NationStates Jolt Archive

I came to the 'convience me on abortions' thread through the nationstates page, and I didn't read through the 22 pages there were at the time because I was disgusted by the frequency of use of the bible in arguements.
I used to be Catholic. I am not now. I don't believe in the soul, an afterlife, god etc. I don't subscribe to the authority of the pope or scriptures.
What I would like to see is a discussion on the merits and pitfalls of the legalization of abortion based on its social repurcussions.
That's what government is supposed to be about, right? - doing what is best for society.
So, I would like to ask people to refrain from the following in this discussion:
1. Quoting the bible and other religious texts.
2. Discussing the soul and other religious concepts.

Zealots beware! :sniper:

I don't know if abortion is beneficial to society, in fact I don't care. What I do know is that it is beneficial to the individual, and the protection of the individual should be the only true role of government.

Socially abortion is obviously benificial. It reduces overpopulation, and since the reason that most women want an abortion is that they can't afford to keep a child, it reduces strain on social benifits.

When I saw this topic, I thought you were going to say "we should give all atheists a post-birth abortion" or something like that.
:D

It could save the government a lot of money.

If all the unwanted babies had to be carried to term, many would end up being put up for adoption. The government would have to look after them.

And just think of all the paperwork involved ;)

Personally, I think abortion is a very distasteful thing. However, I also believe that a cluster of cells is not life - although I'm not athiest, I don't subscribe to any of the traditional faiths either - until it would be capable of living outside the womb. I don't know how low this goes with incubators and so forth being involved, but obviously there are premature births of some weeks before the standard 9 months of human pregnancy. Therefore I personally believe abortion should be legal up until sometime in the region of 20 to 24 weeks of pregnancy (5 to 6 months.).

An article I once read attributed the drop in violent crime in the 1990s to a reduction in unwanted, neglected kids due to abortion being made legal and widely available in the seventies.

Alright, first off, I believe abortion is wrong. I am going to try to justify that belief in social terms.

It is my understanding that, although the primary arguement used by those in support of abortion is cases in which the mother is either the victim of a crime, or her life is endangered if she gives birth, less than 5% of abortions are performed for those reasons.

Here are some other reasons that abortions occur (feel free to add to the list).

1. Inability to financially support a child.
2. Fear of prejudice from peers.
3. Fear of repurcussions from parents.
4. Desire to prevent the birth of a child with a defect.
5. The parents, though capable of supporting a child, are not willing to change their lifestyle to accomodate one.

Abortion in general is indicative of deeper problems which are associated with each of those reasons.
I will be back later to discuss those problems.

Personally, I think abortion is a very distasteful thing. However, I also believe that a cluster of cells is not life - although I'm not athiest, I don't subscribe to any of the traditional faiths either - until it would be capable of living outside the womb. I don't know how low this goes with incubators and so forth being involved, but obviously there are premature births of some weeks before the standard 9 months of human pregnancy. Therefore I personally believe abortion should be legal up until sometime in the region of 20 to 24 weeks of pregnancy (5 to 6 months.).

Lets please try to avoid discussion of when life begins, as it lends itself very easily to religious discussion.

I wish no one ever needed or wanted to abort a child, BUT it is her right, their choice. Not mine. It is the only absolute right, the right to your own body.

If the mother wants it, it's a child. If she doesn't, it's a fetus. If that's a double standard, YIPPEE. We can have a double standard, then.

I think we should set up Heinlein-style development centers to take care of unwanted children, so that abortions will only be necessary if the woman's life is threatened, and kids won't have to sit around in adoption places their entire lives waiting to be picked up because adoption rates are so low.

Now this is an argument that is grey for me but I tend to be pro choice … but sense we do not have any pro lifers in here I will give it a shot arguing for their side or at least rational for their side


I guess it depends on when you take life to start …most arguments break down to that

If you believe it is life at conception (at some level) and if you take killing to be a bad thing then taking of that life is a bad thing (it depends on how bad you think that “bad” thing is … is killing worse then removing the woman’s rights for 9 months)

The other side you don’t believe life begins at conception then generally you are fine up till whenever you determine it actually is a life.

Even without bringing religion into it you can argue either side depending on when you think life begins.

I think we should set up Heinlein-style development centers to take care of unwanted children, so that abortions will only be necessary if the woman's life is threatened, and kids won't have to sit around in adoption places their entire lives waiting to be picked up because adoption rates are so low.

I actually think this is a very good idea.

