I assume that you are using the term 'sacred' as a synonym for valuable. Are you saying that human life is not sacred (valuable)? If so, then I disagree.

I also find your statement to be a non sequitur. That's like saying, "If you're so worried about the spotted owls, why don't you sell your furniture and help the condors?"

I have no doubt that there are needy children in Africa and elsewhere. That doesn't mean that people can't be concerned about events closer to home, as well.

I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US.

You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.

-sm

So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?

There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.

There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Neither of us said that. Lady's comment said "where are they [people who will take the baby] when the woman doesn't want her child?" The correct answer is, "everywhere".

The reason this issue is so difficult is that both sides want to throw a broad blanket over a wide range of scenarios. I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.

"Simplistic"? Not exactly. Some people just have a different opinion that you--that doesn't make their view simplistic.

Doesn't have anything to do with differing opinion. "abortion is always a moral choice" and "abortion is always an immoral choice" are both over-simplifications of a complex set of moral issues.

I wrote this big old long thing...

And it was way slanted and not what I wanted to put up here, so I put it on my blog.

I'm moving today!
It was my birfday yesterday! (Thanks to those people who wished me a Happy Birthday, you know who you are!)

Fear not! I'm still lurking, just taking a posting break.

Love you guys....

Abortion isn't a moral dilemma and it isn't murder. Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves, not even anything growing inside of us. I support abortion for any reason or no reason. I support abortion as a means of birth control. I support abortion if the pregnant woman wants to do it on a whim. I support it even if she has one every month. I support abortion in all circumstances because it's not my decision to make. I would hope my wife wouldn't make the choice to have an abortion, but it's her choice, not mine.

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

The biological definition of the progeny as a parasite is true, even up until they are old enough to do dishes or cut the grass. Taken in the long term, the relationship can be defined as symbiosis, especially if they are raised right and pass through the whole relationship until the parent becomes the parasite.

Now, the scientific fact that you are asserting exists only in that someone believes that to be true. It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.

Actually, that's a tautology, one of the few facts that's objective. What's subjective is whether this guy :3_eyes: is blue.
/end pedant mode

Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?

Actually this is the problem with the whole debate and the reason it will almost always exist. Science can't say for sure when "life" begins because you can't ask a collection of cells if it is "alive" yet. I think we can all agree that if it could be categorically proven that a "soul" or "consciousness" (or whatever you want the distinction between a living cell and a living human to be) does not enter a fetus until a specific time then nobody would have a problem aborting that pregnancy prior to that time. Alternately, if it could be proven that a fetus had the same "living" qualities as a 30 year-old man at the moment of first cell division, then nobody could reasonably argue that aborting that child intentionally would not be murder.

The debate will rage. I'm not even going to state MY position on this whole thing because it won't change anybody's mind, and quite frankly, I don't know the right answer. I just wish others might admit that they don't know all the answers before they start calling pro-choicers evil murderers, (If a 15 year old girl is raped by her uncle, it isn't evil for her to want to be released from that burden. It is arrogance to assume that in the same situation you wouldn't feel the same.) or even assuming that a child is only alive based on the choice of the mother. (If a person kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two murders. If that mother had not been murdered and had decided the next day to have an abortion, no charges against her would have been filed. Therefore, in the eyes of the law a fetus is only alive if the mother says it is. It is arrogant to believe that the timing of life is up to the mother.) At some point, both arguments are wrong.

So, as with anything, we need a compromise. But in the case of this issue there probably is no compromise that will make everyone happy without a signed agreement from God and the Surgeon General. I'm meeting with both of them this week. I'll see what I can work out. :biggrin:

I am all for adoption.

And usually it works out quite well.

However, it really is a "pig in a poke" situation.

A lot of my patients have either ceded parental rights or have had them taken away.

Many of these are babies that would be considered "high premium" on the adoption market ... cute, white, blue-eyed bundles of joy.

With a family history of mental illness and/or extreme substance abuse from both parents.

I see a lot of frustrated parents whose story starts with "Well, I adopted Timmy at birth, and it turns out that his mom was ... "

sm said:
I don't want kids so why on earth would I try to adopt one? :confused:

Sorry...apparently you guys took me literally when I asked, "where are those who say every child is a wanted child". What I meant was that I don't see a riot of people (read: pro-lifers) knocking down the doors of every woman that carries a child to term and is willing to take in those particular children. I'm addressing those pro-lifers that want to impose on a woman's private and personal decision. All I keep hearing about are couples that spend gobs of money to go overseas to adopt a child from some other nation when there are children here that need a good home.

dar said:
It's quite simple for me: abortion, as it stands now, is legal. And that to me means that absolutely no one has the power to make a decision for me about me and my fetus/baby/zygote/embryo..whatever the fuck anyone wants to call it. See, I don't have an "abortion argument": I really don't care when life begins and all of that. Harsh? Maybe, but I'm keeping it verrrry real right about now. That argument will go on until time ends, but in the meantime, if I choose abortion, then so be it.

