Abortion

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

You know I can't let that one go on by. Wasn't the Welfare Reform Act passed under the Clinton administration by the Gingrich dominated House?

Yup, in 1996 if I recall correctly. it sure would be interesting to see statistics for the last few years, wouldn't it. You would also have to contrast the prosperity of the late '90s with the recent economy as a determining factor.

Let's not forget: the person I quoted is the Dean of the most prominent Catholic-affiliated university in the US, reminding us that those who oppose abortion should not knee-jerk vote for the guy who has an anti-abortion plank in his policy. IIRC, it was Clinton who said "abortion should be legal, safe, and rare."

For darius: I agree that late-term abortion is too late, especially so-called partial birth abortion (not the medical term, btw). I think it would be much better if those decisions were made early in pregnancy, when the fetus is the size of a dot. I think we can understand that there is a lot of emotion and stigma associated with this. If we make counselling, birth-control, RU486, abortion, and adoption services nonjudgementally available to pregnant women, regardless of age or financial status then maybe we can have fewer late term abortions.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by darius

Late term abortions are pretty heinous, though. I don't understand why partial-birth could ever be an issue -- did it really take until the 3rd trimester to realize you didn't want the kid? Is there any particular reason why one would *want* to do that?

The issue with the "partial birth abortion ban" is not that whether or not the procedure is "a bad thing". The issue is that the law as passed made no allowances for the health of the mother, which is why it won't pass judicial review when the first challenge is made.

I suspect that refusing to include language allowing the procedure in cases where the health of the woman is at risk was a "poison pill" put into the bill so that votes on the overall bill could be used in political ads.

Craig

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Moonitic

As far as adoption goes, the government makes it VERY difficult to adopt in the U.S. The red tape & hoops a couple have to jump through makes it nearly impossible. So what do people do? They go to other countries to adopt, even the older kids (people will take older kids more often than one would think). That needs to change. The pool is there. It needs to be easier to jump in.

It is a tragedy that good loving people who want to adopt are sometimes unable to. Unfortunately, in this day and age, some of those hoops are needed to protect the children.

Sad, but a fact.

Originally Posted by Moonitic

In this day & age, a person should think of the consequences of an action BEFORE such an action. Fine, abortion is a choice, but let's be honest with ourselves. Maybe the choice should be made far before, so that someone doesn't have to deal with the heartache that would follow. This goes for any decision. Jobs, marriage, whether or not to buy a house (or where that house should be). We all make rash decisions, but sometimes we fail to realize what a rash decision could do to us down the road.

I agree. Many people do. Unfortunately, protection isn't perfect. Accidents happen. Unfortunately, many youths don't have the family support to practice abstinence. Worse many youths aren't provided the neccessary education to know and understand how important protection is.

I won't even delve into arguments about how an unwanted, uncared for child poses many other difficult issues afterwards.

Originally Posted by Moonitic

And no, babies are NOT punishment...but why should they be punished for someone else's moment of pleasure? We all make mistakes, & they are forgiveable, but please...we have brains. They need to be used. Decisions that could make or break our future need to be seriously considered. In most cases, this is not what happens with sex. Notice I said "most" cases, not all? Yeah, there are people who are able to stop & consider it, which, again, is why I favor more education. The more people know, the better.

And here's where I agree with your comments, but not neccessarily your conclusion. Education is key, however, education doesn't mean agreement with your particular stance. After all, as I stated earlier, scientist's can't agree on when life begins.

That belief is the root of the debate.

For example, I know of one particular friend who researched the procedure quite extensively before she had her abortion. She doesn't believe that a 'collection of cells' is a life, only potential life. She had no problem aborting the pregnancy early to prevent a child being borne that had no home, and no one to take care of it.

Lot's of research, different belief, different conclusion.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by achilleus

belief is the root of the debate.

True; both sides have good points. That's why the debate is so intense-once you pick your beleif, such as two cells make life, then the answer to the abortion question is immediately obvious to you, and many people don't take into account other perspectives. That's why it's such a difficult debate to resolve.

[Westley]

Pro-choice simply because the issue is far too complex for me able to decide somebody else's mind for them. It depends on the person's beliefs and religion. on another note, I remember I was biking down the town's main street to the video store and I saw a few people with signs. When I came back, I saw they all said things like "Abortion Kills Babies" etc, and I was biking up the middle of the street and it looked like everyone was staring right at me. ten year old children and everything with these scary signs and blank expressions that seemed to peel back my flesh. I don't think I ever biked that fast in my life.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Mind if I steal this point for other uses? Excellently put.

Please do! I'll probably forget and argue over definitions ...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by gojujay

You know I can't let that one go on by. Wasn't the Welfare Reform Act passed under the Clinton administration by the Gingrich dominated House? I happen to believe that an administrations' policies are still felt for at least two years after they have left office. I don't know the rates/time, but I do believe that the prior twelve years might have had a significant impact on the psyche of the nation. Implying those statistics are tied to ONE administration and it's policies is disingenuous.

You should have let that go. This is one of the reasons that threads like this tend to digress. There are many sub-issues that affect this highly volatile subject. If I had the power I would delete your posting.