduce the number of abortions performed is to first reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (obviously), and the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to provide comprehensive sex education that teaches how to acquire and properly use contraceptives.

The problem is that the same groups who most actively oppose abortion (typically religious conservatives) also oppose the teaching of comprehensive sex ed. So long as they keep a head-in-the-sand view that "abstinence only" programs work (they don't), the number of abortions performed will not decrease as rapidly as it could.

Another one of Bill Clinton's positive impacts as President. That's coming from a guy who leans right.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Agreed, I think we can all agree on that, but the devil is in the details. I've heard many pro-choice politicians describe their ideal state of abortions as being "safe, legal, and rare." The key is that last word: rare. It's been shown, time and again, that the best method to reduce the number of abortions performed is to first reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (obviously), and the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to provide comprehensive sex education that teaches how to acquire and properly use contraceptives.

The problem is that the same groups who most actively oppose abortion (typically religious conservatives) also oppose the teaching of comprehensive sex ed. So long as they keep a head-in-the-sand view that "abstinence only" programs work (they don't), the number of abortions performed will not decrease as rapidly as it could.

Well said......also the fact that many pro-lifers forget is that today's current laws are pro-choice based. If you are against abortions you don't have to get them. It's ones choice.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Well said......also the fact that many pro-lifers forget is that today's current laws are pro-choice based. If you are against abortions you don't have to get them. It's ones choice.

How many fetus' choose to get terminated?

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How many fetus' choose to get terminated?

Choice means you have the choice do something if you wish. If you don't want to do it you don't have to. Ultimately, it's up to the would-be parents.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How many fetus' choose to get terminated?

Seeing as this has already drifted form partial birth abortions to all abortions I would like some clarification. At what point in the development is it "wrong"? eg. Would using the morning after pill a day or two later be considered an abortion? It is afterall "killing" something that could be living, isn't it?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think that is what is being advocated at all. I think that what is being argued is that in the society and culture that we have created, unwanted pregnancies will occur for many reasons, most of which are not the result of one exercising his/her right to reproduce. Practically speaking, abortion is more about addressing issues of emotional and societal health, family well-being and strength, and economic sustenance upon which our species has become dependent. There is alot more to the issue than merely an individual's rights.

Not to me.

The individual fetus has the right to not be terminated. I would argue that societal health requires a distinction of who we're allowed to execute to never be made.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In industrialized nations, I would expect that a woman's "desire" for a "supportive and stable family structure for the benefit of the mother and child" has probably diminished. Women are by and large shedding their dependency upon men, and I would think that attitudes towards sexuality and family have followed suit.

I agree with your point.

The problem I have is that individual liberty is expanding to "new world" of sorts, based in freedom from others. But this movement seems to be tied to collectivism in the vein of IFF's posts. I consider these movements incongruous.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are these "pre-disposals" a matter of scientific record?

No.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I haven't taken the time to read the whole thread, but I expect that it has been brought up. Before we can even consider the implications of the "right" to live, "life" must first be adequately defined. Rather than getting bogged down by the issue of when life begins, I'm more interested at the moment in the quantity v. quality element of what constitutes "living", and what deems an individual "life" worth the cost to protect. A part of what has been touched on in all of this is how humankind is slowly killing itself because of its inability to come to grips with the inconsistency of discerning between whether individuals or communities take precedence. By way of example, monumental advances in medicine and health care have made for huge increases in life expectancy, but at the same time have stretched our planet's ability to sustain massive population increases nearly to the breaking point. Natural, individual "survival" is often considered virtuous, but the cost to maintain it is truly escalating to the point that our species is badly upsetting the natural balance by its ability to defy nature. Abortion plays into that: the survival of aborted babies would tax the system even more than it already is; it would mean an even greater explosion in population, and because there are limits to how much life this planet can sustain, the survival of these aborted potential lives would mean huge sacrifices to other beings, the economy, our own artificially determined "quality of life" and other elements of the biosphere.

I have little to intelligently add to this, I will leave the bulk of this comment as an open rhetorical point.

However, suggesting that refusing to abort children will lead to a decrease in quality in life is both inaccurate and a morally reprehensible precedent.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Choice means you have the choice do something if you wish. If you don't want to do it you don't have to. Ultimately, it's up to the would-be parents.

I would consider that line of logic equally applicable to murdering your spouse for cheating. If you didn't want them to die, you didn't have to kill them!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by kevman

Seeing as this has already drifted form partial birth abortions to all abortions I would like some clarification. At what point in the development is it "wrong"? eg. Would using the morning after pill a day or two later be considered an abortion? It is afterall "killing" something that could be living, isn't it?

WARNING: OFFENSIVE POST!

The Roman Catholic Church says that wasting sperm is murder*, the ardent pro-choice feminist types says until the baby is breathing on his/her own it's little more than a tumor*.

