NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112002.html

compare that to the adult population--

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

This article made me think about something I've wondered about for some time. It seems to me that, given that most people get their sense of values from their parents (not the government--sorry Hillary), pro-lifers will ultimately dominate their pro-abortion counterparts in elections simply because they out-procreate them. Here's an example, but feel free to make your own:

Person A:

age 16, becomes pregnant out of wedlock and, adamently pro-life, does not abort her baby.
age 20, same situation. she's not very wise about her sexual behavior.
age 24, has her first "legitimate" child by her husband.
age 26, has her second "legitimate" child.

age 38, becomes a grandmother, as her first child has his first kid.
age 40, has second grandchild by first kid.
age 41, has third grandchild by second kid.
age 42, has 4th grandchild by first kid.
age 43, has 5th by 2nd.
age 44, has 6th by 3rd.
age 45, has 7th by 2nd.
age 48, has 8th by 4th.
age 49, has 9th by 4th.
age 53, has 10th by 4th.
age 59, has 1st great-grandchild.
age 61, has 2nd great-grandchild.
age 63, has 3rd great-grandchild.
age 66, has 4th great grandchild.
age 66, has 5th great-grandchild.
age 67, has 6th great-grandchild.
age 68, has 7th great-grandchild.
age 70, has 8th great-grandchild.

age 71, all grandkids can vote.

so, in 55 years, Person A has begot 4 kids 10 grandkids, and 8 great-grandkids. 14 of whom can vote.

Person B:

Age 16: becomes pregnant and aborts.
Age 20: becomes pregnant and aborts?
Age 24: has first kid.
Age 26: has second kid.
Age 29: has third kid.
Age 52: has 1st grandkid by 1st kid.
Age 54: has 2nd grandkid by 1st kid.
Age 54: has 3rd grandkid by 2nd kid.
Age 56: has 4th grandkid by 2nd kid.
Age 59: has 5th grandkid by 2nd kid.
Age 60: has 6th grandkid by 3rd kid.
Age 61: has 7th grandkid by 3rd kid.
Age 71: one grandkid can vote.

so, in 55 years, Person B has begot 3 kids and 7 grandkids. Four of whom can vote. No great-grandkids.

These proposed numbers are not conclusive, obviously, but it seems that, on the whole, pro-lifers will ultimately prevail. Is it only a matter of time?

EDIT: I've taken a lot of schleb in this thread for oversimplifying the numbers. I'm responding to those assertions because it really seems to be detracting from the debate. Folks, of course I'm not suggesting that it's all this simple and clearcut. My assertion, which you're free to disagree with, is that overall, it stands to reason that pro-life people are likely to have more children, or at least have children at an accelerated rate, and that is likely to produce more pro-life people. In otherwords, I assert that if you had a thousand pro-life people, after 100 years, on average, they would have had more children, more grandchildren, more great-grandchildren, and more great-great grandchildren than their abortion-freedom counterparts. Furthermore, I assert that the offspring of the thousand pro-life people, they would be, on average, more likely to be pro-life than the offspring of their counterparts.

You make the mistake of assuming that people will always follow the political ideals of their parents.

politics isnt genetic

theres nothing like being from a really big family to convince you of the benefits of birth control (of all sorts)

hmm. interesting point. but what if all the pro-life people don't start having kids in thier teens and don't raise kids that have kids in thier teens?
that kinda screws up your numbers right? I mean if I was going to make a general statement I would say that most fundamentalist Christains are pro-life and also believe in abstinence before marriage, so if they are waiting until they are married and pro-choicers are waiting until they are older too then wouldn't it all even out.


*I do realize that this is a very general point and wouldn't apply to everyone, and also that there are pro-choicers who wouldn't get an abortion even though they are pro-choice. I am just trying to make a point, however badly it may have come out.

hmm. interesting point. but what if all the pro-life people don't start having kids in thier teens and don't raise kids that have kids in thier teens?
that kinda screws up your numbers right? I mean if I was going to make a general statement I would say that most fundamentalist Christains are pro-life and also believe in abstinence before marriage, so if they are waiting until they are married and pro-choicers are waiting until they are older too then wouldn't it all even out.


*I do realize that this is a very general point and wouldn't apply to everyone, and also that there are pro-choicers who wouldn't get an abortion even though they are pro-choice. I am just trying to make a point, however badly it may have come out.

This would be true, except that pro-abstinence teaching usually doesn't result in abstinent teens, simply in unprotected teens.

This would be true, except that pro-abstinence teaching usually doesn't result in abstinent teens, simply in unprotected teens.

I would have to disagree. I do believe that pro-abstinence teaching in school does little to discourage kids from premarital sex. I know for a fact when kids are presented pro-abstinece by thier parents as an aspect of thier faith, it really does deter them. I don't have any "numbers" on it but if you do that support your veiw I would like to see them.

Fortunately, most of the children in the most fundamentalist crackpot families turn out more moderate. Especially, with increasingly outside influence, they begin to realize that their parents are nuts more often than not, and very wisely rebel and stop mixing their fun parts quick so irresponsibly.

really i think it is just a conservative shift in america right now...the ideals always go in waves, the 60s generation is finally dying out, to be replaced by a slightly more conservative bunch, but Iraq will probably bring the Hippy out again..so expect another shift in say 5-10 years if not sooner.