I would also like it if developement centers could be used for research in the fields of educational methods and psychological theory on growth and developement, but some people might get angry about that.

If this were allowed though, then carrying unwanted children to birth would be socially beneficial, and perhaps... deserving of some reimbursement from the government?

Women are going to get abortions not matter what. That is a fact. At least when legal, women can get safe abortions for doctors and they are in less danger taking thier own lives.

I actually think this is a very good idea.

I would also like it if developement centers could be used for research in the fields of educational methods and psychological theory on growth and developement, but some people might get angry about that.

If this were allowed though, then carrying unwanted children to birth would be socially beneficial, and perhaps... deserving of some reimbursement from the government?

Indeed. I think it would work out a lot better than adoption centers, because the children would have people who provide for them what parents would, and the biological parents won't have to suffer under the financial burden of child-rearing. They could also be hybrid development/adoption centers, so while their primary purpose would be parenting unwanted children, they could also be turned over for a normal family life pending a thorough background check of the interested parties and the consent of the child in question.

Now this is an argument that is grey for me but I tend to be pro choice … but sense we do not have any pro lifers in here I will give it a shot arguing for their side or at least rational for their side


I guess it depends on when you take life to start …most arguments break down to that

...snip blah blah blah...

I want to see some prolife arguements here that do not rely on the moment of conception.
Murder is illegal. You might say it's because it's morally wrong, but really, who cares? It is socially detrimental. In a society which allows murder everyone lives in fear.

What does abortion do to society?

I think that legalizing abortion is part of a general trend of not accepting responsibility for one's actions. If people have sex, they should expect the possibility of conception, and be prepared to accept the responsibilty. Does this attitude carry over into other parts of life? Maybe, maybe not.

Here's another thought... maybe abortion is a 'bandaid'. One problem is that employers do not make it easy enough for people to have children, and have a job, and still live with a reasonable degree of comfort.

On the other hand, there are some people that live extravagantly and have abortions just because they don't want to abandon that lifestyle, and I have no pity for them.

The question is not about overpopulation, which is very low on the lists for abortions. That even seems so far out of reality I can only find people who believe in something so irrational as the afterlife or God to think of it. It is a question of womens' rights.

Without such a right, women are forever in the slavery of motherhood. If condition is forced upon a person, it isn't a choice, it is enslavement. This right shows that women aren't forever to be afraid of being pregnant and ending their careers. It is their most importants right as human being.

Women are going to get abortions not matter what. That is a fact. At least when legal, women can get safe abortions for doctors and they are in less danger taking thier own lives.

WHY are they going to get abortions no matter what?

The people that would get unsafe abortions would (I think) be limited to those who don't want anyone to know that they are pregnant. The reason that this happens is due to the social stigmata against premarital sex, teenage pregnancy, and lack of education.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to change social stigmatas (a lot of people still look down on interracial marriages.)

Here's a question though, how effective do you think sex education is? I'm mostly interested in those who had sex education at a public school.

I want to see some prolife arguements here that do not rely on the moment of conception.
Murder is illegal. You might say it's because it's morally wrong, but really, who cares? It is socially detrimental. In a society which allows murder everyone lives in fear.

What does abortion do to society?

I think that legalizing abortion is part of a general trend of not accepting responsibility for one's actions. If people have sex, they should expect the possibility of conception, and be prepared to accept the responsibilty. Does this attitude carry over into other parts of life? Maybe, maybe not.

Here's another thought... maybe abortion is a 'bandaid'. One problem is that employers do not make it easy enough for people to have children, and have a job, and still live with a reasonable degree of comfort.

On the other hand, there are some people that live extravagantly and have abortions just because they don't want to abandon that lifestyle, and I have no pity for them.


Of course murder is illigal lol the deffinition of murder is illegal killing LOL

Here's a question though, how effective do you think sex education is?
Very little. They lied about many things, and didn't tell the truth about what were the real problems.

Of course, I'm not saying all sex ed classes do that, but mine sure did.

WHY are they going to get abortions no matter what?

The people that would get unsafe abortions would (I think) be limited to those who don't want anyone to know that they are pregnant. The reason that this happens is due to the social stigmata against premarital sex, teenage pregnancy, and lack of education.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to change social stigmatas (a lot of people still look down on interracial marriages.)

Here's a question though, how effective do you think sex education is? I'm mostly interested in those who had sex education at a public school.
Sex ed in public schools is total BS. By the time they get to the subject, most teens have already been involved in some sort of sexual activity. Those cheesy "Your Body and Its Changes" videos... :rolleyes: nobody really learns anything, they're too busy giggling and making fun of the damn things!

