The Red Scare continues.

[The Dad]

This is a scary precedent, and although I am in favor of abortions (or to put it in better terms - in favor of a woman's right to choose), this is one aspect of the abortion debate that makes me a bit worried.

"Oh, sorry honey, I was gonna pull out, but the phone rang and it startled me."

"We just don't wish to have that child."

Abortion will be convenient for all the sluts of America! Birth control gone awry.

Are you saying that society will be better off if the people you describe procreate?

[PNWbrit]

I have broken a Kryptonite lock off a pair of clinic doors with my bare hands. (Okay, I took the easy way out -- I tore off the handles)

love it- Kind of mirrors the facile arguments of pro-lifers - "If we make it illegal it'll stop the heathens murdering all the poor little babies"

[Magnoe]

Try again boy-o. Your the one drawing from opinion.

the Percentage of Women Adopting Has Declined
In 1995, about 500,000 women were seeking to adopt a child, and 100,000 had applied with an agency. [2] The same year, an estimated 1.3% of women adopted one or more children, a decline from 2.1% in 1973. [3]

[3] [The estimate refers to currently or formerly married women age 18-44.] Chandra, Anjani; Abma, Joyce; Maza, Penelope; Bachrach, Christine, Adoption, Adoption Seeking and Relinquishment for Adoption in the United States, at pg. 5, Advance Data, No. 306. National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (May 1999).

Would those numbers be different if children were available for adoption? What came first, the chicken or the egg. You don't think women were deterred by the cost and difficulty of adoption?

[Platinum Pete]

It's tough to see the far right hate on abortion rights and at the same time slice and dice welfare and health programs for the less well off. If you're not going to give folks an out on an unwanted preganancy based on the value of life, you're a dick for not backing that up once that life exits the womb. I'm not so naive to think that all the righty's are the same, one contingent has their "morality" play that gathers votes and another contingent has the "economy" play, but damn. The dudes in the chairs making decisions are accountable to everyone, not just the special interest of the moment and I wish they'd start acting that way.
The true gravity of "Life" and "Choice" and "Privacy" are heavy issues, I wish they weren't treated like wonton whores for pulling votes from fanatics.

[Cyber Cop]

I hate comments like these...you can't paint an entire religion, race, or sex, with the same brush simply because some radical elements of said religion hold views that differ from yours. It's no different than saying you hate Muslims because of what happens in Iraq. It's a simple minded, head in the sand, way to live, and it puts you on the same level as those you are speaking out against.

You can probably tell I'm a Christian. Do I agree with abortion? No, however I accept the fact that we have free will, and the right to choose. I might not necessarily agree with someone who chooses to abort a pregnancy, but they do have the right to make their choice.

While I appreciate your point, what is truly scary to me is that Bush and Rove have decided that enough of the Christians in this country can be painted with such a broad brush, and they have used that base to push this country into radical positions that the majority of countries and citizens on the civilized list agree are contrary to modern democratic principles of human liberty. ?

P.S. I really do love some christians. shhh!

[Dr. Gaper]

Are you saying that society will be better off if the people you describe procreate?

No, not at all. But abortion shouldn't be relied upon for birth control.

[Magnoe]

love it- Kind of mirrors the facile arguments of pro-lifers - "If we make it illegal it'll stop the heathens murdering all the poor little babies"

PNWBrit,
I'm not intentionally debating you but again I have a problem with your statement. I understand the intent of your comment. But again, we can't dictate law based on what people are doing. Let's say the Supreme Court determines that the protection of "life" extends to a fetus. Then one judge says, "wait a minute. They're going to have abortions anyway, let's change our interpretation of "life" so it's legal and girls can have it with the best medical facilities possible". It is their job to interpret the constitution as written... even if it's not popular or convenient. It IS the foundation of our country.

[Bud Green]

I hate christians.