Fortunately, most of the children in the most fundamentalist crackpot families turn out more moderate. Especially, with increasingly outside influence, they begin to realize that their parents are nuts more often than not, and very wisely rebel and stop mixing their fun parts quick so irresponsibly.
crackpots? nuts?

why do we have to be crackpots or nuts because we are trying to raise our children? why is it that if someone has a different worldveiw than you then they are automatically nuts? and if they are not automatically nuts then what nutty things do fundamentalist Christains do to deserve such verbal abuse?

just trying to understand what you are talking about, so I can better educate myself on my own nuttyness before my kid figures out I am a crackpot and rebels.

I like to think that this generation will be a little bit smarter than the previous. That's how it should go at least; continually evolving.

But, I'm probably overestimating many of my peers...What with pop-culture rotting their brains and all...

And THAT is the conspiracy, the previous generation wants to keep us dumb.

I must spread the word!

I like to think that this generation will be a little bit smarter than the previous. That's how it should go at least; continually evolving.

But, I'm probably overestimating many of my peers...What with pop-culture rotting their brains and all...

And THAT is the conspiracy, the previous generation wants to keep us dumb.

I must spread the word!
Ah, but evolution is in the eye of the beholder. I think that progress is the reduction of government and increase in individual liberties. While you may think that an increased collectivist attitude is progress (I don’t know if you do, just an example). At the same time, a fascist would think of less individual liberties as evolution. Any cause can claim to be an improvement over an old. It all depends on your point of view.

Maybe they do, but not all of their children will grow up to be ignorant.

Of course they will out procreate. But for the most part their children will be stupid, and at best a burden for the rest of us.

Ah, but evolution is in the eye of the beholder. I think that progress is the reduction of government and increase in individual liberties. While you may think that an increased collectivist attitude is progress (I don’t know if you do, just an example). At the same time, a fascist would think of less individual liberties as evolution. Any cause can claim to be an improvement over an old. It all depends on your point of view.

It's all relative huh? Hmm...if only we were all wearing matching jumpsuits and shaved our heads...

...Er...Creepy...Bad images...

Maybe they do, but not all of their children will grow up to be ignorant.
who are you saying is ignorant? pro-choicers or people who have irresponsible sex? trying to clarify

Of course they will out procreate. But for the most part their children will be stupid, and at best a burden for the rest of us.
why do you think they are stupid? and how are they a burden on you?

who are you saying is ignorant? pro-choicers or people who have irresponsible sex? trying to clarify

First off, you are not being irresponsible if you have the means to correct a problem before you undertake an action.

In other words, if a woman manages to get pregnant, but knew how to take care of the problem and had all of the means to undertake her plan, she is not being irresponsible.

And secondly, I am hinting that you cannot possibly hold a anti-abortion stance and not be ignorant about the issue.

why do you think they are stupid? and how are they a burden on you?

All children are a burden on non-child bearing individuals of society. Parents get tax breaks for their children, tax money provides school for children. That is tax money that non-parents will never recieve anything for.

First off, you are not being irresponsible if you have the means to correct a problem before you undertake an action.

In other words, if a woman manages to get pregnant, but knew how to take care of the problem and had all of the means to undertake her plan, she is not being irresponsible.

And secondly, I am hinting that you cannot possibly hold a anti-abortion stance and not be ignorant about the issue.
I am pro-life and do not feel that I am ignorant about the issue. You have sex you have the chance that you could concieve a child. If you don't want a child don't have sex. What is the problem with that?

And secondly, I am hinting that you cannot possibly hold a anti-abortion stance and not be ignorant about the issue.
Hmm, so if somebody disagrees with you, they must be ignorant. A common and underhanded political tactic. Quite sad really, that you would use it.

All children are a burden on non-child bearing individuals of society. Parents get tax breaks for their children, tax money provides school for children. That is tax money that non-parents will never recieve anything for.
oh. I understand now. I was getting all mad. sorry. I don't think it is a fair world to non-parents. I know before I had kids when there would be a bad snow storm that they would shut the schools down for, my job would let parents off with pay to take care of thier kids, even if they didn't have any paid time off left, they never let me off because I was single. SO unfair. I get your point now.

Hmm, so if somebody disagrees with you, they must be ignorant. A common and underhanded political tactic. Quite sad really, that you would use it.

I don't say it very often, but I have never seen one valid reason why abortion should be made illegal. Have you?

I am pro-life and do not feel that I am ignorant about the issue. You have sex you have the chance that you could concieve a child. If you don't want a child don't have sex. What is the problem with that?

You have sex and you have a chance to create a fetus. Knowing full well that you have a legal right to an abortion, you were not being irresponsible.

oh. I understand now. I was getting all mad. sorry. I don't think it is a fair world to non-parents. I know before I had kids when there would be a bad snow storm that they would shut the schools down for, my job would let parents off with pay to take care of thier kids, even if they didn't have any paid time off left, they never let me off because I was single. SO unfair. I get your point now.