I think we should set up Heinlein-style development centers to take care of unwanted children, so that abortions will only be necessary if the woman's life is threatened, and kids won't have to sit around in adoption places their entire lives waiting to be picked up because adoption rates are so low.

First you must explain why abortions should not be performed, otherwise I don't want society to pay for those centers.

The question is not about overpopulation, which is very low on the lists for abortions. That even seems so far out of reality I can only find people who believe in something so irrational as the afterlife or God to think of it. It is a question of womens' rights.

Without such a right, women are forever in the slavery of motherhood. If condition is forced upon a person, it isn't a choice, it is enslavement. This right shows that women aren't forever to be afraid of being pregnant and ending their careers. It is their most importants right as human being.

afraid of being pregnant and ending their careers. - that is one big problem. Why should being pregnant end a career. Or even harm it in any way. The conditions which create this fear turn the woman/fetus relationship from that of mother and child to host and parasite. Ironic that the republicans who support business at the expense of the workers are also the ones traditionally against abortion.

I would like to see an end to abortion, and a beginning to social policies which support mothers, and support unwanted children.

Here's how I see the three main stances on abortion.
Republican: Make abortions illegal, cut all programs to help the mother and child.
Democratic/Green: Keep abortions legal, create programs to help mother and child.
Libertarian: Keep abortions legal, cut programs to help mother and child.

To me, the republican position makes no sense, the democratic one is is compassionate, and the libertarian one is consistant.


From this discussion, I am starting to see that the major disputes in abortion rights fall into two categories. The first and most often argued is the futile discussion of the sanctity of life and when it begins. The second is an arguement about whether the government's primary duty is to the rights and freedoms of the individual or to the betterment of society. That issue is a lot muddier for most people though.

Originally Posted by Elanos
I actually think this is a very good idea.

I would also like it if developement centers could be used for research in the fields of educational methods and psychological theory on growth and developement, but some people might get angry about that.

If this were allowed though, then carrying unwanted children to birth would be socially beneficial, and perhaps... deserving of some reimbursement from the government?

If people were to be reimbursed for giving birth to an unwanted child and then give it to the government for experimentation there would be people that would give birth to children just for the money. The reprocussions from performing psychological experiments on children can be devastating. If you don't know what I'm talking about please refer to the case study of Albert and the white rat.

:cool: First you must explain why abortions should not be performed, otherwise I don't want society to pay for those centers.

Those centers would benefit society by increasing an understanding of the human mind and the role of family in society, and they would increase the flow of educated people into the workforce.

I'd rather have my tax dollars pay for that than for a missile, a tank, some guns, tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. :cool:

I want to see some prolife arguements here that do not rely on the moment of conception.
Murder is illegal. You might say it's because it's morally wrong, but really, who cares? It is socially detrimental. In a society which allows murder everyone lives in fear.

Even if the fetus is a person, the woman is not required by law to give up herself to prolong the life of another person. Consider it this way, should a person be required to perform a nine month blood transfusion to save another's life?

:cool:

Those centers would benefit society by increasing an understanding of the human mind and the role of family in society, and they would increase the flow of educated people into the workforce.

I'd rather have my tax dollars pay for that than for a missile, a tank, some guns, tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. :cool:
Cause you know giving tax breaks to thoes that pay more is a bad thing :rolleyes: :p

If people were to be reimbursed for giving birth to an unwanted child and then give it to the government for experimentation there would be people that would give birth to children just for the money. The reprocussions from performing psychological experiments on children can be devastating. If you don't know what I'm talking about please refer to the case study of Albert and the white rat.

That was an experiment in conditioning. I am talking about observation of children in an environment in which they do not have a nuclear family structure (which most people consider to be essential to child developement). The experiments are also in educational methods. We aren't talking about creating super ninja warrior babies or anything like that. I'm talking about responsible scientific study.

Those centers would benefit society by increasing an understanding of the human mind and the role of family in society, and they would increase the flow of educated people into the workforce.


The first part you are going to have to explain for me to understand, I don't quite grasp how that would be true.

The second part, you have to analyze the economic cost of educating those children, and then weigh it out. I see where you are coming from with that, I just don't know if there would be an economic benefit of paying for the education.

Statistically speaking there are 46 million abortions performed around the world every year. 20 million of those are performed in countries where abortion is illegal. That means 43% of all abortions around the world are performed illegaly.

