Jeb Bush & Abortion

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:13 pm

would someone please assassinate this fucking idiot?

May 23 — Shame on Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Most Americans would agree that when a woman has been raped, or if she’s likely to die as a result of giving birth, termination of her pregnancy should be an option. Not Jeb. The governor of Florida is playing hardball abortion politics with a severely disabled woman’s life when he should instead be worried about her best interests.

SOME TIME last January, a 22-year-old woman living in a group home in Orlando, Fla., was raped. The woman is now 5-months pregnant. She is also severely mentally retarded. Experts say she has the cognitive and emotional capacity of a 1-year-old child.

In addition to her severe mental retardation, she suffers from cerebral palsy, autism and is prone to violent seizures. These conditions make having a baby a very dangerous proposition for this unfortunate young woman. Because of her physical impairment, she could die if she tries to deliver the baby.

JEB JUMPS IN
Once they learned of the rape, Florida Social Services moved to appoint a guardian for her. In this situation, a guardian is required to grant permission for the woman to receive a thorough medical evaluation. That’s when Jeb jumped in.

Despite the fact that the woman is severely disabled, has been raped, and might die if allowed to give birth, Bush felt that the appointment of a guardian for her was not appropriate. Instead, he moved to stop the appointment of the woman’s guardian until a second guardian could first be appointed — specifically, a guardian for the fetus.

A Florida judge has refused to rule on Bush’s action based on technical legal grounds. As a result, we now have a situation in which a young woman, who has so many medical problems that she may not be able to survive giving birth, must go without proper medical attention. Even if she does not die in the birthing process, given her emotional and psychological problems the experience could at the very least emotionally devastate her. Someone must be appointed to protect her. But the governor, who’s busy playing abortion politics, is not letting that happen.

TIME’S RUNNING OUT
The courts might help, but the courts in Florida move slowly. A pregnancy does not. If the fetus gets much older than 24 weeks, the standard age of viability, then it will be far more difficult for doctors to terminate the pregnancy. And, if the medical facts show the woman must have an abortion in order to prevent her own death, it will be a far more dangerous procedure.

In short, Bush is not thinking about the disabled woman. His focus is solely on the fetus. In this regard, he is simply wrong. His ethical focus ought to be on the young woman.
A victim of rape who might die as a result of childbirth should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Furthermore, a disabled woman who needs a guardian in order to get proper medical attention should have a guardian — yesterday!

Someone needs to determine the facts in this case and decide what is indeed in this woman’s best interest. That person ought not be a governor who wants to play politics with her life.

If Bush has the time on his hands to personally get involved in this case, he should first appoint a guardian for the woman — and then figure out what he can do to ensure that other severely disabled women in his state are not at risk of rape. Perhaps the governor could take steps to make sure that young women like this have access to birth control, or at the very least, that they have adequate protection against sexual predators.

So far all Bush has done is put a helpless woman’s life in grave danger.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:18 pm

The woman should get a medical examination, and determine the chances of her dying in childbirth are. I don't like aborrtion - it's homicide, in my case, and I can understand why Jeb wants a guardian for the fetus. That said, I do support the option of abortion in case of rape or if the mother's life is in danger, but it should be her decision. This is tricky, because it sounds like one side of the state wants to force the woman to have an abortion while the Jeb wants her to have the baby and the woman really can't make a choice. Gah. Not a situation I envy, but I understand both sides.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:21 pm

I don't understand why Jeb is interfering with a legal procedure for a woman who was raped, may be at risk from this pregnancy, and cannot care for a baby in any case. However...

Most Americans would agree that when a woman has been raped, or if she’s likely to die as a result of giving birth, termination of her pregnancy should be an option.

Sorry... not in the case of rape. I've always been disgusted by people who are against abortion except in rape and incest cases. If you think killing an unborn fetus is wrong, then why would it be okay just because it was the product of rape? If terminating it is wrong, then how it got there is pretty much irrelevant. That's just waffling. Unfortunately, a public figure who espouses my view that abortion is wrong even in the case of rape is portrayed as an extremist by the press.

Abortion to save the life (and maaaaaaaybe the health) of the mother is acceptable on a case by case basis, in my view.