Glad you finally see the light.

All abortion comes down to is whether you consider the fetus human. End of story. If you think it is then your "pro-life" if you think it isn't your "pro-choice." Doesn't have much to do with womens rights.

I do think the fetus is human so I am pro-life. (I am not a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise)
But I do think most pro-choicers are or would be against partial birth if they knew what it was.

All abortion comes down to is whether you consider the fetus human. End of story. If you think it is then your "pro-life" if you think it isn't your "pro-choice." Doesn't have much to do with womens rights.

I do think the fetus is human so I am pro-life. (I am not a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise)
But I do think most pro-choicers are or would be against partial birth if they knew what it was.

And you think that a woman is bound to give up her body to a non-viable human?

Well, in 1980 only about a third of the American electorate was what might be called ardently pro-choice; meaning that you should be able to have an abortion wherever, whenever without interference from the government. Twenty-five years later, that number is up about 15%, so I would have to say that thus far, the pro-lifers don't appear to be breeding us out.

Another factor to consider.
1. Not sure of the exact numbers, but a significant percentage of those who abort become unable to bear children.

2. Some who abort may do so because of a discovered genetic defect, and may not want to risk bearing children again for that very reason.

I don't say it very often, but I have never seen one valid reason why abortion should be made illegal. Have you?
That depends entirely on what you consider to be “valid.” Personally, I think it should be an individual choice to decide whether or not a fetus is a human being. I think of it as a human being and can not possibly imagine it as anything else, unless I was going to be disingenuous. Also, living in a southern state, I know many people that are genuinely concerned, not just for the fetus, but for the mother and the doctor who don’t realize they are dong something wrong. These people simply think that the government should protect them from themselves. This is not at all unique to pro-lifers and does make logical sense, though I disagree with it.

You have sex and you have a chance to create a fetus. Knowing full well that you have a legal right to an abortion, you were not being irresponsible.
so to you abortion is a form of birth control? yikes.

I think most pro-choicers don't think it is a reasonable form of birth control. They tend to think of it as a last resort, or thats what I understand anyway.

why do you think they are stupid? and how are they a burden on you?

Because there parents are stupid, and they will grow up just like them.

Then there will be more stupid people and the rest of us will have to put up with it.

so to you abortion is a form of birth control? yikes.

I think most pro-choicers don't think it is a reasonable form of birth control. They tend to think of it as a last resort, or thats what I understand anyway.
I would ignore A Flintoff if I were you. He's either deliberately baiting you, or is just being obnoxious. Either way, not worth your time.

That depends entirely on what you consider to be “valid.” Personally, I think it should be an individual choice to decide whether or not a fetus is a human being.

Perfectly valid reasoning. Let people make their own moral decisions.

I think of it as a human being and can not possibly imagine it as anything else, unless I was going to be disingenuous. Also, living in a southern state, I know many people that are generally concerned, not just for the fetus, but for the mother and the doctor who don’t realize they are dong something wrong. These people simply think that the law should protect them from themselves. This is not at all unique to pro-lifers and does make logical sense, though I disagree with it.

Now see to me, this doesn't make logical sense, it requires that government bar people from sinning against Christian morals, I can explain why this is rationally inconsistent in a few ways. It may be a compassionate ideal, but it is still not a rational ideal.

I would ignore A Flintoff if I were you. He's either deliberately baiting you, or is just being obnoxious. Either way, not worth your time.

Yes, the truth is like that.

Because there parents are stupid, and they will grow up just like them.

Then there will be more stupid people and the rest of us will have to put up with it.
why are they stupid? I don't understand why you say that unless you are just trying to upset someone. Please give me an example of why they are stupid. A reason other then that they don't believe the exact same thing you do.

so to you abortion is a form of birth control? yikes.

What else could it be but a form of birth control? You have abortion, and you don't give birth.

I don't see any difference between an abortion and using a condom. Both the sperm and the fetus are the product of a human and both have the ability to become a person under the right circumstances.

What else could it be but a form of birth control? You have abortion, and you don't give birth.

I don't see any difference between an abortion and using a condom. Both the sperm and the fetus are the product of a human and both have the ability to become a person under the right circumstances.

I see the fetus as it's own person. It has unique dna. Abortion is killing a human, in my opinion. A sperm however is just a cell, it has the potential to create a child sure but so do my eggs and I am not against menstruation.

I believe that life begins at conception. Abortion therefor ends a life wheras condoms do not.

why are they stupid? I don't understand why you say that unless you are just trying to upset someone. Please give me an example of why they are stupid. A reason other then that they don't believe the exact same thing you do.

They are stupid because they are having kids that that they are not able to care for, and no-one else wants. And they are only doing this because of some issue that only came up in the 19th century.

Clearly they are not the sharpest knives in the block. But go ahead, have the unwanted kids. I am sure that they will become productive members of society.

I see the fetus as it's own person. It has unique dna. Abortion is killing a human, in my opinion. A sperm however is just a cell, it has the potential to create a child sure but so do my eggs and I am not against menstruation.

I will not deny that it is human, but neither being human or having dna, grants you personhood.