Shouldn't that read noTHING, not noBODY?

So, let's do the math on this one

Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body.
Premise: Carrying a fetus to term is an infringement on another person's body

Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the fetus in any way she deems appropriate.

I think that's a fairly accurate sketch of your argument. You hold premise 1 to be true, and premise 2 can go uncontested, we would all agree with that (certainly anyone whose carried a baby). If both are true, then the conclusion stands. But your first premise, if its an absolute, has some dangerous extensions.

Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body
Premise: Taking care of a 6-month old is an infringement on the time, resources, and strength of the parent, and thus on the actions and fruits of that body

Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the 6-month old in any way she deems appropriate, including abandoning it on a freeway overpass, or placing it in the oven.

Any reason why the first one is right and the second is wrong? And don't say "because in the second one, it’s a human life” because that's a separate argument - your argument doesn't derive from the humanity of the fetus, but from the infringement on the parent. If your first premise is absolute, then the personhood or non-personhood of the infringement makes no difference.


No, that's not a scientific conclusion, it’s a philosophical conclusion drawn from an interpretation of the "Scientific fact". Science says, "It has no alpha brain waves." Philosophy says, "Alpha brain waves define life." The biggest problem scientists run into is when they presume to take up the task of philosophy under the guise of science.

-sm

Good one. :thumbsup:



You have to live under a rock to not know what causes kids. Yes, IMO (which everyone will probably disagree with, of course) she SHOULD have to be a human incubator. Inconvenience and/or irresponsibility is not an excuse for murder.



Yup, but if more women had the children that they so carelessly kill, it might be easier to adopt. At least, that's my opinion.


*sigh* And to Radar....too bad HIS mother didn't believe in abortion, huh? Snide remark aside, a fetus is enough of a "person" to have protection from unwanted termination, under the law, so yes, a fetus IS a person, to an extent. Once it has brain waves, I consider it a person. Again, my opinion.


/my opinion


Sidhe

Happy Birfday Onyx! :grouphug: :drunk: :biggrindu :guinness: :band:


Sidhe

Whether it is valuable or not is a whole other debate, whether it's percieved to be valuable is more the point. Society as a whole lets people die and depending where you live, kills them with amazing regularity. Heck, 20000 dead on the news is barely going to make the headlines a few days running. Why on earth should women lose legal control of their own bodies to protect the 'sanctity of human life' when clearly we have such little respect for life in general. I think insurance companies put the value of a 30y.o male at around 10k or so.

Ani Difranco put it best, anti-abortion campaigners are like fish that don't know they're wet.

This abortion debate has been much better since I've put together my iggy list. I see lots of non-posts with names of people for whom I have no desire to know what they're saying.

ah, the infamous, fingers-in-the-ears, lalalalalalala method. good form.

Ho lee crap. A pending bill in Virginia would force women to report miscarriages to police within 12 hours, and provide as much of the following information as possible:

place of occurrence
usual residence of patient (mother)
full maiden name of patient
medical record number and social security number of patient
Hispanic origin, if any, and race of patient
age of patient
education of patient
sex of fetus
patient married to father
previous deliveries to patient
single or plural delivery and order of plural delivery
date of delivery
date of last normal menses and physician's estimate of gestation
weight of fetus in grams
month of pregnancy care began (sic)
number of prenatal visits
when fetus died
congenital malformations, if any
events of labor and delivery
medical history for this pregnancy
other history for this pregnancy
obstetric procedures and method of delivery
autopsy
medical certification of cause of spontaneous fetal death
signature of attending physician or medical examiner including title, address and date
signed
method of disposal of fetus
signature and address of funeral director or hospital representative
date received by registrar
registrar's signature
registration area and report numbers.

This is all information that a doctor would currently provide to the police (!), but this bill adds the requirement to a woman who doesn't have a doctor's assistance, and gives her half the time to report it that the doctor would have.

That looks more like a Lumberjim "New Cellarite Quiz".

It would be interesting, I think, if there was some way to have our Right Honorable Legislators have to deal with some of the effects or consequences of some of the laws that they pass.

Obviously some of the "Right Honorable Legislators" should have been abortions. :mad:

You're saying that they aren't? :yelsick:

Since a mentrual period could be considered a miscarriage (the egg is evacuated from the body) I would have every woman affected by that law write in every single month.... until they were so overwhelmed they'd overturn it.

dumbasses.

They would just raise taxes to hire enough staff to record and track them. Woe to anyone irregular. :(

I hope they don't start tracking sperm.

Uh, I believe they already do that, in a round about way. They keep DNA samples from rape victims and take same from convicted sex offenders.

They are doing that in Truro, MA

Except they are not just retaining samples collected from crime scenes or from known offenders — in an attempt to solve a murder case, the police are seeking to take a DNA sample from all males in the town.

In other news, the VA Miscarriage Bill has been pulled.

“I’ve never been blogged before,” he said. “The tone of the e-mails has been disgusting. It’s, 'You’re a horrible person. You ought to be crucified.’ And those were the nice ones.”