Abortion of a non-viable fetus is, of course, acceptable. As is abortion of a fetus that can be shown to be brain-dead (just as I think it's okay to let any brain-dead person die).

But rape... that's not the baby's fault.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:25 pm

one also has to take into consideration the kind of life the child may have if the child is as mentally retarded as her. the child would be best off dead. it's no life at all to be a living vegetable.

unless the court forces Jeb to adopt the baby if it comes out severely retarded... hmm. that would be a tasty bit of karma to me.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:31 pm

The problem here is that Jeb Bush is fucking around with one individual's life, and they may die as a result. I may or may not approve of abortion (in this case I would), but THAT is wrong.

Then again, Florida had weird politics with kids. If you claim paternity, you have to pay for the kid, even if you later learn it's not yours. What a fucked-up state.

I think the Kennedys and the Bush's should start a blood feud, just to whittle each other down.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:40 pm

Bethyaga wrote:But rape... that's not the baby's fault.

Neither is it the mother's fault. Unless the state is willing to pay all costs as relating to the child until the child's 18th birthday, I cannot see it as fair that a child that was /forced upon/ that woman - not just "unwanted," but forced upon - should be her responsibility in the slightest.

Even if she gives it up for adoption, the state should pay /all/ fees leading up to that. All of her doctor's visits, medication, anything.

That said, since she has the option of giving the child up for adoption for 'free,' the abortion should still be on her dime, however much they are nowadays.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:42 pm

If you think killing an unborn fetus is wrong, then why would it be okay just because it was the product of rape? If terminating it is wrong, then how it got there is pretty much irrelevant. That's just waffling.

No, it's not. It's actually a very important landmark in the debate over abortion.

One of the more potent early arguments in defense of abortion was Thompson's violinist analogy. The point it stressed was: It's fine if the fetus is another person. No other person has a right to your body. Supposing woke up one day and you were kidnapped and surgically attached to a violinist, or somehow ended up filtering someone else's blood with your kidneys. And if you sacrificed yourself for 18 years, or nine months, or really any length of time . . . and if and only if you did so would this other person survive . . . well, it would be really really nice of you to do so. But no one could force you to, and we wouldn't consider it a moral imperative that you must do so. You should, morally, be allowed to have an operation done to free yourself.

And the clear objection to this is that the nature of pregnancy imparts a special responsibility on the mother that wouldn't apply to you if you wound up with your kidneys tied to a violinist. Somehow she has become responsible for the fetus, and is thus obligated to provide her body to save someone else. But how did she get this special responsibility? The typical answer is that she accepted it when she accepted the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex. Of course, she didn't if she was raped.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:56 pm

Adam: but the woman in this situation doesn't have the ability to make /any/ decisions, let alone decide the fate of the baby that's growing inside her.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:57 pm

Sorry if it was unclear; I was talking in general terms about Bethy's post, which also appeared to be talking [at least, the parts I quoted] in general terms.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:59 pm

ah. got it.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Fri May 23, 2003 8:49 pm

Hmmm, seems like a completely reasonable strategy to me. First, we get to try this guy for rape. Then, after the woman dies in childbith, we get to add murder to the list. And, since the fetus has a guardian, that must mean the fetus is a person and entitled to protections, so it's a double homicide. And, if we convict the guy of a double homicide, we establish a precedent that a fetus is a person entitled to protections. Like, no abortions. Dissect.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri May 23, 2003 8:54 pm

If the mother-to-be dies in childbirth, will Jeb Bush get charged with Manslaughter or Homicide?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Fri May 23, 2003 8:55 pm

Ancient History wrote:The problem here is that Jeb Bush is fucking around with one individual's life, and they may die as a result. I may or may not approve of abortion (in this case I would), but THAT is wrong.

Although I like the "force Jeb to adopt option", should mother and child die during birth, Jeb should be charged with murder and/or reckless endangerment.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri May 23, 2003 9:02 pm

I think that would be the case if the woman has family and I can safely assume she doesn't since a guardian was going to be appointed to her. so, it would be up to the state of Florida to press charges against its own governor. somehow, I don't see that happening.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 23, 2003 9:26 pm

Any rational debate about the morality of abortion ultimately breaks down due to the impossibility of establishing the immorality of killing or the basic parameters of life. All the other ancilliary issues ultimately lead - and fail - there.