I believe that life begins at conception. Abortion therefor ends a life wheras condoms do not.


See this is my problem exactly. Conception is not the same thing as fertilization

In fact, conception occurs quite some time afterwards.

I will not deny that it is human, but neither being human or having dna, grants you personhood.
I started a thred not too long ago on what does "grant you personhood" the whole concept that a human can not be a person really confuses me. at the risk of going off topic, what do you think makes a human a person? I think that all humans are people and all deserve basic rights. please explain you veiws so I can better understand.

See this is my problem exactly. Conception is not the same thing as fertilization

In fact, conception occurs quite some time afterwards.
conception: In reproduction, the point at which a sperm fertilizes an egg.

where did you hear different? any way you could post a link to that?

They are stupid because they are having kids that that they are not able to care for, and no-one else wants. And they are only doing this because of some issue that only came up in the 19th century.

Clearly they are not the sharpest knives in the block. But go ahead, have the unwanted kids. I am sure that they will become productive members of society.
I do agree that unwanted children are a problem. Abstainence before you are ready to have a child would solve this problem. Food, shelter, water, all are needs, sex however is not, you can't die from being abstinent. Isn't abstinence a better option?

conception: In reproduction, the point at which a sperm fertilizes an egg.

where did you hear different? any way you could post a link to that?

No. And no.

And I heard it from Thomas Aquinus. But what does he know?

Edit: You do understand the doctorine of immaculate conception, don't you?

I started a thred not too long ago on what does "grant you personhood" the whole concept that a human can not be a person really confuses me. at the risk of going off topic, what do you think makes a human a person? I think that all humans are people and all deserve basic rights. please explain you veiws so I can better understand.

I believe that competency grants you your personhood.

I win.

Of course they will out procreate. But for the most part their children will be stupid, and at best a burden for the rest of us.

I win.

You can quit it with your generalizations now. If you're going to contribute something to the thread, make it proper debating, rather than just insulting others.

Just so you know, 'gloating' isn't going to get you anywhere either.

Fortunately, most of the children in the most fundamentalist crackpot families turn out more moderate. Especially, with increasingly outside influence, they begin to realize that their parents are nuts more often than not, and very wisely rebel and stop mixing their fun parts quick so irresponsibly.

You can also knock it off with the generalization that you've made. You need to respect everyone's beliefs here, whether you like them or not. Use correct debate against people you don't agree with, rather than insults.

You can quit it with your generalizations now. If you're going to contribute something to the thread, make it proper debating, rather than just insulting others.

Just so you know, 'gloating' isn't going to get you anywhere either.

Fair enough, but if you look at the original post and parse it, you will see that it says no more than: "Will people who choose to have abortions have less children than those who do not?"

So I answered it; without actually personally insulting anyone.

Further, I did attempt to contribute to the debate and engage the person who originally posted this self evident statement. I would further put it to you that anyone who engages in this type of "debate" and does not understand the judeo-christian notion of conception as different to fertilization is simply trying to provoke an angry repsonse without any real ideological commitment.

*looks at the first post*

*scratches head*

Life must all just be one big equation for that person.

I respect all beliefs, but you made everything look too easy. Simply put, the way I see it is that the whole hypothesis is just plain crazy. Life is too complex to just throw it all into a giant equation and actually SOLVE it.

This makes so many erroneous assumptions, I'm not sure where to begin.

1) This one has been pointed out: It assumes that people will follow the political and moral ideas of their parents without fail. This is highly unlikely. I, for one, have never met a single person who agreed with their parents on everything in these matters.

2) It ignores the fact that young people tend to be more liberal than older people in their views. Thus, a person may be pro-choice and even support abortion for themselves at a young age (the 16/20 type ages), and gradually change their minds (of course, it could happen the other way as well).

3) It assumes that all pro-choice individuals would have an abortion, an incredibly flawed assumption, as many who are pro-choice are, in fact, opposed to the use of abortion.

4) It assumes that basically everyone is going to be having 3-5 kids, something that is very rare these days, with or without abortion.

5) It assumes that basically everyone is really promiscuous.

Those statistics for teenagers made me happy.

I believe that competency grants you your personhood.
what is competency? please define, in your words.

conception: In reproduction, the point at which a sperm fertilizes an egg.

where did you hear different? any way you could post a link to that?
Here's the problem with that definition, Smunkeeville--medically, it makes absolutely no sense. Why? Because approximately 80% of all fertilized eggs never implant, and get washed away when a woman has her period. So to argue that life begins at fertilization is ludicrous.

But I understand why the argument is made--it's because it's easy to explain to people who don't have a rudimentary understanding of human reproductive biology, and it's a vivid metaphor. It's an a+b=c sort of description, and that's a whole lot easier to grasp than a discussion of fertilization versus implantation, or the question of whether an ectopic pregnancy is actually a life even though it will never develop and will kill the mother or that a significant percentage of implanted embryos spontaneously abort (miscarry), many times without the woman ever knowing she'd been pregnant.

