It's all a matter of Quantity relative to quality.
Increasing populations place demands on resources, some of which are renewable, some not.
The Pollyannas of the world claim that there is no need to conserve, because when necessary resources are exhausted, we'll just develop substitutes...
(Anyone remember "Soylent Green"?)
Yes, "God will provide" said the single mother of 13...
Responding to several posts and points.
There is much greater production of food products than the capacity of the world's population to consume that much food. There are several problems though.
There is a major problem with distribution. The northwestern quadrasphere is by far the greatest producer, per acre, of food. But getting the food to those who most need it is the problem. First the food growers, in the northwestern quadsphere don't want to pay to ship the food to those in need, inspite of having the most resources to afford the shipment. Then there are the despotic leaders around the world who do not want to let their peoples have the food, Liberia and Sudan come to my mind first. There are also some problems with cultural biases against some food stuffs. Despite being originally a South American plant, the natives there do not consider tomatoes food.
There is a future problem coming, only very obliquely considered. As the world's supply of oil is consumed the huge machines which make the north american quadrasphere so productive will have to be powered by something else. I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but I won't guess that my grand children won't face that problem.
But none of the above is justification for killing humans to make the food supply last longer, or stretch far enough to feed the remaining humans. There are alternatives.
I have already stated my support for non-aborting contraceptives, chemical or mechanical, male or female.
Better education for everyone has been demonstrated over and over to result consistently in reduced pregnancy rates. This education must be available to boys and girls, most especially for girls.
Better control of pests is also necessary, especially in the grain storage and handling facilities. Some countries have not problems with that, they consider rodents of all kinds fine food. However, there are areas/religions of the world which will not kill any animal. These latter areas/religions also tend to have malnutrition and disease problems, not unrelated to excessive rodent populations.
The problems of feeding all the people on this planet are numerous and complex. I've only listed an extremely small number of problems, but there are solutions. Some of the charity efforts need to be better managed monetarily. For instance the U.S.A. is supplying vast quantities of grain to Israel to feed that country. Yet there is a significant amount of waste in the program because the prices the government pays shipping companies is so great that some companies do not have to find a cargo to return home to at least defray some of the homeward cost. That is only one example of things that need to be fixed.
But none of these problems justifies killing people so others may eat.
Kelly
KellyS wrote:But none of these problems justifies killing people so others may eat. Kelly
Aha...something on which we can finally agree.
But of course, none of the reasons you've given thus far justifies telling a woman that she has to do with her body what you want her to do....rather than what she wants to do.
And in the grand scheme of things...since the latter is happening and the former isn't...the latter really matters a lot more than the former.
joefromchicago wrote:One must recognize that, for the anti-abortionists, the fertilized ovum is a special cell, since it is the only cell that has the chance to become a human (and thus it is different even from eggs and sperm, which, on their own, have no more chance of becoming a person than any other human cell).
Taking the position that the fertilized ovum is "just a cell," therefore, misses the point. Anti-abortionists believe that cell is a "potential person," and so it's in a different category from all the other cells. As long as pro-choicers take the position that "it's just a cell" there can be no meaningful dialogue.
The fact that cells and embryos are not human beings IS the point. They do not have any of the qualities that a real person has, such as awareness of itself and its surroundings and the ability to interact with others. They have a potential for growth, nothing more, just as
every sperm and egg does.
No one disputes that the fertilized ovum is a "special" cell and is a "potential person," but it cannot become a human being on its own. It has no more chance at development than any other cell unless it successfully parasitizes a human body. If it has a right to invade another being and suck nutrients without the consent of the person whose body it will deform and degrade, and whose life it may adversely impact, any person in need is equally justified in demanding that you donate blood, bone marrow, or other renewable body tissues for their benefit.
Quote:As long as anti-abortionists believe that abortion is murder, they are acting perfectly reasonably in opposing anyone's abortion, just as those opposed to murder are perfectly reasonable in opposing any murder.