I used to be Catholic. I am not now. I don't believe in the soul, an afterlife, god etc. I don't subscribe to the authority of the pope or scriptures.
Zealots beware! :sniper:
i'd just like to comment that of all the various strings of Christianity u could have been, u just happened to be unlucky enough to be Catholic. i think catholicism is a disgrace to Christianity, wut with how oppressively boring they strive to make their services, how much they stand on "Holy" tradition which in fact is not, and how they blatantly abuse their "faith" and blaspheme against the Bible and against God. one such example is the crucades, or how they insist on calling their priests "father" and such, even though Mat. 23:9 forbids it. i'm not sure, but i doubt if u'd be so condemming of christianity if u'd been brought up in say, a baptist church.

IThat's what government is supposed to be about, right? - doing what is best for society.

Ah. So let's go ahead and scope this properly.

We're talking about reproductive liberty - not abortion.

If the state takes an interest in a growing fetus, and whether or not it lives, and that impact on society, then we might as well use modern genetics to institute a eugenics program.

I mean, if we're talking social cost that interests the government, why should anyone be born deformed, or less than average intelligence, or prone to obesity, etc., etc., etc.

The state could force the abortions of genetically inadequate fetuses. After all, it's in the interest of everyone to have a world free of the hideous and the hideously expensive.

Even if the fetus is a person, the woman is not required by law to give up herself to prolong the life of another person. Consider it this way, should a person be required to perform a nine month blood transfusion to save another's life?

This is a religious/philosophical arguement. What you are talking about here is simply whether or not a person should inconvenience themselves to save another's life. I would say yes, you should always inconvenience yourself to save another persons life.

A social question is whether or not society should inconvenience itself to save this person's life, and will society's sacrifice be rewarded in the end?

In this case, maybe we should discuss the value of a person in terms of how much expense it takes to raise and educate them, compared to how much they will benefit society when then they begin contributing to it.

If you think about it in those terms, unless aborted fetuses are used for stem cell research etc. abortions are ALWAYS detrimental to society, whereas pregnancies carried to term are beneficial to society as long as the child grows to at some point benefit society (which most do). Even people with developemental disabilities benefit society. At my university, most of the custodians on campus have disabilities. They do enjoy having jobs.

i'd just like to comment that of all the various strings of Christianity u could have been, u just happened to be unlucky enough to be Catholic. i think catholicism is a disgrace to Christianity, wut with how oppressively boring they strive to make their services, how much they stand on "Holy" tradition which in fact is not, and how they blatantly abuse their "faith" and blaspheme against the Bible and against God. one such example is the crucades, or how they insist on calling their priests "father" and such, even though Mat. 23:9 forbids it. i'm not sure, but i doubt if u'd be so condemming of christianity if u'd been brought up in say, a baptist church.

are you flamebaiting? I am not catholic, I am not condemning of christianity. I am not condemning any religion, unlike you. I am disgusted with your remarks, and would ask you not to bring your prejudices or religious views into this discussion.

That was an experiment in conditioning. I am talking about observation of children in an environment in which they do not have a nuclear family structure (which most people consider to be essential to child developement). The experiments are also in educational methods. We aren't talking about creating super ninja warrior babies or anything like that. I'm talking about responsible scientific study.

Maybe it is just me, but this seems like it is an obvious violation of human rights. Intentional social trauma to test theories and science? Can you say psychotic?

It's one thing if someone is deprived of an upbringing by coincidence... but what you're proposing is unclean.

As to the original question, finding a non-religious position for or against abortion:

Abortion is wrong because it eliminated young workers from society, whose payroll taxes could have been used to indefinitely prop up Social Security.

That's right people. The 45 million kids who will have been aborted by the time Social Security fails would all have been paying 13% of their income straight into Social Security: (45 mil times GDP of US$22000 = 900 billion $, times 13% = 128 billion 700 million dollars, in Social Security funding, forfeited because young people were afraid of raising a kid.

That was an experiment in conditioning. I am talking about observation of children in an environment in which they do not have a nuclear family structure (which most people consider to be essential to child developement). The experiments are also in educational methods. We aren't talking about creating super ninja warrior babies or anything like that. I'm talking about responsible scientific study.


You can observe children now in a safe, responsible way through surveys, observations, and controlled experiments. You're talking about children growing up without parents. You can look at other studies and infer what would happen to children without a core group of caregivers. Just look at children who spend most of their time in daycares.

Statistically speaking there are 46 million abortions performed around the world every year. 20 million of those are performed in countries where abortion is illegal. That means 43% of all abortions around the world are performed illegaly.