There's another reason the "fertilization is life" line is popular even though it's fundamentally dishonest. It directly attacks Roe v Wade. If anti-abortion opponents can convince enough people that life begins at fertilization, then there's no moral case to be made for abortion rights. So the line is parroted, even though there's no medical standing for it, because it's politically effective.

The same thing happened with "partial-birth abortion," a phrase that has absolutely no medical meaning, and was invented by a Florida legislator to try to get activists riled up. It didn't matter that the procedure was extremely rare and that no doctor worth a damn would give a woman one unless the woman's life was in danger--it was politically expedient to make it sound as though they were happening all the time, and so that became the company line. But in the end, it's dishonest, and pro-choice people know it, which is why we get so frustrated with repeated anti-abortion talking points which are demonstrably false.

Here's the problem with that definition, Smunkeeville--medically, it makes absolutely no sense. Why? Because approximately 80% of all fertilized eggs never implant, and get washed away when a woman has her period. So to argue that life begins at fertilization is ludicrous.

But I understand why the argument is made--it's because it's easy to explain to people who don't have a rudimentary understanding of human reproductive biology, and it's a vivid metaphor. It's an a+b=c sort of description, and that's a whole lot easier to grasp than a discussion of fertilization versus implantation, or the question of whether an ectopic pregnancy is actually a life even though it will never develop and will kill the mother or that a significant percentage of implanted embryos spontaneously abort (miscarry), many times without the woman ever knowing she'd been pregnant.

There's another reason the "fertilization is life" line is popular even though it's fundamentally dishonest. It directly attacks Roe v Wade. If anti-abortion opponents can convince enough people that life begins at fertilization, then there's no moral case to be made for abortion rights. So the line is parroted, even though there's no medical standing for it, because it's politically effective.

The same thing happened with "partial-birth abortion," a phrase that has absolutely no medical meaning, and was invented by a Florida legislator to try to get activists riled up. It didn't matter that the procedure was extremely rare and that no doctor worth a damn would give a woman one unless the woman's life was in danger--it was politically expedient to make it sound as though they were happening all the time, and so that became the company line. But in the end, it's dishonest, and pro-choice people know it, which is why we get so frustrated with repeated anti-abortion talking points which are demonstrably false.

okay so my choice of words saying that life begins at conception is still right even though conception doesn't really begin at fertilization. Abortion is the ending of the life of a child that has already been implanted and has started growing. So the general objection to abortion that I have is still the same.

As for partial birth abortion or late term abortion, if the mother's life is in danger why do you have to kill the baby? Why couldn't you just deliver it and give it a chance to live?

okay so my choice of words saying that life begins at conception is still right even though conception doesn't really begin at fertilization.
No, it isn't, and I make a big deal about this because politicians deliberately misuse language in order to sell a point. Language, the words we use to describe the world around us, is important, and so when you say your choice of words when describing a biological function don't matter, you're making the problem worse, you're a part of the fundamental dishonesty that surrounds this entire debate.

Abortion is the ending of the life of a child that has already been implanted and has started growing. So the general objection to abortion that I have is still the same.

That's better--because at least you've defined your position. The question for debate now can center on the question of when is the embryo implanted enough to be considered viable? When does the embryo cross that magic threshold between embryo and fetus? Right now, the law puts that line at the end of the first trimester, which is an arbitrary measure to be sure, but in the law, that's what you're going to have--arbitrary measures.

As for partial birth abortion or late term abortion, if the mother's life is in danger why do you have to kill the baby? Why couldn't you just deliver it and give it a chance to live?
Again--this has to do with dishonest debate. When late-term abortions are performed--which is exceedingly rare--they're performed because the fetus is not viable and because the mother's life and/or health is in danger. No doctor is going to expose him or herself to potential litigation and professional sanction for anything less. It's unethical to perform that procedure except in extreme circumstances, but anti-abortion activists never say that--they make it sound like millions of fetuses every year are aborted in the 7th and 8th months. It almost never happens, and when it does, the fetus is not viable and the mother is in danger. It's that simple.

Partial-birth abortion legislation is nothing more than a sham conducted by politicians who want to keep their base stirred up and donating money. They deliberately pass legislation that they know the Supreme Court, conservative as it is, won't uphold just so they can tell their base that they're trying.

No, it isn't, and I make a big deal about this because politicians deliberately misuse language in order to sell a point. Language, the words we use to describe the world around us, is important, and so when you say your choice of words when describing a biological function don't matter, you're making the problem worse, you're a part of the fundamental dishonesty that surrounds this entire debate.



That's better--because at least you've defined your position. The question for debate now can center on the question of when is the embryo implanted enough to be considered viable? When does the embryo cross that magic threshold between embryo and fetus? Right now, the law puts that line at the end of the first trimester, which is an arbitrary measure to be sure, but in the law, that's what you're going to have--arbitrary measures.


Again--this has to do with dishonest debate. When late-term abortions are performed--which is exceedingly rare--they're performed because the fetus is not viable and because the mother's life and/or health is in danger. No doctor is going to expose him or herself to potential litigation and professional sanction for anything less. It's unethical to perform that procedure except in extreme circumstances, but anti-abortion activists never say that--they make it sound like millions of fetuses every year are aborted in the 7th and 8th months. It almost never happens, and when it does, the fetus is not viable and the mother is in danger. It's that simple.