Agreed, but in order for it to be murder, a human being must be killed. It is not murder to kill a dog. It is not murder to kill a chimpanzee even though they share 98% of our genes, feel emotions, can use tools and language, and are sentient beings. It is not murder to kill any living thing that is not a person, and that includes healthy human cells that are excised for cosmetic reasons as well as medical necessity.
It seems to me that anti-abortionists have taken their abhorrence at the blown-up pictures of fetuses being gruesomely aborted (and I agree that a 6-month-old fetus is a human being which may only be aborted if it is non-viable or endangers the mother's life or well-being) and brainwashed people into believing that there is no inherent difference between babies, fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs. Killing a baby is murder. Aborting an embryo is not.
Quote:Let me be blunt: the pro-choice camp will never get anywhere arguing that abortion isn't the killing of a human, since that will simply lead to the two sides talking past each other. Rather, the pro-choice side must formulate some kind of argument that starts from the premise that the fertilized ovum is a human, but that abortion is still justified. I ask you, then, Terry: is there a valid pro-choice argument for abortion even if KellyS is right that the fertilized ovum is a human life?
If the fertilized ovum is legally a human being, then abortion would be murder unless it is done in self-defense or in defense of our country/society. Miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter unless it was caused by negligence, in which case a woman could be arrested for not getting prenatal care. Many forms of birth control would be outlawed. Chance, not choice, would determine who became parents, and when. Forget that career, if you want to enjoy sex you must be willing to chance involuntary motherhood. Thousands of new schools would have to be built to accommodate a million extra children per year, and landfills expanded to hold billions of extra diapers!
If a fertilized egg is to be given instant "personhood", with vested inalienable rights BEFORE birth... Imagine the millions of new jail cells we'll need to build to house all the women who miscarry... and all the lawyers who could get rich prosecuting or defending those who miscarry from charges of negligence.
But why stop there?
Why not also prosecute and punish any woman who bears a deformed or defective child?
How about those who knowingly and willfully breed despite carrying genetic-based diseases like Haemophilia, etc.?
And, if the ovaries and uterus are NOT the proprietary domain of the women in which they reside, then ovarectomies and hysterectomies should be illegal as well... excision of the sites deprives all those potential Ova from a shot at their natural potential!
We could have class-action suits against any woman who has been sterilized!
Oh, have pity upon all the poor, defenseless unborn babies! Flaunt your Moral Superiority, Rally to their cause!
Crush the mean, heartless vixens who deny these children birth! SPIT upon the whores!
Show the world your compassion by flooding society with unwanted children!
(insert "sarcasm" emoticon HERE for the benefit of the clueless)
Frankly, when one considers the cost to society and its children from the unfit and negligent parents that abound, we'd do better to ban PREGNANCY... unless the mother can prove herself to be a worthy candidate for the PRIVILEGE of bearing children.
And while we're at it, we should proscribe unwed motherhood... failure to provide a complete complement of mother AND father for every child takes a heavy toll as well.
No, the burdens of parenthood are nothing to enter lightly... forcing those burdens upon the unwilling can yield little benefit... except to the self-righteous busybodies whose interest stops at the delivery room.
Terry wrote:
Quote:(and I agree that a 6-month-old fetus is a human being which may only be aborted if it is non-viable or endangers the mother's life or well-being)
Is a 6 month old human being a person?
Is a 3 month old fetus a human being according to you?
Where do you draw the line?
Apparently, the lines are to be drawn by the non-participants.
That's one of the issues isn't it?
Is it up to each individual mother to decide where the line is drawn?
Is it arbitrary where the line between human being and person and non-human being is drawn?
Terry wrote:The fact that cells and embryos are not human beings IS the point. They do not have any of the qualities that a real person has, such as awareness of itself and its surroundings and the ability to interact with others. They have a potential for growth, nothing more, just as every sperm and egg does.
To conduct the debate on the level of "personhood" is to conduct the debate on the anti-abortionists' terms. No one can, with absolute certainty, claim that a fertilized ovum is or is not a "person." As such, both sides are equally right in holding to their opposing positions. And given that the anti-abortionists have nothing but the "personhood" issue on which to base their arguments, I'm sure that they're quite happy in conducting the debate at this level.
