• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Why is this considered a non-story?

Wrangor said:
Because without war innocent people die as well. A similar argument (although less effective) can be made about capital punishment. If America becomes Switzerland innocent people suffer. If America protects the world innocent people suffer. The issue isn't whether war is good or bad it is how you implement war most effectively.
Click to expand...

Are there not similar value judgements being weighed by women making a choice about abortion? I happen to think that women aren't taking the decision lightly.
 
There's an awful lot of death in the world that we can agree covers a lot of grey areas: war, drone strikes, death row, people who perish due to lack of health insurance etc. These are unpleasant and complex issues, all. Can we agree that abortion falls in this category and should be discussed on a deeper level than "it's wrong"? It's always going to be about more than in-viable pregnancies and danger to the mother.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I assume you haven't read many of my posts about public education funding. The answer is yes.

But it's not okay to say that we should kill babies we don't wish to pay for. That's not okay.
Click to expand...

Never suggested that. I just find a disconnect between conservatives pro-life stances and their opposition to welfare. Making a sweeping generalization here (not about you specifically), but a poor woman who chooses to have kids is later demonized as a welfare queen with an Obama phone.
 
So I haven't read the whole thread or watched the video, but is anything going to happen to the woman who went to see this abortionist for late term abortions? To me they are as culpable as he is.
 
ipitytheblue said:
It's not the fetus' fault but I think the harm is beyond doubt. Does the fact that terminating a pregnancy can be a good choice for an individual who wants one seem reasonable?



Does that change it for you? I'm curious if context makes a difference in whether or not a pregnancy can be seen as negative.

Apologies for the tone; I don't mean to come across that way.
Click to expand...

Okay, I may have read your tone too narrowly. I appreciate the courtesy either way. Thanks.

Rape and incest are very difficult calls, obviously, but I would hope that as a culture, we're not using those rare exceptions to justify a rule that is abused in a supermajority of other cases that are not close calls, morally.

You can choose not to get pregnant, but if YOU failed to behave in a way that fits with your preferred way of life, we shouldn't take that out on the baby. Be a big boy or big girl and live up to your responsibilities, and if you are unable and/or unwilling, there is an oversupply of capable, willing, loving families who would adopt the child you don't want. Do you make an exception for rape/incest? Morally, I could see it, but if you draw that as the line of demarcation you're going to get a lot unfounded allegations borne out of convenience. That's tricky.

Bottom line: You can't morally end a life in the name of convenience, and if we're being honest, that happens every day in every city in America, and there are lot of otherwise smart, wise and otherwise moral people who are turning a blind eye to it. Sounds pretty familiar to any decent student of American history.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Okay, I may have read your tone too narrowly. I appreciate the courtesy either way. Thanks.

Rape and incest are very difficult calls, obviously, but I would hope that as a culture, we're not using those rare exceptions to justify a rule that is abused in a supermajority of other cases that are not close calls, morally.

You can choose not to get pregnant, but if YOU failed to behave in a way that fits with your preferred way of life, we shouldn't take that out on the baby. Be a big boy or big girl and live up to your responsibilities, and if you are unable and/or unwilling, there is an oversupply of capable, willing, loving families who would adopt the child you don't want. Do you make an exception for rape/incest? Morally, I could see it, but if you draw that as the line of demarcation you're going to get a lot unfounded allegations borne out of convenience. That's tricky.

Bottom line: You can't morally end a life in the name of convenience, and if we're being honest, that happens every day in every city in America, and there are lot of otherwise smart, wise and otherwise moral people who are turning a blind eye to it. Sounds pretty familiar to any decent student of American history.
Click to expand...

There are over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted right now.
 
A couple more thoughts on the matter. To some extent, I worry about missing the trees for the forest. I also wonder if others are missing the forest for the trees.

A lot of people are dumb. Both dumb and smart people make mistakes. Abortion is one method of a "big deal" solution to a "big deal" problem. Otherwise, we're sentencing people to a long-term... punishment, I guess you could call it, for a mistake. Which is better for society (not the fetus), allowing people a solution to this problem - and hopefully preventing the person from making this mistake again - or forcing an unwanted child to be born into the world, either to be cared for by a family who didn't want a child and perhaps can't afford one or adopted. There are a lot of costs and difficulties associated with the long-term, non-abortion solution, especially opposed to the opposite. It could turn out great, of course. I'm generally not that optimistic though.