EvanMoore · Post by **EvanMoore** » Fri May 23, 2003 9:46 pm

3278 wrote:Any rational debate about the morality of abortion ultimately breaks down due to the impossibility of establishing the immorality of killing or the basic parameters of life. All the other ancilliary issues ultimately lead - and fail - there.

If other moral issues can be defined by law, why not these?

If other questions of science can be questioned and yet accepted, why not these?

It seems you are saying that we--civilized society--are unable to define them because they are indefinable.

I would prefer to say that we cannot define them because we cannot agree upon the definition.

Or is that what you were saying?

E

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri May 23, 2003 10:48 pm

EvanMoore wrote:
3278 wrote:Any rational debate about the morality of abortion ultimately breaks down due to the impossibility of establishing the immorality of killing or the basic parameters of life. All the other ancilliary issues ultimately lead - and fail - there.
If other moral issues can be defined by law, why not these?

1. I didn't say anything about the legality of anything.
2. I don't believe morality should be legislated, no, although I didn't say anything about that.

EvanMoore wrote:If other questions of science can be questioned and yet accepted, why not these?

I didn't say other questions of science /could/ be questioned and yet accepted. Most of them break down in a similar fashion.

EvanMoore wrote:It seems you are saying that we--civilized society--are unable to define them because they are indefinable.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

EvanMoore wrote:I would prefer to say that we cannot define them because we cannot agree upon the definition.

Your preference aside, our agreement doesn't influence the truth. Even if we all agreed on one definition, it would be impossible to know if that definition were correct.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat May 24, 2003 2:59 am

Adam, Marius...

Just to clarify my point. IF you are against abortion because you believe the fetus is a human being and aborting it is murder... then I think it is extremely hypocritical (or at the very least, contradictory) to then say that abortion in the case of rape is okay.

This only applies to people who believe that the fetus should be considered a full legal person and that aborting such a fetus constitutes murder.

If you are not against abortion or if you oppose abortion for reasons other than this, then this does not apply to you.

Otherwise, I agree with 32 that this is not an argument anyone can win. I can only clarify why I believe what I believe, but I cannot change anyone's mind on this topic.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:19 am

Gotcha, Bethy. Sorry for misunderstanding.

ThatWendigo · Post by **ThatWendigo** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:21 am

Christ, I can't find the essay I wrote for Bioethics, or the text from the class, or I'd be citing sources for this, but I have to run with the Violinist for a moment.

My primary objection to abortion is based on the same sort of body-rights mentality. It has nothing to do with any right to life, or whether or not the mother or fetus is more important. The only concern is that, if the fetus is a person, then it is infringing on the mother's only real right, that of control over her body, if she does not want it. This may result in the death of the child, and thus could lead to a counterargument that D&C, along with other abortive methods that directly kill the fetus, are impermissible, but it does not destroy the main point.

But how did she get this special responsibility? The typical answer is that she accepted it when she accepted the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex. Of course, she didn't if she was raped.

Is this necessarily the case, though?

What if a woman takes all possible precautions to avoid pergnancy, but ends up pregnant anyways? Say, for the sake of example, that she's a thirty year old married woman who is barely above the poverty line, and her husband has a vasectomy. Conception naturally above thirty is less likely, and the vasectomy makes it astronomically unlikely, but still it happens. Does this afffect the claim the fetus has against the mother at all? Do her intentions and desires not matter?

Any rational debate about the morality of abortion ultimately breaks down due to the impossibility of establishing the immorality of killing or the basic parameters of life. All the other ancilliary issues ultimately lead - and fail - there.

Actually, I'd take it so far as to say that all morality discussion breaks down on similar lines. Rights are hard, and probably impossible, to prove in any real sense. Well, natural rights are, at least. Social rights are pretty easy/

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat May 24, 2003 5:39 am

This only applies to people who believe that the fetus should be considered a full legal person and that aborting such a fetus constitutes murder.

I thought I illustrated how it could still be an issue /even/ if the fetus were considered a full legal person.

The only concern is that, if the fetus is a person, then it is infringing on the mother's only real right, that of control over her body, if she does not want it.