Terry wrote:No one disputes that the fertilized ovum is a "special" cell and is a "potential person," but it cannot become a human being on its own. It has no more chance at development than any other cell unless it successfully parasitizes a human body. If it has a right to invade another being and suck nutrients without the consent of the person whose body it will deform and degrade, and whose life it may adversely impact, any person in need is equally justified in demanding that you donate blood, bone marrow, or other renewable body tissues for their benefit.
This is closer to a valid argument, but you still cling to the notion that a fertilized ovum is not a person.
Terry wrote:Agreed, but in order for it to be murder, a human being must be killed. It is not murder to kill a dog. It is not murder to kill a chimpanzee even though they share 98% of our genes, feel emotions, can use tools and language, and are sentient beings. It is not murder to kill any living thing that is not a person, and that includes healthy human cells that are excised for cosmetic reasons as well as medical necessity.
Again, this is simply not persuasive. There is no reason to privilege your definition of "person" over anyone else's.
Terry wrote:It seems to me that anti-abortionists have taken their abhorrence at the blown-up pictures of fetuses being gruesomely aborted (and I agree that a 6-month-old fetus is a human being which may only be aborted if it is non-viable or endangers the mother's life or well-being) and brainwashed people into believing that there is no inherent difference between babies, fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs. Killing a baby is murder. Aborting an embryo is not.
Ipse dixit.
Terry wrote:If the fertilized ovum is legally a human being, then abortion would be murder unless it is done in self-defense or in defense of our country/society.
Are you then saying that, if a fertilized ovum is considered a person, there is
no valid argument in favor of abortion?
Terry wrote:Miscarriage would be involuntary manslaughter unless it was caused by negligence, in which case a woman could be arrested for not getting prenatal care. Many forms of birth control would be outlawed. Chance, not choice, would determine who became parents, and when. Forget that career, if you want to enjoy sex you must be willing to chance involuntary motherhood. Thousands of new schools would have to be built to accommodate a million extra children per year, and landfills expanded to hold billions of extra diapers!
All excellent public policy reasons for not prohibiting abortions, but why should one take a consequentialist approach to this issue rather than an absolutist approach? You've talked of rights before, why aren't you talking of rights here?
Joe...
...one thing is for certain.
It is NOT murder.
"Murder" is the UNLAWFUL killing with malice aforethought...of a human being.
Even if one were to stretch the definition of human being to include a fetus...an abortion, legally performed, IS NOT MURDER.
By the way...for those so certain a fetus is a human being...I ask:
Have you ever included a fetus as a dependent on your income tax returns?
Do you think the IRS will buy into your arguments?
Frank Apisa wrote:
Have you ever included a fetus as a dependent on your income tax returns?
Do you think the IRS will buy into your arguments?
This is a legal argument, not a physical or practical one. Most reasonable people will agree that there is much in the law which is not reasonable, or logical. Your supposition is correct, the IRS will not accept a baby in utero as a tax deduction. A doctor must issue a birth certificate for the IRS to accept the deduction, a most illogical argument since there is significant cost in extra doctor visits and prenatal vitamins to ensure the baby is as healthy as possible when it is delivered.
Interestingly, this is akin to the issues that the Supreme Court used in deciding Roe V. Wade. The lack of surrounding, supporting laws. Texas didn't have any other laws protecting the life of the baby, nor of penalizing someone who killed a baby in the uterous, except for abortion.
Kelly
Terry wrote:joefromchicago wrote:One must recognize that, for the anti-abortionists, the fertilized ovum is a special cell, since it is the only cell that has the chance to become a human (and thus it is different even from eggs and sperm, which, on their own, have no more chance of becoming a person than any other human cell).
Taking the position that the fertilized ovum is "just a cell," therefore, misses the point. Anti-abortionists believe that cell is a "potential person," and so it's in a different category from all the other cells. As long as pro-choicers take the position that "it's just a cell" there can be no meaningful dialogue.