Partial-birth abortion legislation is nothing more than a sham conducted by politicians who want to keep their base stirred up and donating money. They deliberately pass legislation that they know the Supreme Court, conservative as it is, won't uphold just so they can tell their base that they're trying.
this is interesting. It is difficult to say when an embreyo is implanted "enough" so for the fear of trampling all over the rights of the unborn by killing them, I have decided that in my mind to draw the line at the begining, the very begining. I have not crossed out in my mind that new science may come up and be able to "prove" when the baby is "viable" but until there is such science I would like to err on the side of caution.

as for the partial birth abortions do you have a source that states the actual number being performed and under what curcumstances? I would like to see it to better educate myself.

*looks at the first post*

*scratches head*

Life must all just be one big equation for that person.

I respect all beliefs, but you made everything look too easy. Simply put, the way I see it is that the whole hypothesis is just plain crazy. Life is too complex to just throw it all into a giant equation and actually SOLVE it.

Well, that kind of demeans my point. I didn't mean to communicate that it was all just that simple. My only point is and was that, on the whole, it stands to reason that pro-lifers will out-procreate their opposing counterparts. I mean, heck, Person B could have 12 kids who each have 12 kids, whereas Person A could have two and stop there.

So, yeah... I simplified it to demonstrate the general principle. Sue me :)

"I notice that everybody here who is pro-choice has already been born"
-Ronald Reagan

"I notice that everybody here who is pro-choice has already been born"
-Ronald Reagan

Hehehe...yeah, Reagan was an idiot. :D

All children are a burden on non-child bearing individuals of society. Parents get tax breaks for their children, tax money provides school for children. That is tax money that non-parents will never recieve anything for.

1 more child = 1 more consumer

as for the partial birth abortions do you have a source that states the actual number being performed and under what curcumstances? I would like to see it to better educate myself.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9P-4CDYKYJ-8&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2004&_alid=312769692&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6688&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=81136a28251c467dfe85b7690abbf96a

This study was performed in one hospital, of the later term procedures carried out there. If you can get access to it, it lists the number and reasons for two procedures, dilation and extraction (what some call partial birth abortion) and dilation and evacuation.

I can't access it from this campus, but can from another - if you can't get at the actual numbers. As I recall, none of the reasons had to do with "convenience" or any of the wonderful things anti-choice people like to throw out. They had to do with complications of the pregnancy, or defects of the fetus. Now, some of the defects are not things I agree with as a reason for a pregnancy, but many of them were chromosomal deficiencies and the like - things that would be a death sentence very soon after birth anyways.

1 more child = 1 more consumer No, zey can serve ze statee.
Ahem, end of silliness. :eek:

I'd just like to state that I consider myself "pro-life"… I also consider myself to have a certain level of knowledge on abortion. Which is damn hard, since no one seems to agree even on what the scientific evidence is.
Personally, I'm against abortions - all abortions. However, laws have to be based on practicality, so what I'd like to see is late-term abortions outlawed (remember, I'm talking generally), and increased child support for single mothers (preferably from the father's nose). One of the things that annoys me is that people who are pro-life don't believe in supporting the kid nor the mother post-birth.
I've heard ridiculous arguments both for and abortion - including "It isn't a person (even late-trimester) because it hasn't experienced anything yet". Well, neither has a newborn. Or, if we base life on experience (good God, RPG talk), is a 50 year old more valuable than a 30 year old?
But I digress. It's just that I don't think that abrogating responsibility and opening the doors to abortion (which the maker of the British 1967 law said he didn't want to do) is going to solve anything, as I believe that the foetus should not bear the responsibility for the parents. Neither should they, but nothing's ideal.

Windbag finished. ;)

"Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?" -George Carlin

Sorry. That's the first thing I thought about when I saw this thread. :D

I really don't think it'll be too much of an issue.

what is competency? please define, in your words.

It is a very broad and difficult thing to explain. You would also completely disagree with it.

politics isnt genetic

theres nothing like being from a really big family to convince you of the benefits of birth control (of all sorts)

You got that right.

I am the oldest of 12 children. I am 34. Myself and siblings 2-6 have had no children, and do not plan to. Sibling 7 has had one child. Siblings 8-12 have not, although admittedly 9-12 are still pretty young for that. (Although 9 and 10 are 15 year old twins, so not impossible.)

My parents are clearly pro-life and anti-birth control. Of their children, some of us are are pro-life, some are pro-choice, but we are ALL pro-contraceptives. Our parents may have influenced our decisions, but they certainly weren't formed in concrete from our parents' moulds.

It is a very broad and difficult thing to explain. You would also completely disagree with it.
you are probibly right that I would disagree but, the fact that you didn't answer my question makes me very curious....

In fact, this has happened so noticeably that it is called the Roe-effect. I'll see if I can find some examples, but the rest of you can google it, too.

really i think it is just a conservative shift in america right now...the ideals always go in waves, the 60s generation is finally dying out, to be replaced by a slightly more conservative bunch, but Iraq will probably bring the Hippy out again..so expect another shift in say 5-10 years if not sooner.