And perhaps of her control (hah!) over her psyche, her time, her potential. Her right, perhaps, not to have to experience a rather traumatic set of life events.

What if a woman takes all possible precautions to avoid pergnancy, but ends up pregnant anyways? ... Does this affect the claim the fetus has against the mother at all? Do her intentions and desires not matter? [/quote]
That, of course, is the extension of the debate based on Thompson's premise. If the fetus has a positive right for the mother to provide it care based on some special responsibility she's accepted, then if she's taken all reasonable means to avoid pregnancy the pro-choicer would maintain that she's certainly not accepted such a special responsibility. How then can she be saddled with it?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat May 24, 2003 8:19 am

The second issue with rape is the trauma to the woman. I'm not sure about incest, except inasmuch as it affects fetal viability. But in cases of rape, it can be considered a form of torture to force a woman to bear the child. Rape can cause all kinds of mental trauma, and an abortion can prevent the trauma from getting worse. Now, obviously these aren't absolutes; however, I am of the opinion that a woman should not be punished for being raped. Being forced to suffer through childbirth, because she was raped, seems like a rather harsh penalty to me.

There are many reasons for being pro or anti abortion. The issue of choice is a biggie, though-- many anti-abortionists would argue that we all know and accept the risk of pregnancy as a consequence of having sex, so why punish the fetus for a choice you knowingly made? They would argue that they are not anti-choice, only that you made your choice when you decided to have sex. Rape does toss a wrench into that argument, however; which when combined with the above argument, is why many people who are anti-abortion can accept it in cases of rape.

Bethy: Just to toss this at you-- I see where you agree that abortion to save the live of the woman is ok, but you're waffling on questions of health, correct? I'd like to offer an analogy. Terminating an pregnancy in cases where the woman's life is threatened can be analagous to killing someone in self-defense, where he is clearly going to kill you. Well, if you weren't reasonably certain someone was going to kill you, what then? If you were reasonably certain that someone was going to cause you grievous bodily harm, but not certain if it would be fatal, would you be justified in using lethal self-defense? What happens if you knew the guy would cause permanent debilitating injury? These situations can also be analagous to a woman experiencing health risks from being pregnant. (BTW, don't take any of this the wrong way, I'm mostly interested in seeing your point of view.)

All that being said, it doesn't affect this particular case.

This woman should have had a guardian a good long while ago. In an emergency case like this, where any person who's disabled may need a medical procedure to survive, a guardian should be appointed immediately. Jeb's intervention prevents her from getting a guardian, thereby preventing her from gettting any medical care at all.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:39 pm

Out of curiousity-I have no desire to weigh in on the abortion issue really,how do people in this thread vote? Meaning do you? I am assuming yes, but I want to get an idea what sort of break down we have in here.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat May 24, 2003 4:11 pm

Out of curiousity-I have no desire to weigh in on the abortion issue really,how do people in this thread vote?

I'm Pro choice, Anti-Abortion. Basically, I'm against Abortion, but don't feel it's my place to tell someone else what to do with their body. If it were my Girlfriend, Sister, Mother, Friend, etc I would urge them to take the "child" to term. But at the same time, I would support whatever decision they make, as it's just that.... Their Choice

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat May 24, 2003 7:20 pm

"I notice that all the peopel that favor abortion have already been born."
--Ronald Reagan

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat May 24, 2003 7:22 pm

Ancient History wrote:"I notice that all the peopel that favor abortion have already been born."
--Ronald Reagan

One thing I always hated about Reagan was his crappy spelling.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat May 24, 2003 7:46 pm

Me no type good. Old cowboy bastard.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat May 24, 2003 7:47 pm

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat May 24, 2003 8:47 pm

I lean towards Moo's point of view-- I view each abortion as a tragedy, as it's an unwanted child. However, making abortions illegal won't do a thing to solve the real problem-- unwanted pregnancies and children.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat May 24, 2003 9:12 pm

Cain wrote:I lean towards Moo's point of view-- I view each abortion as a tragedy

You say that, but you also say you encouraged the option of abortion when it was your own child.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:03 pm

I'm pro-choice. I almost want to say I'm pro-abortion, because by God, there are a lot of children in this world that are better off dead than with the parents and the life they have.

