This is one of those conversations that always fascinates me for our inability to speak the same language, even though part of the language component is the same category but different angle. Many of the opponents speak in terms of religious morality, rejecting any other perspective. Many of the proponents speak in terms of legalisic morality and often explicitly reject the religious perspective. It makes it fascinating because really, those are the only two avenues for this discussion. Oh sure, both sides will rope science in at some point but this is not a question science can answer, it is entirely a philosophical/legal discussion. While there are some facts that science can supply, the importance or meaning of those items are open for either side to interpret or assign value to.
To make it a legal discussion is an insult to humanity.
Perk is actually 100% correct about it Beat. You are free to disagree, youre free to not have an abortion, and youre free to peacefully gather to show your displeasure-------but because you don't like the law as it is written doesn't make it a bad law or one to be overturned. As a nation of laws we cannot, or at least should not, pick and choose which should be obeyed based on our own personal feelings. Again what amazes me is how govt. should be involved in these things, but so many others people want govt. out of.
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Perk is actually 100% correct about it Beat. You are free to disagree, youre free to not have an abortion, and youre free to peacefully gather to show your displeasure-------but because you don't like the law as it is written doesn't make it a bad law or one to be overturned. As a nation of laws we cannot, or at least should not, pick and choose which should be obeyed based on our own personal feelings. Again what amazes me is how govt. should be involved in these things, but so many others people want govt. out of.
We are a nation of laws. I like that. But laws change at the whims of those in control. Our current administration has decided that it will only prosecute the laws that it agrees with. Presently, we're discussing the laws of abortion, which is legal. But some one to write new laws that say abortion is legal until the baby is born, or after (Dr. Gosnell. sp.) And others want to write new laws that say that I have to pay for someone else's abortion. I don't agree with that. I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, but I can be forced to subsidize her decisions? Over and over again??
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Eugenics? That's Margaret Sanger type stuff. Don't try to argue the other side, Vulch.
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Eugenics? That's Margaret Sanger type stuff. Don't try to argue the other side, Vulch.
Not trying to argue for any side. But it would seem this would be a desired benefit. Less unwanted people, less trouble they would create. This certainly holds true for the right and their hated of Medicaid or welfare of any kind.....why would they then want more leaches off the system?
I agree Beat....so when generations of these undesirables want to abort a fetus and in turn break the cycle.....shouldn't we applaud the decision? Sounds like education in a way...they are getting smart enough to know not to bring more burdens on the "haves" of society.
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
While I agree that outlawing abortion would bring a larger number of 'unwanted' and 'unadoptable' children into the world, I'm a little queasy of socioeconomic arguments in favor of it. Stephen Frears made such an argument in Freakanomics, saying that that the overall drop in crime rates over the past few decades is partly caused by the readily available of abortions post Roe vs. Wade. In a sense he was saying that because the poor aborted fetuses instead of givng birth out of wedlock, thousands of thousands of future criminals never existed. I find this a rather offensive argument that one that can't be possibly be made. How do we know that perhaps some of those who might have lived wouldn't have eventually become, say, the scientist who found a cure for cancer, the next Martin Luther King Jr., a future president of the United States, or other notables? Even amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged, there are always those who escape the cycle of poverty and achieve greatness.
I am aware of the book and his argument on that topic Raisin as we discussed it in depth in my Crime and Violence class.....I find the idea quite compelling and a very possible (to probable) conclusion that could be drawn.
That's true it is none of my business. But I've known 2 girls who have had abortions. One couldn't live with her decision and committed suicide over it. The other even after 30 years have gone by still regrets it and occasionally breaks down crying over it. This is a decision that affects more than just the girl. And it's one that last a life time and is not forgotten.
Comments