[Cyber Cop]

That is one of the hardest issues for me. You bring up one of the best arguments for it. I guess when it comes down to it, though, I would have to say two wrongs don't make a right. If I truly believe that it is a life we're dealing with, then it has to be protected according to our constitution. I believe it's a life at conception. Therefore it has to be protected. It is incredibly difficult and I don't have the answer for the alternative. It sucks that the mother would have to carry in that situation. My wife is in public health and we discuss this often. We have both come to the same conclusion.

The fact that a rapist has the same rights as the mother has to be the first issue addressed. That is atrocious if reported correctly.

There is a very viable alternative, its been used in Europe for awhile. Yet the morning after pill faces the same attack from the republican sides of the aisle across this country.

[Cyber Cop]

I hate christians.

I love Green Buds.

[yesIsaidyes]

PNWBrit,
I'm not intentionally debating you but again I have a problem with your statement. I understand the intent of your comment. But again, we can't dictate law based on what people are doing. Let's say the Supreme Court determines that the protection of "life" extends to a fetus. Then one judge says, "wait a minute. They're going to have abortions anyway, let's change our interpretation of "life" so it's legal and girls can have it with the best medical facilities possible". It is their job to interpret the constitution as written... even if it's not popular or convenient. It IS the foundation of our country.

There is a whole school of legal theory that postulates that laws that are not followed are not useful and that laws are generally a reflection of society's tendencies - so while you are right that inconvenience should not be a way to interpret the constitution, the fact that no one would obey one interpretation is a good indicator its not a correct one. You are still on this natural law kick, as if there is only one "true" meaning of the constitution and we just have to discover it. It's just not that simple.

[MeatPuppet]

Nothing like a court made up of men telling women how to control their bodies.

Yeah, I agree, to an extent. But the question nobody wants to tackle is, when does human life begin. It is well established in American law that a person can(for the most part) do whatever they want with their own body right up to the point that their actions infringe on somebody else's rights. So, the real question is; when does that mass of tissue become a human being with rights? When we as a society decide that, this whole abortion debate goes away. I wish we would spend more time dealing with that issue and less time yelling well established principles at each other.

Women(and men) have a right to do with their bodies as they see fit: nobody disputes this.

Human beings have a right to live: nobody disputes this.

So why all the yelling?!?

[joshbu]

Perhaps I'm being too obtuse. I'll lay out my argument step by step.

1. The perscribed "solution" for abortion is adoption. It is my contention that this solution is flawed for the following reasons.

Of the population of births that would have been aborted:

a. A certain unknown percentage of women will keep the baby, if only for a while. Those that were truely incapable of raising a child (again, an unknown percentage) will likely put their child up for adoption, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Children that are not infants have lower adoption rates, longer waits in foster care, and a higher percentage of dissolution.

b. Only a certain (unknown) percentage of women will give birth to healthy babies. It is likely given the demographics of the women that recieve abortions that this percentage will be much lower than the overall population. Again, sick children have much lower rates of adoption, etc...

c. Finally, given the demographics of women who recieve abortions, a significant percentage of the births will be for minorities. Yet again, there are lower percentages of adoption for minorities (thankfully, not that much lower.)

Now, there's a lot of unknowns there. My contention is that these percentages are not favorable. You contend otherwise I'm sure.

[Schmear]

When we as a society decide that, this whole abortion debate goes away.

The problem is, all the science in the world won't convince either side that their way of thinking is wrong.

[Mofro261]

Legalized abortion = Less chance of having car stereo stolen???
"Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt

"Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime. "

[The Dad]

No, not at all. But abortion shouldn't be relied upon for birth control.

Abortion is birth control. By definition.

That said, it appears that your issue is with "reliance." To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any evidence that there is any statistically-significant group of people who "rely" on abortion as their primary form of birth control.

To repeat, even assuming for the sake of argument that these people exist, aren't they exactly the people you wouldn't want to procreate?

[Schmear]

unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime. "

That's kind of funny. I guess it's true that an unborn child doesn't get the chance to be screwed up by bad parenting.

[MeatPuppet]

The problem is, all the science in the world won't convince either side that their way of thinking is wrong.