Sheehan already is bringing the hippies out of the woodwork.

I wish someone would take a picture (or would have taken one...) of the cars parked during the protests... you know, half of them trucks with gun racks clearly visible, while the other half are pastel-painted 1960s-1970s VW cans.

hehe

"Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?" -George Carlin

Sorry. That's the first thing I thought about when I saw this thread. :D

I really don't think it'll be too much of an issue.

--confirming the notion that abortion is primarily used as a method of birth control.

you are probibly right that I would disagree but, the fact that you didn't answer my question makes me very curious....

It is really very simple. Personhood is determined by the human's competency in understanding the rights and responsibilities of personhood. Where the difficulty begins is in the application of that belief.

Well, I hope to dear God or lack thereof that it isn't the case that someone has found a way to make each child necessarily take the beliefs of their parents.
:p

Anyway, there are a few things I can think of off the top of my head that would make the argument of pro-lifers outpopulating pro-choicers.
One might be a study on how many people who are raised in conservative families stay conservative, as that bit of the argument seemed like a rather big assumption. Another might be a study of how many pro-choicers actually themselves have abortions, as it may be the case that there is a statistically significant segment of the pro-choice population who do not themselves have an abortion. I might be stretching too far with this one, but perhaps a study on teen pregnancy in more traditional families versus more liberal ones? That might give insight on the numbers behind the whole thing.

Well, I hope to dear God or lack thereof that it isn't the case that someone has found a way to make each child necessarily take the beliefs of their parents.
:p

Anyway, there are a few things I can think of off the top of my head that would make the argument of pro-lifers outpopulating pro-choicers.
One might be a study on how many people who are raised in conservative families stay conservative, as that bit of the argument seemed like a rather big assumption. Another might be a study of how many pro-choicers actually themselves have abortions, as it may be the case that there is a statistically significant segment of the pro-choice population who do not themselves have an abortion. I might be stretching too far with this one, but perhaps a study on teen pregnancy in more traditional families versus more liberal ones? That might give insight on the numbers behind the whole thing.

That would be interesting. I was hoping that someone would be aware of a study on this subject... not just conservative parents' success in passing their conservative values, but liberal parents' success in passing their liberal values as well. I had read years ago that 75% of people register for the same political party as their parents, but I have no recollection what the source was or how long ago it was taken.

As for the number of abortions, there are over 1 million abortions per year in the United States. That number has climbed to as high as 1.3 million in previous years, but has declined slightly since then. Considering that abortion has been legal in the U.S. since 1973, that means that there would likely be an extra 30 million+ people in the U.S. raised by "pro-choice" parents. In fact, a significant number of them would already have children of their own by now.

Values will swing like a pendulum, like generations that go through cycles. If the current generation finds the culture anarchic, vile and debased, they will follow a movement that promises to crack down on the degenerates and restore order. If a generation finds society's restrictions stifling and obsolete, they will rebel and seek individual spiritual awakening.

Pro-life-pro-choice depends on the level of personal responsibility expected in a culture. If it is generally accepted that there is a proper/moral/traditional way to raise a family, that's one thing. If it is generally accepted that kids are kids and they're going to breed like maggots on a hot day anyway, then might as well make available to them whatever medical procedure or device necessary to forestall a Malthusian nightmare. I think it's naive that pro-lifers can expect some people to magically become moral and God-fearing simply by not having abortion available. Does anyone realize how much more violent this country would be if there was an extra 30 million unemployable eaters?

That would be interesting. I was hoping that someone would be aware of a study on this subject... not just conservative parents' success in passing their conservative values, but liberal parents' success in passing their liberal values as well. I had read years ago that 75% of people register for the same political party as their parents, but I have no recollection what the source was or how long ago it was taken.

Sure when they get the right to vote they tend to just do what the parents do as that is all they have heard. I read the same thing awhile back.

However, people do jump parties. People are in one party but have difference viewpoints. Moderate vs Conservative republican.


As for the number of abortions, there are over 1 million abortions per year in the United States. That number has climbed to as high as 1.3 million in previous years, but has declined slightly since then.


Hmmm I think the numbers might be going up especially with the new legislation of practically making it impossible for late term. This involves the area of genetic testing. There is always one more test they can do and I think people will probably take an abortion if they don't get a clear answer for test results.


Considering that abortion has been legal in the U.S. since 1973, that means that there would likely be an extra 30 million+ people in the U.S. raised by "pro-choice" parents. In fact, a significant number of them would already have children of their own by now.

Well there are other reasons for abortions then the usual argument of simply not wanting a child at that point and time.

Some involve a terminal disease. Some involve downs syndome.

I don't see where you are going with the children could have been alive argument.

The same set of Values are not guaranteed to pass to the children. My grandparents were very conservative. My mother is very liberal. I tend to be centrist in views.

An ex-coworker was the son of a Baptist minister. He does the protection/escort thing for the family planning clinics. Supports gay pride events(he isn't gay).

Your original premise makes some rather large assumptions so it is probably safe to assume the premise is invalid.