I used to work in the Child Support Agency, as a debt collector. I got to see a lot of the sordid side of broken family relationships, and it certainly confirmed my belief that keeping an unwanted child is in no way better than terminating a small clump of non-independent cells.

Then again, this is also where I developed my belief that people should need a license to breed. We require very rigorous testing re adoption to see if a couple who really /want/ a child are fit parents. Likewise with fertility treatments. But any fool who can work out how to stick Tab A into Slot B can get themselves a child the old-fashioned way, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. Insane way of doing things.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:15 pm

Jestyr wrote:I used to work in the Child Support Agency, as a debt collector. I got to see a lot of the sordid side of broken family relationships, and it certainly confirmed my belief that keeping an unwanted child is in no way better than terminating a small clump of non-independent cells.

So have the kid and give it up for adoption. There are a great many people who can't have children that want them.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:22 pm

This is true; however, it doesn't mean that it's your responsibility to provide a child for them if you happen to fall unwantedly pregnant.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:22 pm

Pro-choice/abortion/whatever over here though I do prefer adoption wherever possible.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:37 pm

Well, that's true. However, in 2001, only five hundred children were adopted in Australia, with just over half of those being adopted from other countries.

In contrast, over 100,000 abortions occur within Australia each year.

Hmm.

(Note that I'm not picking on Australia - I'm sure the US is as bad, if not worse. Your country was just the first one that I found pertinent information for.)

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat May 24, 2003 11:55 pm

The answer is obliquely mentioned in the first link you cited.

"It is a concern to me that we have 20,000 children physically removed from their homes each year due to child abuse and neglect. 17,000 of these children end up in foster care and many have multiple placements.

"I have sympathy with views expressed to me in the past that many of these children should be put in more permanent care rather than the roundabout of foster care.

Absolutely. There are already children there to adopt; 17,000 of them a year. Adding more of them to the pile - by having unwanted children and then giving them up for adoption - isn't helping anyone. Making adoption easier is a better way to go about it.

Your country was just the first one that I found pertinent information for.

Well, the first link cited adoption stats for the US each year: "By comparison, the United States of America have around 500,000 adoptions a year." And the second link had an equivalent table for the USA, as well ("In 1997, a total of 1,186,093 legal abortions") so you didn't have to have gone much further (one more click) to find equivalent stats for your own country.

By those figures - although the first link's are fairly vague - we're looking at 561 adoptions vs 76191 abortions, a ratio of about 1:135, for Australia. For the US, it's about 1:2.5. The drastic difference in that ratio indicates to me not that we're an abortion-happy country, but that our adoption system is needlessly draconian.

Remember, the first link tells us not that there's a shortage of children to be adopted - which is where giving birth to unwanted children and giving them up for adoption, vs. having an abortion, would make a difference. It tells us that there are plenty of adoptable children; they just don't get adopted.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:05 am

Oh, and further data on abortion-happy-ness:

Australia: 19,800,000 people; 76191 abortions. One abortion per 260 people.
USA: 291,000,000 people; 1,186,093 abortions. One abortion per 245 people.

Fairly comparable, in other words. So it's our adoption system that's screwed, fairly conclusively.

(Note: Population figures are current, abortion figures are from 97. Best I could do, but at least I'm comparing apples with apples.)

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:07 am

The sad thing is that the best solution (at least in my mind), which is prevention, is so hard to implement. Educating kids about Sex and Pregnancy, even making condoms available cheap (or, in some colleges, freely) has not sufficiently diminished unplanned pregnancy in the world; especially not among adults.

America is even worse. Europe is far ahead of the USA when it comes to teaching such methods as "Double Dutch," and I daresay that most parents in an unplanned pregnancy are NOT fit for the job of raising a tyke, since obviosuly they weren't smart enough to not conceive in the first place (yeah, that's a little harsh. But they fucked up, literally.)

Of course, the bad end of this is China, whose implementation of population control is highly respectable, until one realizes the amount of infantcide, especially of girls, that ocurs. Mark my words, someday soon China's going to realize it's got 100 teenage males and 1 teenage female. Not to mention the number of Chinese babies, many with birth defects (nothing major. Cleft lips and the like) are palmed off (I'm sorry: legally adopted) to people in the US.