Very true. But I don't think it's a matter of science. I think it's more a matter of consensus. Many things in out society are a bit arbitrary. What constitutes death isn't 100% accurate 100% of the time. As rare as it may be, people have been clinically dead and yet were revived, so obviously something was still there. We have a definition of death, it would seem that we should be able to come up with a definition of life.

[Schmear]

That said, it appears that your issue is with "reliance." To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any evidence that there is any statistically-significant group of people who "rely" on abortion as their primary form of birth control.

I wonder if Dr. Gaper is speaking to that segment of society that uses abortion as a convenient means of not taking responsibility for its actions? (e.g. oops I got pregnant)

[runethechamp]

I wonder if Dr. Gaper is speaking to that segment of society that uses abortion as a convenient means of not taking responsibility for its actions? (e.g. oops I got pregnant)

I'm no abortion expert by any means, but I've heard that it's not very pleasant at all. I don't think anyone wants to use it as some "convenient" method of birth control, simply because it is not convenient, especially after being through the experience once.

[Steven S. Dallas]

It can piss you off that it was written by "religious" men.

Just because they were religious doesn't mean they put their religion into the document. Legal conservatives can't say that you need to take Constitutional language, then turn around and say it must have been intended as a statement of Christian faith, when the one reference to religion- other than the First Amendment- is in the last line, where it says "year of our lord."

edit: also, fwiw, that Freakonomics book is flimsy, flimsy, flimsy.

[freshies]

i feel like we are being transported back to the 50s: the erosion of all our civil liberties in the name of "saftey" (then: communisim. now: terrorism), a womens right to choose (then: abortion illeagal in most states, only the wealthy could afford them. now: ummm, heading that way again...), creation'ism based science (then: even scientists back then understood and accepted evolution...now: umm, pretend science based on the bible), global warming wasn't known then, and according to this administration, its not really happening either....I mean, this administration is really frightening and leading us backwards in all aspects (security, the economy, science, the environment, our fundemental rights/civil liberties, foreign relations, etc)....

its time for the silent majority to speak up, meaning those in the middle that have had their parties hijacked by extremeists...this shit is getting out of control.

[PNWbrit]

PNWBrit,
I'm not intentionally debating you but again I have a problem with your statement. I understand the intent of your comment. But again, we can't dictate law based on what people are doing. Let's say the Supreme Court determines that the protection of "life" extends to a fetus. Then one judge says, "wait a minute. They're going to have abortions anyway, let's change our interpretation of "life" so it's legal and girls can have it with the best medical facilities possible". It is their job to interpret the constitution as written... even if it's not popular or convenient. It IS the foundation of our country.

What would you do if your 12 year old daughter was raped by a member of your family and became pregnant?

I'd suggest that insisting she carried the baby to full term would be a morally repugnant decision compared to her having an abortion. Even if you'd feel happy with it the removal of that freedom of choice from other families is just plain wrong.

There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting abortion. It's writers had no reason to consider it because it was not a concern of society at the time. With respect your selective interpretation is an offence to it's intent.

Would this country actually be a better place if Doctors are jailed for performing a procedure that has been legal for many years and is considered by the vast majority of mankind to be acceptable?

[The Reverend Floater]

This is great and all but don't forget to raise your fist outside of the interweb. Pretty sure those crazy senators with their politricks aren't reading TGR.

For me, another vote for Cascadia.

[Magnoe]

There is a whole school of legal theory that postulates that laws that are not followed are not useful and that laws are generally a reflection of society's tendencies - so while you are right that inconvenience should not be a way to interpret the constitution, the fact that no one would obey one interpretation is a good indicator its not a correct one. You are still on this natural law kick, as if there is only one "true" meaning of the constitution and we just have to discover it. It's just not that simple.

Quote:

"The fact that no one would obey one interpretation is a good indicator it's not a correct one"

You are correct that there will still be those who disobey the law. But I disagree that utilization won't change if it becomes illegal.