Pro-Choice / Pro-Life Retread

[Avatar]

That's certainly fair enough, and absolutely up to you. It also means that, like Fist, you're consistent, in terms of yourself at least. (And credit where it's due, you pretty much always are. )

But will you concede that allowing the child to be saved in place of the mother is indicative of a distinction between pre-birth and post-birth rights?

Does it not, in effect, suggest that the mothers life is more valuable than the childs when it gets right down to the crunch?

--A

[Cail]

This is a really, really fine line. I don't know if I'd say the mother's life is more important, but it may be to some people. I have a hard time assigning greater or lesser value to certain people.

[Avatar]

The point I'm driving at here, purely as an excercise in logig, is that if it is acceptable, at any point, to kill the foetus in order to save the mother's life, then by that simple logic, the mothers life must be more valuable. (Not necessarily in reality, just by that logic.)

Right?

If there are cases in which the mothers life is more valuable, and that outweighs the right of a foetus to have a life, then it must follow that a distinction is being drawn between the foetus and the newborn, if people would not be willing to do the same once it was born. (Kill the child to protect the mother.)

--Avatar

[Cail]

The only reason I'm making a distinction is that there are some people (I'm assuming) who wouldn't give their life for their child.

[Avatar]

Not sure if we're missing each other here, or if I'm just missing you. I'm not talking about you at all.

What I'm saying is that if there is a point where it is alright to kill the foetus to preserve the mother, (abortion when the mothers life is at risk), but not alright to kill a newborn to achieve the same end (protecting the mothers life) then there is a distinction between the foetus and the newborn.

And if the "right to lifers" are drawing that distinction, then clearly they feel that there is a difference between the rights of a foetus, and the rights of a newborn baby.

And if there is a difference, then everything else is a matter of degree, and "pro-choicers" can't be reviled for making that same distinction, albeit at a different point.

--Avatar

(EDIT: In other words, if people have the right to protect their own life at the cost of their childs, and that is alright, then what difference is there between a child and a foetus.)

[Plissken]

Right. People are getting pregnant when they shouldn't be because they're poor, not because they're screwing like bunnies....

What's that other quote from you that I like? Oh wait, here it is...

In your rush to sound clever, you've missed what I said.

People are screwing like bunnies because that's what people do. People are getting pregnant because a certain percentage of people who are screwing are going to get pregnant. People are having abortions because they can't afford to raise a kid.

All clear?

[Cail]

No, it's not. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and your correlation between abortion and economic status is tenuous at best.

[Plissken]

From the most impartial source I could find quickly:my.webmd.com/hw/womens_conditions/tw1169.asp

Each year, about 1.3 million American women have an abortion to end a pregnancy.9 This number reflects a declining abortion rate, in part because more women are using emergency contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy in the first days after unprotected sex.

The most common reasons women consider abortion are:

* Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.9
* Inability to support or care for a child.
* To end an unwanted pregnancy.
* To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
* Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Every year, about 13,000 women choose abortion after suffering rape or incest.9
* Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.

So, once we peel away rape, medical/mental conditions, and contraceptive failure, we've got two conditions left - unwanted pregnancy and economic considerations. (I'm betting that there's some overlap between the two as well.)

We can't control medical conditions at the Federal level, we can't make rapists wear condoms at the Federal level, and really, we can't stop women from having abortions at the Federal level. We can only make it illegal.

Economics can be controlled -or at least influenced- at the Federal level. What's tenuous about this?

[Prebe]

we can't stop women from having abortions at the Federal level. We can only make it illegal.

Here I can only concur even if Plissken thinks I'm stupid.

I'm still waiting for the statistic about the paid for/free abortions though.

As I said, I generally don't disagree on the social issue involved. I am just saying that I think the actual contribution from this factor is less than you think (you did read my post didn't you?)

[Plissken]

And, because I'm just crazy enough to think that there's also a causal link between economics and crime, here's an interesting study:[EDITED OUT BECAUSE THE LINK IS JUST TOO DAMNED LONG. USE THE PDF LINK AT THE BOTTOM]

and this one's really hard to read the way this site formats them, but there are so many interesting points on this topic in the study that it's worth the read.

Quotes:

More interesting and
important is the possibility that children born after abortion
legalization may on average have lower subsequent rates of criminality
for either of two reasons. First, women who have abortions
are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage
in criminal activity. Teenagers, unmarried women, and the economically
disadvantaged are all substantially more likely to seek
abortions [Levine et al. 1996].

Consequently,
legalized abortion provides a woman the opportunity to delay
childbearing if the current conditions are suboptimal. Even if
lifetime fertility remains constant for all women, children are
born into better environments, and future criminality is likely to
be reduced.