The fact that cells and embryos are not human beings IS the point. They do not have any of the qualities that a real person has, such as awareness of itself and its surroundings and the ability to interact with others.
You are sabatoging your own argument.
Can you show that the baby does not have an awareness of its environment?
The baby most definitely is interacting with its environment. It draws nutrition and oxygenated blood from the uterine walls, or the specific lining generated every month just to support the possiblity of pregancy. The baby secretes its wastes for disposal by its environment.
On the gruesome baby picture angle, many movies in various technologies have shown the babies attempting to retreat from the abortion instruments. That is most definitely interacting with others.
Kelly
Kelly, if YOU want to have a baby... please, do so.
MY objection is to how you insist upon interfering with OTHER people's options.
Child-bearing is a LIFE-LONG commitment, not to be entered into lightly, capriciously, or flippantly.
Anyone with the awareness to acknowledge their lack of aptitude or resources for child-rearing should NOT be forced to bear children unwillingly... not by YOU, or by ME, or de Massah, or the Pope, or any other peripheral parties.
Why is it you insist upon poking your nose into OTHER people's business?
Can't you follow the admonitions of Jesus, and tend to the mote in your OWN eye?
I've never wanted or needed to abort, but if that situation ever arose... and you poked YOUR nose in... I would NOT be pleased.
I find your position similar to that of certain protestant sects/cults who eschew transfusions, surgery and medical care of any kind... reserving the human right to intercede only on the level of prayer... and relying upon "Divine intercession" for any other healing, relief or therapy.
Frankly, I'll allow them THEIR choice to do as they fell God wills them to do FOR THEMSELVES... but I vehemently object to their mandating that everyone else do only as they do!
Magus wrote:I've never wanted or needed to abort, but if that situation ever arose... and you poked YOUR nose in... I would NOT be pleased.
I've never wanted to torture and kill another person, but if that situation ever arose, I certainly wouldn't want any outside interference either.
Magus wrote:Kelly, if YOU want to have a baby... please, do so.
I would love to, however the doctors publicly haven't admitted to trying to implant ovaries and uterous in a male.
Quote: MY objection is to how you insist upon interfering with OTHER people's options.
So far I haven't been very successful with that interference. But I'm not backing down on my belief that killing a baby is murder, regardless of the age of the baby. If this is interferring, let me get a bigger bat.
Quote: Child-bearing is a LIFE-LONG commitment, not to be entered into lightly, capriciously, or flippantly.
We totally agree on this sentence. But that also means that the act of making babies is not to be engaged in under any of those circumstances either.
Quote: Anyone with the awareness to acknowledge their lack of aptitude or resources for child-rearing should NOT be forced to bear children unwillingly... not by YOU, or by ME, or de Massah, or the Pope, or any other peripheral parties.
I agree. That is why I have already posted supporting much better education for everyone, especially girls who will grow up to be women and if they are better educated they have less likelyhood of ending up pregnant unexpectedly.
Quote: Why is it you insist upon poking your nose into OTHER people's business?
Can't you follow the admonitions of Jesus, and tend to the mote in your OWN eye?
I suspect I have a large plank in my eye. However, I keep repeating the Jesus DID directly, and quotedly, say that He came to uphold the Law of Moses. There are many disagreements on just how much of Exodus and Deuteronomy are really the Law of Moses, but there seems to be complete agreement that the Ten Commandments are a major part of that law. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shall not kill", or if you prefer the other translation, "Thou shall not murder". Either translation supports my contention that you should not kill another human. I define a human to exist with the union of egg and sperm. There is no other so clear and obvious point in the development of the human that seperates it from a previous existance as conception.
Quote: I've never wanted or needed to abort, but if that situation ever arose... and you poked YOUR nose in... I would NOT be pleased.
Obviously.