Maybe you were never this big an a-hole before?

Cosgrove said his bill was intended to add more teeth to laws penalizing women who abandon full-term infants after birth.

It reads: “When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman’s responsibility to report the death to the law-enforcement agency in the jurisdiction of which the delivery occurs within 12 hours after the delivery.” Women who failed to report the death could have been convicted of a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

[sarcasm]I'm sure most women who lose a baby immediately think, "Gee I'd better report myself to the police cuz I must be a criminal."[/sarcasm]

Well then, we took care of that. How about this AP story from Boston.com.THREE YEARS!?!?!? WTF. :eek:

[bad accent]It's Russia. Vat do you expect?[/bad accent]

Yushchenko won, it's Ukraine not Russia. ;)

My bad.

It's his fault for not waiting until she was twelve. :yelsick: BTW, legally, you can get married at age 12 in Kansas, Massachusetts, and some other states without specific minimum ages. When Jerry Lee Lewis was 19 he married his 13 year old cousin.

I'm not going to comment until I know more about the customs of that part of the world. Personally, if the family insists on keeping the baby, and they want it to have a father, I think a special :shotgun: wedding ceremony should be planned and the groom given a choice between supporting his child and an indefinite stay in whatever gulag is still running up there.

And popped back up in a watered-down form in Texas (Enter HR702). Happily, this version doesn't put the onus on the woman, but it does require the doctor to submit patient records to the government, even information on miscarriages the woman suffered prior to her visit to the doctor.

You know, I was reading this thread again, and even when there is 100% infallible birth control, unless the person uses it 100% of the time, it's not effective.

100% infalliable birth control would have to be not only perfectly effective, but as acceptable, accessable, and inexpensive as Tylenol. And you'd only have to take it one time, until the point in time when you wish to conceive - then you take a just-as-effective antidote.

If only. . .

The five-year under-the-skin Norplant gets pretty close.

Truth.

Now, just make it as easy to get (and as accepted) as Tylenol, we're good.

Progress is being made... we'll get there.

Does Norplant give you cancer after a few years like bc pills? Call me immoral all you want, I'd rather have an abortion.

When are they coming out with the male version already? Keep hearing about it, it's starting to rival Duke Nukem Forever for vapourware.

Negative. Got pregnant with the second child on Norplant.

Doesn't <i>living</i> generally give you cancer after a few years. . . ? I don't know the statistics on it, but I personally feel it's less traumatic on your body than an abortion.

I may do the Norplant (or Depo) thing soonish. I'll let you know if I start sprouting toumors and stuff. More than likely, the worst side effect will be that it'll make me moody.

:eek:

D'you think they'll let me have both Norplant AND Depo-provera?

Go for it elf, if you're ok with it - just don't assume everyone is.
I don't agree that just living gives you cancer, and I'm not one who would rather "enjoy" life by trashing my body. I enjoy my life becuase my body is healthy. I hope to keep it that way as long as possible.

Just being cynical again, don't mind me. If I had a little more patience<small> (and smarts)</small>, I would probably be in the same boat as you.

Yes it does. If a woman doesn't give birth she has a higher incidence of cancer.

You don't count as a statistical sample. 99.99% means somebody is going to catch every now and again. Two of my three children are purported to be BC kids.

Several of my friends have what they call "Robitussin babies."

They were on the pill, it had been working properly, and became ineffective in the face of the common cold and Robitussin DM.

Don't forget the neurosis, that's key. ;)

I have a tequila baby, but I guess that's not really the same thing...

Actually, the result is the same. :)

I have a better idea: see if the hubby will get a vasectomy. My boyfriend is "fixed"--the vasectomy has got to be one of the greatest inventions known to mankind. At least for the girls. :)

I'm a newbie, but I thought I would contribute.
The reason adoption lines are so long is because not all of the babies put up for adoption are "high premuim." Even requesting that you want a boy or a girl can cause a major delay in the adoption process. Not to mention if the child is not of the "preferred" race. And then there is the fact that the child, like wolf said, will have underlying issues because of the adoption and/or the parents habits. Also, if the woman planning on giving up the baby for adoption changes her mind and keeps the baby, there is also the possibility for her to change her mind again and put the child/infant up for adoption. But once he/she is no longer a newborn, suddenly, no one wants him/her. At least, that is the way I understand it. All I ever hear about is how we need more people to adopt children, but everone wants newborns.

And on abortion, just because someone believes that abortion is wrong, does not mean they should force their opinions on others. I agree with stricter rules on late term abortions, but that is not my choice to make. And if it was illegal, then women would just be doing it in a back alley instead. The way I see it, it someone doesn't agree with abortion, then they shouldn't do it. But they shouldn't keep others from doing it.

I'm being redundent, sorry. :o I will post more when I am more awake.

Norplant IS depo. Instead of getting it once every three months, its always in there.

And over half the women on Norplant have continuous breakthrough bleeding. You've ALWAYS got to wear at least a pantyliner.

Do the patches have the same effect?