I don't know who's right, and I don't have an absolute answer.

I do think if a "doctor" yanks the leg of a fetus out of the womb, traces the shoulders to find the spine, drills a hole in the skull, uses a tube to evacuate the brain tissue, and then dismembers the body - I'm siding with the "too alive to kill" crowd.

* - this is a baseless attribution based on my personal prejudice, with sarcasm and hyperbole abound.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I would consider that line of logic equally applicable to murdering your spouse for cheating. If you didn't want them to die, you didn't have to kill them!

Abortion is legal, Murder is not. Bad example and I don't see the link.

[Weiser Wonder]

My view on abortion is that it is necessary in society and to remove the right for a woman to chose is both impractical and tyrannical.

Abortion is a matter of women's autonomy over their bodies. It is simply a violation of their rights to take away control of their most basic form of property (their body). Pregnancy is the most dangerous time for a woman's health and to take away their ability to make choices pertaining to her body is just something the government should not be allowed to do.

I believe it is 80% of women that get abortions in United States are married and rarely does a women abort her first pregnancy. This suggests that women who do get abortions, know what they are doing and know they can't afford to add to their family.

As evidenced by France's extremely low abortion rates, the best way to reduce abortions is to provide numerous social programs to raising children such as daycare and medical care. Sex education will help too but as most women who get abortions are married, a system where they know their child will be cared for is more helpful.

If abortions are made illegal, there won't be any less abortions, just more unsafe abortions. That and an increase in infanticide. Which was very prominent before abortion.

As for partial birth abortions, only when it is necessary for the woman's health.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Abortion is legal, Murder is not. Bad example and I don't see the link.

Obviously.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

My view on abortion is that it is necessary in society and to remove the right for a woman to chose is both impractical and tyrannical.

I'm all for pregnancy being a choice, just not abortion.

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

It is simply a violation of their rights to take away control of their most basic form of property (their body)

Is the right of a woman to decide what do with the consequences of her actions greater than the rights to the life she creates with that action?

i.e. - Why isn't denying the child's right to live a "simple violation of rights" ?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm all for pregnancy being a choice, just not abortion.

Tell that to rape victims! =D

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Tell that to rape victims! =D

I'm firmly anti-rape.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm all for pregnancy being a choice, just not abortion.



Is the right of a woman to decide what do with the consequences of her actions greater than the rights to the life she creates with that action?

i.e. - Why isn't denying the child's right to live a "simple violation of rights" ?

doesn't matter what you think, abortions WILL happen, it just all depends on who does it. do you want some frightened pregnant 16 year old going to a crack house and getting a coat hanger abortion, or going to a clinic and seeing a doctor?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm firmly anti-rape.

If someone gets pregnant in a situation where they had very little to no say in the matter, what then?

Bring the rape-baby to term? Tax your own life because someone else was a dick?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Is the right of a woman to decide what do with the consequences of her actions greater than the rights to the life she creates with that action?

Yes. Women's right to autonomy over her body takes precedence over a fetus's right to life. This is where it gets really sticky I know but from that's the stance the government has to take.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The individual fetus has the right to not be terminated. I would argue that societal health requires a distinction of who we're allowed to execute to never be made.

Why? Why does an individual fetus have any rights at all?

And can you provide some clarification to "a distinction of who we're allowed to execute to never be made"? I don't think that I quite follow what you are trying to say.

Regarding a fetus's "rights" and "choices" (Are fetuses even capable of such abstractions?), The argument for human potential is basically an argument from silence. Such things are merely hypothetical, and it is essentially impossible to demonstrate that an abortionless society is a better one.

Originally Posted by Gozer

The problem I have is that individual liberty is expanding to "new world" of sorts, based in freedom from others. But this movement seems to be tied to collectivism in the vein of IFF's posts. I consider these movements incongruous.

I think I see what you are getting at; It's true that the pro-choice movement is founded in individualism, but it does not necessarily follow that individualism must always be the cardinal virtue of the pro-choice movement. I would argue that we have moved beyond that, and are approaching a point in history where collectivism will become increasingly more necessary. The pro-choice movement will necessarily need to adapt, but I do not think that will pose much of a challenge at all.

Originally Posted by Gozer

...suggesting that refusing to abort children will lead to a decrease in quality in life is both inaccurate and a morally reprehensible precedent.

This is your opinion, especially the "morally reprehensible" part. What abortion essentially is is an artificially manufactured solution to an artificially manufactured problem. I'm merely drawing attention to some purpose that it serves. I'm no fan of abortion, and I believe that it is an unfortunate consequence of human development and activity. Less abortion would obviously be better, but as many others have pointed out, the only realistic avenue to less abortion is not through the whole-scale elimination of abortion. Rather, it is through change in the social and economic system, change in attitudes towards families, family values and the importance of community, and through much, much education and freedom of access and, yes, choice.