Quote: I find your position similar to that of certain protestant sects/cults who eschew transfusions, surgery and medical care of any kind... reserving the human right to intercede only on the level of prayer... and relying upon "Divine intercession" for any other healing, relief or therapy.
Frankly, I'll allow them THEIR choice to do as they fell God wills them to do FOR THEMSELVES... but I vehemently object to their mandating that everyone else do only as they do!
Those sects are declining medical intervention in their lives, a choice they are free to make. I am opposing medical, or other, intervention to cause death, the death of a person who has no voice to object. I think those other sects and I are at rather opposite ends of that argument.
Kelly
What if the religious fanatics refuse medical intervention for their minor children?
If their child dies from lack of a transfusion because the minor's parents refused to allow such... should the parents be prosecuted for negligence?
KellyS wrote:Magus wrote:Kelly, if YOU want to have a baby... please, do so.
I would love to, however the doctors publicly haven't admitted to trying to implant ovaries and uterous in a male.
Yeah, it figures. I thought you were male.
What do you care about freedom of choice for women...you will never have to face the problem.
Quote: Quote: Child-bearing is a LIFE-LONG commitment, not to be entered into lightly, capriciously, or flippantly.
We totally agree on this sentence. But that also means that the act of making babies is not to be engaged in under any of those circumstances either.
So tell me...if the act of making the baby was a brutal rape...does that change things
Quote:Quote: Anyone with the awareness to acknowledge their lack of aptitude or resources for child-rearing should NOT be forced to bear children unwillingly... not by YOU, or by ME, or de Massah, or the Pope, or any other peripheral parties.
I agree. That is why I have already posted supporting much better education for everyone, especially girls who will grow up to be women and if they are better educated they have less likelyhood of ending up pregnant unexpectedly.
But you still maintain that once a woman is pregnant...she loses her rights as regards her own body????
Quote:Quote: Why is it you insist upon poking your nose into OTHER people's business?
Can't you follow the admonitions of Jesus, and tend to the mote in your OWN eye?
I suspect I have a large plank in my eye. However, I keep repeating the Jesus DID directly, and quotedly, say that He came to uphold the Law of Moses. There are many disagreements on just how much of Exodus and Deuteronomy are really the Law of Moses, but there seems to be complete agreement that the Ten Commandments are a major part of that law. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shall not kill", or if you prefer the other translation, "Thou shall not murder". Either translation supports my contention that you should not kill another human. I define a human to exist with the union of egg and sperm. There is no other so clear and obvious point in the development of the human that seperates it from a previous existance as conception.
Yes...how very, very convenient it is to pick and choose which of your god's many admonitions are important enogh to make a big deal out of...and which to simply trash can.
Gad...Christians are such hypocrites. And religion just seems to be at the root of all evil.
Quote:Quote: I find your position similar to that of certain protestant sects/cults who eschew transfusions, surgery and medical care of any kind... reserving the human right to intercede only on the level of prayer... and relying upon "Divine intercession" for any other healing, relief or therapy.
Frankly, I'll allow them THEIR choice to do as they fell God wills them to do FOR THEMSELVES... but I vehemently object to their mandating that everyone else do only as they do!
Those sects are declining medical intervention in their lives, a choice they are free to make. I am opposing medical, or other, intervention to cause death, the death of a person who has no voice to object. I think those other sects and I are at rather opposite ends of that argument.
Kelly
And you have the audacity to suppose that because you have pulled an idea out of the air about a human being existing....even at times when it is just a lump of a few dozen cells....everyone has to accept that bizarre notion.
Why?
Kelly,
Just a note that you came off sounding somewhat reasonable at the beginning when I believe you were a woman. You crossed the line into completely unreasonable when you started talking about religion with regards to the legality of abortion.
You're drawing the line at conception, that mass of cells couldn't live if it wasn't living off of it's host. That's not a person.
My two cents.
KellyS wrote:Magus wrote:Kelly, if YOU want to have a baby... please, do so.
I would love to, however the doctors publicly haven't admitted to trying to implant ovaries and uterous in a male.