Then of course, there's the standing policy of the Catholic Church.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:11 am

Jestyr wrote:Well, the first link cited adoption stats for the US each year: "By comparison, the United States of America have around 500,000 adoptions a year." And the second link had an equivalent table for the USA, as well ("In 1997, a total of 1,186,093 legal abortions") so you didn't have to have gone much further (one more click) to find equivalent stats for your own country.

Yeah, I found those a little while after I posted. Teaches me not to skim something I post here. Stupid. Anyway, I'm trying to dig a little deeper. Give me a day or so.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:22 am

What are you looking for?

ThatWendigo · Post by **ThatWendigo** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:28 am

And perhaps of her control (hah!) over her psyche, her time, her potential. Her right, perhaps, not to have to experience a rather traumatic set of life events.

Is that a right, and if so, where does it derive from?

That, of course, is the extension of the debate based on Thompson's premise. If the fetus has a positive right for the mother to provide it care based on some special responsibility she's accepted, then if she's taken all reasonable means to avoid pregnancy the pro-choicer would maintain that she's certainly not accepted such a special responsibility. How then can she be saddled with it?

Actually, I don't think she should be, but that is at least partly because of my biases and conclusions, in terms of the definitions of the argument. To me, forcing a human to care for a non-human, or even a potential-human, against their will is unconscionable, even if it results from their actions. Thus, until the point of viability, I have no issue with abortion.

how do people in this thread vote?

I've voted in every election For which I've been qualified. I vote Libertarian, where I can, and Republican or Democrat, depending on the issue, if I can't.

I'm pro-choice. I almost want to say I'm pro-abortion, because by God, there are a lot of children in this world that are better off dead than with the parents and the life they have.

I have to agree with you, Jes. There are children, most notably in third world countries, who I think would be far better off dead.

Then again, this is also where I developed my belief that people should need a license to breed. We require very rigorous testing re adoption to see if a couple who really /want/ a child are fit parents. Likewise with fertility treatments. But any fool who can work out how to stick Tab A into Slot B can get themselves a child the old-fashioned way, regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. Insane way of doing things.

I caught a lot of shit my senior year of highschool for writing an essay advocating mandatory birth control in females from puberty until the age of majority. I cited statistics on teenage pregnancy, abortion, birth rate, birth weight, and several other relevant topics as backing for my position. I don't compltely stand behind it anymore, and never really did think it was the best answer, but it was a more creative solution than telling kids, "Don't have sex. Seriously."

Valid objections that were raised:
-Possible rejection of Norplant (the method I suggested)
-Ethical concerns with personal liberties and rights
-Moral/Religious conflicts

So have the kid and give it up for adoption. There are a great many people who can't have children that want them.[/quote wrote:
It is very frequent that I hear this from people who oppose abortion, and then get some sort of number of willing adoptive families. The same people give an astronomical figure on abortions per year, and the two just don't meet. The last time this was tried on me, I came up with each family needing to adopt 47.3 children per year, in the U.S. alone.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Sun May 25, 2003 4:26 am

Ancient History wrote:The sad thing is that the best solution (at least in my mind), which is prevention, is so hard to implement. Educating kids about Sex and Pregnancy, even making condoms available cheap (or, in some colleges, freely) has not sufficiently diminished unplanned pregnancy in the world; especially not among adults.

And one Bush backs up the other... or maybe they're trading off how stupid they can act in regards to abortion politics. I think Jeb just wants to one-up Dubya.

SP: I vote every chance I get, and I also write to congress critters on regular occasions.

And now for a vituperous rant I only half-believe...

[rant]As for abortion, I'm not only pro-choice, but pro-abortion - but only in a eugenics fashion. If the parents are both intelligent people likely ot give birth to an intelligent person, they should carry it to term... All the lazy welfare fuckers (and I mean that literally) should be shot in the stomach - it's an abortion and a potential death sentence rolled into one.[/rant]

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Sun May 25, 2003 6:40 am

Hm. As one who believes that the individual is ultimately responsible for all the decisions they have to make in one's life, I always say leave it up to the woman. But since the woman has displayed absolutely no capability of decision-making whatsoever, where's the gain for the would-be mother or would-be child in this entire deal? The woman is obviously unfit for parenthood and the child is obviously going into that insitution of excellence known as state care where he's got a 50/50 chance of having a normal childhood in the case of the little brat being cute enough to adopt. Who's calling the shots here and why? Where are the parent of this woman - next best default choice - what decision did they make and is it being ignored? Where the hell is the rape suspect (as if this matters)?

