Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote: Plissken, your explaination makes no sense. You're telling me that the (lack of a ) parental consent is to protect children from being parented? Because, as you know, part of parenting is teaching your kids morality and values. In addition, the statistics do not support your assertion that poor doe-eyed underaged Southern belles are being impregnated by their redneck fathers. Nice generalization, though.

Never said anything about Southern Belles, or parenting, or teaching kids morality (Unless beating pregnant girls falls under the headings of either "parenting" or "teaching morality").

I said that these laws were put into place

to protect young girls from parental abuse.

As opposed to your insinuation that abortion is entered into without any thought, or at least less consideration than getting ears pierced, and that it was a part of a

current abortion-on-demand policy

Nicely said, Plissken.

There was an incident in our community about 4 years ago. A teenage girl was noticed coming out of a porta-potty at a construction site with blood on her clothes. No one thought too much about it, just thought it was "that time" and she got caught without protection. About 20 minutes later one of the workers went in to use this same porta-potty and there was a baby floating in the filth. He got the baby out and yelled for someone to call 911 but the baby was dead and could't be revived. The girl was tracked down and subsequently arrested. She was 16 years old, the daughter of a Southern Baptist Minister and didn't want to "bring shame" on her family. She told the investigators she didn't know how to go about getting an abortion. She got 18 years I believe. Sad, all the way around.

Yeah, I was actually thinking about an incident that happened before these laws were enacted up where my Dad lives (Northern Washington, just so no one thinks I'm disparaging the South. Although, the family in question did identify themselves as "Tarheels." Hmmmm).

Anyhoo, it's an age old-story: Man impregnates daughter, daughter tries to get abortion, man is notified, girl is beaten to death, public outcry, studies done, pattern discovered, laws enacted to stop it from happening again, Religious Right glosses over entire situation in order to promote the idea that laws were made just to encourage abortion and promiscuity.

I guess what we really ought to be discussing is why there are so many abortions? I am sure we can all agree that the 20% figure is far too high. A figure this high can only be caused by a certain percentage using abortion instead of contraception.

I can accept almost any measures to get this figure down. Except abolishment. As I think many posts in this thread demonstrate, an outright abolishment would have to many negative repercussions.

Prebe can accept almost any measures to get this figure down. Except abolishment. As he thinks (many posts in) this thread demonstrates, an outright abolishment would have to many negative repercussions.



I doubt abolishment much prevents abortions anyway. Impossible to know, since illegal abortions wouldn't be reported accurately, but I wonder how much the rate would drop.

LOL! Thanks for noticing Fist. If am repeating myself, it is because you guys are slow

Hey! I'll bet there's an insult in there somewhere! Why I outta.....

I've been very consistent on this Prebe. Life begins at conception, period. Any other definition of human life is nothing other than semantic dancing to legitimize murder, period. I am as OK as I can be with parents choosing the life of the mother over the life of the child, period. I am as OK as I can be with choosing to kill the child in cases of rape, period.

In the US, and in most of the developed world, there's no mystery as to where babies come from. There's also no shortage of birth control. In the wake of Roe, groups like NOW have pushed the "right" of abortion on demand. This has created a culture without shame, a culture that tacitly allows abortion as a method of birth control, wrapped in the buzzword, "choice".

You choose to have sex, knowing full well that sex is how you make babies. Then, because you're careless, you want to excersise your "choice" to have an invasive medical procedure to kill your child? Sorry folks, that's insane.

Prebe wrote:I guess what we really ought to be discussing is why there are so many abortions? I am sure we can all agree that the 20% figure is far too high. A figure this high can only be caused by a certain percentage using abortion instead of contraception.

I can accept almost any measures to get this figure down. Except abolishment. As I think many posts in this thread demonstrate, an outright abolishment would have to many negative repercussions.

Actually, this is a thoughtful and well reasoned idea. Unfortunately, the stats just don't support it. Use of contraception has gone up dramatically in the past few decades. The number of kids old enough to have sex who appreciate the value of, can easily explain the proper use of, and regularly do use either condoms or abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancy and to avoid STD's has increased with astonishing consistency and rapidity since the "good old days" when kids thought that they could become pregnant from a toilet seat.