Quote: MY objection is to how you insist upon interfering with OTHER people's options.
So far I haven't been very successful with that interference. But I'm not backing down on my belief that killing a baby is murder, regardless of the age of the baby. If this is interferring, let me get a bigger bat.
Quote: Child-bearing is a LIFE-LONG commitment, not to be entered into lightly, capriciously, or flippantly.
We totally agree on this sentence. But that also means that the act of making babies is not to be engaged in under any of those circumstances either.
Quote: Anyone with the awareness to acknowledge their lack of aptitude or resources for child-rearing should NOT be forced to bear children unwillingly... not by YOU, or by ME, or de Massah, or the Pope, or any other peripheral parties.
I agree. That is why I have already posted supporting much better education for everyone, especially girls who will grow up to be women and if they are better educated they have less likelyhood of ending up pregnant unexpectedly.
Quote: Why is it you insist upon poking your nose into OTHER people's business?
Can't you follow the admonitions of Jesus, and tend to the mote in your OWN eye?
I suspect I have a large plank in my eye. However, I keep repeating the Jesus DID directly, and quotedly, say that He came to uphold the Law of Moses. There are many disagreements on just how much of Exodus and Deuteronomy are really the Law of Moses, but there seems to be complete agreement that the Ten Commandments are a major part of that law. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shall not kill", or if you prefer the other translation, "Thou shall not murder". Either translation supports my contention that you should not kill another human. I define a human to exist with the union of egg and sperm. There is no other so clear and obvious point in the development of the human that seperates it from a previous existance as conception.
Quote: I've never wanted or needed to abort, but if that situation ever arose... and you poked YOUR nose in... I would NOT be pleased.
Obviously.
Quote: I find your position similar to that of certain protestant sects/cults who eschew transfusions, surgery and medical care of any kind... reserving the human right to intercede only on the level of prayer... and relying upon "Divine intercession" for any other healing, relief or therapy.
Frankly, I'll allow them THEIR choice to do as they fell God wills them to do FOR THEMSELVES... but I vehemently object to their mandating that everyone else do only as they do!
Those sects are declining medical intervention in their lives, a choice they are free to make. I am opposing medical, or other, intervention to cause death, the death of a person who has no voice to object. I think those other sects and I are at rather opposite ends of that argument.
Kelly
Both sides of this controversial subject seem to base much of their opinion on the term, "ought". "A woman ought to control her own body." "Society ought to make all abortion illegal." And so it goes.
Just a short time ago, abortion was strictly illegal throughout the United States, and was regarded as totally immoral and wrong by most Americans. Just the sort of legal environment the "Pro-Life" crowd is so adamant about today. Lets for a moment set aside the "ought" and remember what the anti-abortion world was like.
Each year thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of illegal abortions took place in spite of the laws. Legitimate doctors and skilled health professionals seldom performed abortions because they feared prosecution and loss of their licenses. So who performed all those illegal abortions?
A good number were self-administered by young women who had little idea of what they were doing. Abortions performed with coat-hangers, and self-administered toxins intended to cause miscarriages were not uncommon. Old wives tales provided a whole range of methods to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. Some worked and some didn't, almost all carried grave health risks.
A second source for illegal abortions were the back-alley quacks. The best of these abortionists were compassionate physicians, but most were conducted by unlicensed and often untrained people out to make a buck. Often these abortions were conducted in unsanitary conditions, and serious infections resulted. Botched abortions by unqualified frauds always carried a risk of uncontrolled bleeding and the subsequent death of the woman.
If the laws permitting abortion were reversed, what would the result be? It might be nice to believe that young women wouldn't seek abortion, but is that really likely? We know that abortion, though illegal and against the strong convictions of society, has been sought and practiced far back into antiquity. In even the most strictly regulated and sanctioned religious groups women terminated pregnancies by abortion. Now at the beginning of the 21st century, what sexual attitudes are held by the majority of Americans? Who is it in our society that is most likely to have sexual relations resulting in unwanted pregnancies? Will returning abortion laws to what existed fifty years ago change those societal patterns?