The statistic doesn't mean anything. I assume that you are trying to say that I was wrong in assuming that the only abortions which would be performed illegally are those which are the result of the stigma against teenage or premarital pregnancy. In countries where abortion is illegal, often times there are worse stigmas (even penalties of death) for sex outside of marriage. In that case, I would think it would be more likely that someone who fit those conditions would get an unsafe, illegal abortion. There is really no way to know from that statistic though.

This is a religious/philosophical arguement. What you are talking about here is simply whether or not a person should inconvenience themselves to save another's life. I would say yes, you should always inconvenience yourself to save another persons life.

I am referring to rights and legal obligations, not morality.

A social question is whether or not society should inconvenience itself to save this person's life, and will society's sacrifice be rewarded in the end?

In this case, maybe we should discuss the value of a person in terms of how much expense it takes to raise and educate them, compared to how much they will benefit society when then they begin contributing to it.

If you think about it in those terms, unless aborted fetuses are used for stem cell research etc. abortions are ALWAYS detrimental to society, whereas pregnancies carried to term are beneficial to society as long as the child grows to at some point benefit society (which most do). Even people with developemental disabilities benefit society. At my university, most of the custodians on campus have disabilities. They do enjoy having jobs.

Considering that here in the US, the rights of the individual come before the benefits of society, your argument is nullified.

Even if it wasn't I don't think you are correct in the least. Someone look up stats that link crime and welfare to parental neglect.

in some ways i can see the argument against abortion that to some cases it is taking a life

yet remember understanding is not the same as supporting

what really scares me is the extremist measures that some of these people do like killing abortion doctors or women who have abortions

the fact is that many women have abortions as they are not ready to have children so actually these religious extremists are taking a life and taking the potential of further procreation

i personnally believe that it should be up to the person themselves however i really hope that it doesnt become an election policy

religion should actually have no place in politics, however it annoys me that in the house of lords there is the position of faith lords chosen only from catholics and church of england not exactly representational

Ah. So let's go ahead and scope this properly.

We're talking about reproductive liberty - not abortion.

If the state takes an interest in a growing fetus, and whether or not it lives, and that impact on society, then we might as well use modern genetics to institute a eugenics program.

I mean, if we're talking social cost that interests the government, why should anyone be born deformed, or less than average intelligence, or prone to obesity, etc., etc., etc.

The state could force the abortions of genetically inadequate fetuses. After all, it's in the interest of everyone to have a world free of the hideous and the hideously expensive.

Socially, it would be a bad idea if everyone were born a genius. Who would do the manual labor? You need to have stupid people to do stupid jobs. If everyone were born a genius, but the economy could only support the same amount of scientists etc, you end up with a lot of discontented workers.

Eliminating physical deformities does not sufficiently benefit society to justify the added cost of weeding out those deformities. I imagine the process would likely be pretty expensive.

Socially, it would be a bad idea if everyone were born a genius. Who would do the manual labor? You need to have stupid people to do stupid jobs. If everyone were born a genius, but the economy could only support the same amount of scientists etc, you end up with a lot of discontented workers.

Eliminating physical deformities does not sufficiently benefit society to justify the added cost of weeding out those deformities. I imagine the process would likely be pretty expensive.

Unless all the geniuses got together and designed an underclass of robots to do all manual or repetitive labor.

Course we all know where that leads...

Eliminating physical deformities does not sufficiently benefit society to justify the added cost of weeding out those deformities. I imagine the process would likely be pretty expensive.

An abortion is cheap, compared to the cost of caring for someone mentally retarded.

Genetic intervention is getting cheaper and cheaper. There's no reason to believe it will be expensive in the near future.

That was an experiment in conditioning. I am talking about observation of children in an environment in which they do not have a nuclear family structure (which most people consider to be essential to child developement). The experiments are also in educational methods. We aren't talking about creating super ninja warrior babies or anything like that. I'm talking about responsible scientific study.

But the government could best serve the population at large by creating super ninja warrior babies. There is no need to draft people into the military when one already has a ready supply of unquestionaly loyal and highly trained soldiers. Besides, if the government needs to assassinate people it is much easier to do so using a child. Not even the most hardened and paranoid rebel would suspect the Girl Scout selling cookies door-to-door is realy a perfect killing machine.

Lets please try to avoid discussion of when life begins, as it lends itself very easily to religious discussion.

Given that it is the main basis of my pro- or anti-abortion leanings, let's not and say we did.