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...

In short, it's about the economy, stupid! You want to "get this figure down"? Give the people who are getting pregnant some hope of feeding their potential children.

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

Well yeah, 'cause poor folk can't afford those expensive 'condom' contraptions.

"In short, it's about the economy, stupid!"

Contraception use and abortion statistics are both rising... ergo, the rich are having more protected sex, and the poor are having more abortions. Simple, really.

Hmmmmm, I don't know that I buy that. Planned Parenthood gives away condoms, as do several other agencies. I'd also be curious to see statistics on condom (or birth control) use as it relates to income level, as well as abortion statistics indexed by income level.

Sorry... I forgot to use the [sarcasm] tags...

I shoulda known better Edge....

Plissken wrote: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)

Fist and Faith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Well, as the simplest example I can come up with off the cuff, (and never mind the likelihood, it's the principle I'm thinking about here) how about if an attacker were to offer the choice of releasing the mother in exchange for the child's life? Should the child be killed in that situation to preserve the mother?

If the answer is no, then the rights of the child after its birth are more important than the rights of the foetus before, seeing as it is permissable to kill the foetus to protect the mothers life.

This includes the abortion-for-the-mother's-safety issue. If there is no way to save both the woman and the fetus, but you can choose which will be saved, you choose the fetus.

In that case Fist, You're perfectly consistent when it comes to applying the same rights to a foetus, pre- and post-birth, and if nothing else, I can't accuse you of a double standard.

However, I submit that anybody who doesn't feel the same way, and would sacrifice a foetus in the interests of the mother, (as in the abortion only if the mothers safety is threatened), does draw such a distinction, and if so, the only question is a matter of degree.

Too much else has been said for me to comment on, but essentially Lord Mhoram and Prebe have covered my opinions. Again, and very importantly, this is not a matter of saying that people should abort, just that they should have the freedom of choice.

--Avatar

Prebe wrote: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"?

In your rush to sound clever, you've missed what I said. I know of no father or mother that would choose themselves over their child. With very few exceptions, the mother is awake during childbirth, and the decision would fall on her. If I'm not mistaken, there is already established law here in the US that parents can chose their child's life over their own. Much like a living will, my wife and I have discussed this issue, and if we are ever in this position, she'd want the child to survive.

Edit-Let me add that while this is an interesting mental exercise for those who are childless, unless you have felt the absolutely unconditional love for your own child, you really can't understand where I'm coming from. I do not mean that as an insult to anyone, but words cannot describe how I felt the first time I heard my daughter's heartbeat, or the first time I saw her sonogram. In the womb or out, I love her more than anything in the world.

So in other words there IS a law to enable a parent to get killed to save the child (or perhaps a zygote). You could have said so right away, and you wouldn't have had to put up with my 'cleverness'. I just wonder if this applies from conception to birth. If so, I wouldn't want to be the judge to administer such a law.

As for your second paragraph you might have missed those of my posts mentioning that I am on paternity leave. To qualify for that, you must be a father (there I go, being all clever again).

I can only reiterate:

I wrote: If I was pressed to choose between my son and my wife today (he is 8 months), I might be in doubt. But when my wife was at the operating table having her C-section, I wouldn't have hesitated a second to sacrifice the baby over her. Mostly because my wife I know and love. I didn't know the baby back then. It is really that simple for me.

Furthermore I have been involved in a conception that was deliberately terminated in the 6th week (not my call, the mothers). And yes, that definitely sucked. But I know it from both sides Cail.

To Plissken: I have a PhD (I am not saying this to prove I am not stupid ), and I am in the top ten percentile of personal income in Denmark. So I guess that I am weighing down on the wrong side of your theoretical statistic about poverty/lack of education correlation with abortion.

And as I've said, I support the choice of parents to abort in cases of mortal danger to the mother. It's a choice I couldn't make.