I think the answers to those questions is: the decision to have sex is pretty much left to individuals, and our cultural values tend to make sex a desirable thing. Unmarried teenagers and young adults who have just "discovered" the pleasures of sex tend to have more unwanted pregnancies than the rest of society. Removing the legal abortion option is unlikely to change societies feelings about sex, and is unlikely to dissuade young people from sexual behavior. Why wouldn't women go back to seeking illegal abortions (with all their dangers and faults) if safe, legal abortion was eliminated?
In the bad old days "Family Planning" was also disapproved of, and shameful. Ineffective means of birth control were guessed at by girls and boys experimenting with their sexuality. The local pharmacist kept a few plain wrapped condoms under the counter, and frightened boys waited until a man could wait on their need. There was no "pill", so a girl who might be failing arithmetic was left to calculate her fertility cycle. A girl might try to get a spermicide from the pharmacist, but that was even more risky and frightening than a boy asking for a condom. IUD methods were available from physicians, for married women. Even today, in these "enlightened" times the young have some strange notions about sex, and what causes/prevents pregnancy. Sex Education classes are still, I believe, terribly deficient and scarce.
If legal abortions were eliminated, that might be somewhat offset if birth control education and devices were more accessible to the young. However, that isn't likely either, is it? Posters here have equated the use of spermicides and the pill with "murder". IUDs have a bad medical history these days, and aren't likely to make a comeback, even if the "pro-life" crowd were to accept their use. Even the use of condoms seems to offend many in the "Right to Life" camp.
Now let us suppose that the unlikely were to occur. Abortion laws are reversed, AND there was not a return to illegal abortion statistics. Not being able to reverse current values and tends, the number of unwanted pregnancies that continued to term would increase, perhaps alarmingly.
We know, don't we, that illegitimacy and families headed by single mothers tend to be the most poverty stricken. Teenage mothers fail to complete their educations, have few marketable skills, and often either end up on Welfare, or being provided for by parents. The children of such families generally have poorer nutrition and more health problems than "wanted" children. "Unwanted" children seem to end up more often in crime statistics than those in more traditional families. If you favor making it nigh impossible for a young woman who has made a terrible mistake and gotten pregnant to abort, then haven't you also made society at large somehow responsible for mitigating the problem? How would you do that?
Would we then be urged to pass laws requiring that the biological father be identified, forced to marry the girl and provide for her and his child? How about removing the child from the unmarried mother to be raised by the State? No? Then would society at large be taxed to provide the unmarried woman and her children with all the advantages of a more traditional family? How do we as society replace the father-figure in such a household? If society is willing to adopt any of these strategies, wouldn't that be even more destructive to traditional family values than providing legal and safe abortions? How far can/should ... "ought" ... society and government regulate the personal affairs of citizens? What is more personal than one's sexual life? If government can say to a woman, thou shalt not abort a fetus, then why shouldn't government require birth control until a woman is married and licensed to have a child? Once we begin legislating how people live their intimate lives, we can easily all be deprived our most essential liberties.
Before a fetus reaches the stage where it might be viable outside the womb, it is arguably merely part of the mother... a growth.
Can we assume to mandate that people not have the right to excise their tumors at will?
HOW ?
Religion?
"God gave you that tumor... only God should take it away!" ?!!!
I admit to shuddering at the prospect of the late-term procedures (where a potentially viable fetus is denied the transition into personhood by having its brain scrambled in utero).
But I have much less reticence about first trimester abortion procedures.
I also note that, among learned physicians, the stages of zygote, embro and fetus are considered to be distinct and separate.
Ultimately, I am repelled by the insanity of FORCING upon an infant the disadvantage of unwilling parents.
Unwanted Children are deprived of the very first thing an infant requires... a PAIR of loving, nurturing parents.
And the fate of the majority of unwanted children?
To suffer a loveless life, lacking the benefits of natural affection in their formative years... so they often grow up to be hostile and insensitive.
That's where we get our Republicans.