Perhaps, in addition to expanding our sex ed. and contraceptive availability (hopefully included in health coverage) to prevent these problems, abortion may be a bitter pill we take, socially, for tangible reasons. Of course, this line of thinking doesn't include morality, which is understandably important. Just another view.



ETA: I liken this bitter pill to the problem of chronic homelessness. Studies have shown that the most efficient (from the public's perspective) solution to chronic homelessness is for the city to pay for them to have housing, like an apartment. Does this seem right? No, of course not. But it's been shown to save cities a ton of money in medical costs etc.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
Okay, I may have read your tone too narrowly. I appreciate the courtesy either way. Thanks.
Click to expand...

It's a hot-topic issue so slip-ups in language are easy to make. I know that if I come across as an asshole or a crazy person, it only characterizes one side of the debate and discredits me so believe me, I try to stay aware of tone and such :)
 
Deacfreak07 said:
There are over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted right now.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then why are families having to fly all over the world to adopt children? I know a couple in Durham who got placed YESTERDAY with an in utero baby, to be born in Nevada. It would be hard to overstate the trouble this family has had in conceiving (two stillborn babies), and they'd walk through plate glass to have a child.

Those things don't add up.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Bottom line: You can't morally end a life in the name of convenience, and if we're being honest, that happens every day in every city in America, and there are lot of otherwise smart, wise and otherwise moral people who are turning a blind eye to it. Sounds pretty familiar to any decent student of American history.
Click to expand...

I think you're simplifying it a little too much here. Carrying to term an unwanted child goes a bit beyond convenience/inconvenience in my mind. See my post above.

When a woman gets pregnant, it's a big deal either way. Abortions are a big deal. Having a kid is a big deal. Both sides should be given weight.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If that is true, then why are families having to fly all over the world to adopt children? I know a couple in Durham who got placed YESTERDAY with an in utero baby, to be born in Nevada. It would be hard to overstate the trouble this family has had in conceiving (two stillborn babies), and they'd walk through plate glass to have a child.

Those things don't add up.
Click to expand...

because once kids aren't newborns anymore, most people don't want them. most of the kids that df07 is talking about are older.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If that is true, then why are families having to fly all over the world to adopt children? I know a couple in Durham who got placed YESTERDAY with an in utero baby, to be born in Nevada. It would be hard to overstate the trouble this family has had in conceiving (two stillborn babies), and they'd walk through plate glass to have a child.

Those things don't add up.
Click to expand...

Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.
Click to expand...

http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children
 
With the progression of technology the definition of life is in constant flux. The biggest opponents of abortion are that life begins at conception, usually through the "miracle" of god. The problem with this now is the technology is out there that you could clone a human or you could take a skin cell and treat with a few transcription factors and a few chemicals and revery back to a single pluripotent cell. What if we make a sperm cell using a few more steps, throw an egg in their as well put them together, maybe grow a uterus, maybe an artificial womb, im just making life out of nothing left and right, soon I have an army, and thus the Clone Wars, all because you wouldn't even let me end my own experiments.
 
Found this video yesterday but only got a chance to watch it now. I think it's really interesting; particularly the part at 3:40, which is sort of tangential to the main theme but pretty illustrative. It shouldn't come across as provocative or partisan.

 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
With the progression of technology the definition of life is in constant flux. The biggest opponents of abortion are that life begins at conception, usually through the "miracle" of god. The problem with this now is the technology is out there that you could clone a human or you could take a skin cell and treat with a few transcription factors and a few chemicals and revery back to a single pluripotent cell. What if we make a sperm cell using a few more steps, throw an egg in their as well put them together, maybe grow a uterus, maybe an artificial womb, im just making life out of nothing left and right, soon I have an army, and thus the Clone Wars, all because you wouldn't even let me end my own experiments.
Click to expand...

So in summary, the problem with being pro-life is that it would keep us from being able to prevent the clone wars from happening?
 
I think I will take my chances with the clone war over massive annihilation of an inconvenient portion of our population.
 
My point in a light matter of the clone war is that life is very fluid and often there aren't set rules dictating the decisions that need to be made so we frame them or attempt to frame them to fit our agenda. Right now it seems the decision is the correct one in that there are compromising laws in place that limit when abortions can take place while maintaining their legal standing before this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top