It is really very simple. Personhood is determined by the human's competency in understanding the rights and responsibilities of personhood. Where the difficulty begins is in the application of that belief.
then if I understand right my 2 year old and 4 year old aren't people? btw what are the rights and responsibilities of personhood? maybe I am not a person either.

then if I understand right my 2 year old and 4 year old aren't people? btw what are the rights and responsibilities of personhood? maybe I am not a person either.

Oh come on now. You going to say that you have never wondered if they are little demons? :p

Oh come on now. You going to say that you have never wondered if they are little demons? :p
my kids no. other peoples kids, definatly. :D

my kids no. other peoples kids, definatly. :D
Yep--I've long thought that you love your kids because they're yours, not because they're anything special other than that. Especially when they're very young and are basically just shit machines. :D

Yep--I've long thought that you love your kids because they're yours, not because they're anything special other than that. Especially when they're very young and are basically just shit machines. :D
yeah my kids are awesome though. I do agree that when they are babies they basically look like trolls. I remember when my kids were born I thought they were the most beautiful kids ever, now that they are older I look back at thier baby book and I am like WOW they were really ugly. lol. (don't tell my kids I said that)

then if I understand right my 2 year old and 4 year old aren't people? btw what are the rights and responsibilities of personhood? maybe I am not a person either.

I would say that your four year old has a basic understanding upon the roles and interactions that they must undertake. While I am sure that the two year old also qualifies, younger than that and I would have to have a background in child psychology to be even remotely sure whether the infant has any understanding whatsoever of their own identity or their role as a person.

But you immediately see the difficulty in application, it pretty well justifies infanticide and offers no clear boundaries. I cannot condone infanticide, but reason leads me to justify it, so I am struggling to find a middle ground.

I do figure you are sufficiently turned off by my definition of personhood now, just as I predicted. But I would also figure that you are turned off more by the complications and results of it than you are by the logic behind it.

I would say that your four year old has a basic understanding upon the roles and interactions that they must undertake. While I am sure that the two year old also qualifies, younger than that and I would have to have a background in child psychology to be even remotely sure whether the infant has any understanding whatsoever of their own identity or their role as a person.

But you immediately see the difficulty in application, it pretty well justifies infanticide and offers no clear boundaries. I cannot condone infanticide, but reason leads me to justify it, so I am struggling to find a middle ground.

I do figure you are sufficiently turned off by my definition of personhood now, just as I predicted. But I would also figure that you are turned off more by the complications and results of it than you are by the logic behind it.
I am worried about the complications, but even more I am worried that there seems to be quite a large group of people who agree with you that people can for whatever reason not be "people". I am really trying to understand where this idea came from. Like I said earlier in my book all humans are people and therefore have basic human rights. There was someone on here lately who said that we should "buy PVS patients from thier families to do experiments on them because they are basically just lumps of flesh" as you can imagine I was horrified that someone would even say that much less actually believe that.

As for the number of abortions, there are over 1 million abortions per year in the United States. That number has climbed to as high as 1.3 million in previous years, but has declined slightly since then. Considering that abortion has been legal in the U.S. since 1973, that means that there would likely be an extra 30 million+ people in the U.S. raised by "pro-choice" parents. In fact, a significant number of them would already have children of their own by now.

About half of the people I know who have had abortions are anti-choice. They thought it was the right choice for them at the time, but now think that others shouldn't have the choice. Or, in some cases, I've talked to people who thought that it was wrong, that the choice shouldn't be there, but did it anyways.

You are assuming that only the pro-choice could possibly have had abortions, which simply isn't true.

I am worried about the complications, but even more I am worried that there seems to be quite a large group of people who agree with you that people can for whatever reason not be "people". I am really trying to understand where this idea came from. Like I said earlier in my book all humans are people and therefore have basic human rights. There was someone on here lately who said that we should "buy PVS patients from thier families to do experiments on them because they are basically just lumps of flesh" as you can imagine I was horrified that someone would even say that much less actually believe that.

You cannot deny that rights are contingent on competency, that much is certain. Otherwise we have blind people driving, or retarded people licensed to carry guns. Now I am not saying that the blind and retarded are not people, as they are certainly competent to fulfill the responsibilities of personhood. Fetuses and PVS patients are not competent to handle personhood, and so they are not legally granted personhood.

You cannot deny that rights are contingent on competency, that much is certain. Otherwise we have blind people driving, or retarded people licensed to carry guns. Now I am not saying that the blind and retarded are not people, as they are certainly competent to fulfill the responsibilities of personhood. Fetuses and PVS patients are not competent to handle personhood, and so they are not legally granted personhood.
I think we have gotten WAY off topic I will try to find somewhere more appropraite to finish this discussion

I think we have gotten WAY off topic I will try to find somewhere more appropraite to finish this discussion

That is why I don't try to discuss it in abortion threads.

You make the mistake of assuming that people will always follow the political ideals of their parents.
I think it's a mistake to think that people will follow their own political ideals. I know a girl who worked at Planned Parenthood and she said that girls were always telling her that they were pro-life but that their situation was different. It's a lot easier to stick to your ideals when it's only other people that you are judging.