For example, the peak ages for
violent crime are roughly 18–24, and crime starts turning down
around 1992, roughly the time at which the Žrst cohort born
following Roe v. Wade would hit its criminal prime. Second, as we
later demonstrate, the Žve states that legalized abortion in 1970
saw drops in crime before the other 45 states and the District of
Columbia, which did not allow abortions until the Supreme Court
decision in 1973.

Link to a much easier to read PDF version:pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/ ... ed2001.pdf

[Prebe]

I would never disagree that there is a link between economics and crime. And we completely agree, that there is a large chance, that a child who grows up unloved and abused is much more likely to become an offender. But you seem determined not to answer my question.

Are you looking into it, or do you just not talk with stupid people?

[Plissken]

Ooops, I missed this:

The recent rise in the number of abortions is more directly linked to the falling average wage, the diminishing middle class, higher per capita debt, rising unemployment, dimished opportunities...

So they are so poor they can't buy rubbers? While I agree that poor people have more baby’s/abortions it is by no means the only reason. Denmark has a considerably larger middle class and no way near the percentage of poor homeless people the US has. Still the percentage of abortions is roughly the same. (social security minimum in Denmark is about 1500 $ a month, which is THE VERY LEAST anyone will have).

We have already established that Cail would kill his wife to save a fertlized ovum. And now you are calling me stupid Plissken. Sarcasm combined with name-calling is terribly inelegant. But it's hard to argue with.

Are there no pragmatic people in here?

P.S. Yes Cail, you have been abundantly clear on your principles, but you have been less than clear on the practical aspects. I ask again how you plan to accomplish legalisation of "spouceicide"?

P.P.S. There is an easy way to settle this "poor people have more abortions" dispute: Find some statistics on how many abortions in the U.S. are done on public money and how many people pay for themselves. Get me those stats for the last couple of years, and then you can call me stupid again Plissken. I hope you are right, but the comparison with Denmark unfortunately seems to indicate otherwise (notice my use of the word indicate as opposed to prove)

I'm really, really not calling you stupid. I was just using an old quote from a Presidential campaign that's kind of become a catchphrase in the (face to face) political debates I have with my circle of friends out here. I guess it doesn't translate that well into web debates. Apologies for the offence, none was intended.

I haven't found a study like you describe, but there are many studies refrenced in the above PDF that refer to the link between poverty and abortion. Will that suffice?

[EDIT: Further research reveals no study can be found on the rates of publicly/privately funded abortions. The reasons for this seem to be twofold:

1) Extremely restricted Federal Funding for abortions make the likelyhood that there are more women who would be eligible for publicly funded abortions than funds available to provide them extremely high.

2) Of the states that publicly funded abortions for reasons other than saving the life of the mother (already too few to create a decent report) almost none of them are willing to record or report the actual number of abortions provided.

I find this to be more than a tad disappointing, but it does kind of shoot a hole in the "Abortion on Demand" theory.]

[Prebe]

I'm sure it will Plissken. It just seems that there is no comparing Denmark to the US.

Apology accepted.

[Plissken]

Thanks, Prebe. Be sure to read the edit on my last post.

[Avatar]

Interesting article Plissken. I certainly agree that there must be a strong link, perhaps even a causal one, between economic factors, crime and abortion. Makes perfect sense to me at least.

--A

[Plissken]

Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it? I may start a thread later covering all the info I found (Thanks, Google Scholar!) while trying to find a study like the one Prebe wanted - but right now I'm kinda tired of the merry-go-round-from-hell that this particular debate usually becomes.

(Ooh. On that note, Cail - have you had any more thoughts on the ethical ramifications of the process of invitro? Seems like you were going to go off and think about it some months back, and I've been curious as to what you came up with.)

[Cail]

Yeah, I have. I'm not 100% happy with it, but at least it's consistent. For the reasons I outlined last time, coupled with what I learned, I can't support it.

[Plissken]

I kinda figured that's what you'd come up with (You're nothing if not consistent). I'd be interested in hearing the thought process behind your conclusion, though. PM me if you don't want to have it start a debate.

[Prebe]

I seem to have argued myself out on other posts now. So back to this (a question I either forgot to ask, or wasn't answered. I cant recall):

How do poor people get abortions? I know you did a lot of research on the topic Pliss, so I am sure you have the answer. The question arises mainly from my lack of knowledge of the US healt system.

[Avatar]

Can't answer on the US, although I don't doubt that Plissken, (or Dlb (are you there?) ) will be able to, but in SA, it depends on your level of income. A nominal charge for the unemployed, (often waived IIRC).

If you're "rich" it's done privately. If not, at a charitable clinic.

Majority are had by economically disadvantaged women under 18.

--Avatar