I mean, fucking hell, Jeb might be screaming for this woman to have a kid, but it's ultimately not going to be his problem because he sure as hell ain't gonna be the one raising it, so why should his opinion count for anything at all?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun May 25, 2003 2:46 pm

ThatWendigo wrote:It is very frequent that I hear this from people who oppose abortion, and then get some sort of number of willing adoptive families. The same people give an astronomical figure on abortions per year, and the two just don't meet. The last time this was tried on me, I came up with each family needing to adopt 47.3 children per year, in the U.S. alone.

Well, you obviously can't adopt every child that would have been aborted. I'm not advocating that, because it's just not possible. What I am advocating is the end of abortion as a form of birth control, which is really what it's developed into. You fuck up, you have the kid and either give it up for adoption or raise it. This would be coupled with improved sex-ed, to prevent those abortions to start with.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun May 25, 2003 3:10 pm

Abortion isn't a recent issue, it's just technology and the media which has taken it so far.
There remain herbal concoctions that'll cause a miscarriage, and before it was legalized and done professionally, people had abortions with bloody coat hangers.

I suppose the problem nowadays is that getting an abortion is too easy...the option's available, so people take advantage of it.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sun May 25, 2003 6:50 pm

Bethyaga wrote:
Cain wrote:I lean towards Moo's point of view-- I view each abortion as a tragedy
You say that, but you also say you encouraged the option of abortion when it was your own child.

Which means what exactly? That maybe I thought the situation was extremely tragic to begin with?

At any event, the problem with comparing abortion counts with foster care statistics is that many who want to adopt want an infant. They want to see baby's first steps, and all those things. Most foster kids are somewhat older than that; it takes a while before a social worker can even collect enough evidence to begin removal proceedings, meaning the child may be a year or two old by the time it's placed.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Sun May 25, 2003 6:52 pm

Ancient History wrote: Of course, the bad end of this is China, whose implementation of population control is highly respectable, until one realizes the amount of infantcide, especially of girls, that ocurs. Mark my words, someday soon China's going to realize it's got 100 teenage males and 1 teenage female. Not to mention the number of Chinese babies, many with birth defects (nothing major. Cleft lips and the like) are palmed off (I'm sorry: legally adopted) to people in the US.

Uhm...you do realize that having "100 teenage males and 1 teenage female" is probably one of the goals of their population control policy, right? China is massively over populated, and the Communist Party knows this. Unlike a democracy, they can take steps that will control their population without regard for the future consequences. Additionally, if those 100 males whittle themselves down to even 50 males litterally fighting for the 1 female, then their population control is that much more successful. The CCP is ruthless, not stupid. Of course there is the threat of political upheavel as a result, but I expect that will come from other directions, if it does at all.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun May 25, 2003 7:04 pm

How long do you think any society can last with 99 frustrated teenage males? Even assuming a couple of 'em are gay, the result will either be a rebellion or a massive invasion of other countries. What, you think they're all going to take cold showers, sit back and remain virgins for the rest of their foreseable lifetimes?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sun May 25, 2003 7:47 pm

Ratlaw: From my (admittedly limited) experience there, the CCP of China is that stupid, or at least functioning with such an alien mindset as to make no sense to us. The Chinese culture values education in females, for example, and strength in males-- so we have the few girls being groomed for all the scientific courses. Which makes for an intriguing situation to develop over the next few years-- a country where it's second-class citizens have a first-rate education.

Whatever the hell the CCP is thinking, it just doesn't function according to Western logic. It's not technically stupidity, as there is something behind all of that, but damned if I can figure out what it is.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun May 25, 2003 8:05 pm

Substituting Mysterious for stupid doesn't make the PRC policies any more intelligent. The government is making lifestyle choices for their people, and not very intelligent ones at that.

Governments like the PRC exsist to propagate themselves, they lack foresight, for which they substitute short term self satisfaction and gratification.