'This can't be happening in our country.'

[Aramike]

IMO, the main reason why many people can go along with abortion as contraception, is because it's all done without seeing the fetus. It's done behind a curtain. It's like eating a hamburger, as long as most people don't have to see the cow get it in the neck, they're cool.

Agreed.

Personally, I would like to see abortion cease to exist as a form of casual contraception, meaning, that no more "the condom broke" cases. In cases of rape, etc, I can see early term abortion being acceptable.

[Aramike]

Religion has far too much to do with it. I was at a youth group meeting a couple years ago when the youth pastor started reading off a few situations that could have warranted an abortion, and probably would have. After reading all of these situations, we were told that if we agreed with the abortions, that we have killed quite a few prominent members of society. One was Jesus. Beethoven, Stevie wonder I think was there too.
I consider that a "shock tactic" and a truly worthless campaign. I know the Bible says it's wrong. I get it.

Those are typical religious scare tactics. However, I think you're mistaken to gloss over the point as a whole based solely about the ad hominem aspect of it. I frankly don't completely agree with the point this youth pastor was making (hell, I bet I could find reasons that some of the most brutal figures throughout history would/could have been aborted), but I do think it's worth examination.

Look at our rapidly expanding world population. Is it truly worth bringing another child into this world, with the way it's turning out? Besides, for every one abortion there's bound to be a woman giving birth to sextuplets anyhow. We are getting far too crowded into too many places, in America, in Europe, in Africa. Everywhere. Disease is commonly transferred among children. Get all the shots you want, there's going to be a new epidemic tomorrow. Most abortions are among people who come from low-profit households. You can bet that they are filled with grief over it. The few young women I know who had abortions vowed to be abstinent. All is not lost. But I mentioned low-profit households because the majority of the mothers-to-be will have their entire academic lives ruined because of it. Notice what I'm saying? Human expansion. There's too much of it. And it's not helping our economy.

Yes, there are dead fetuses. The doctors don't like it and the mothers-to-be sure as heck don't. But on a worldwide scale we are merely a speck of dust. Stop touting statistics and look at the big picture. 60,000 abortions don't matter when there's 60,001 kids being born at the exact same time.

Is this making sense to anybody or am I just babbling at this point?

While I understand what you're getting at, I can't buy into any of it. This concept of "human life=so what?" is disturbing to me.

The people who harp repeatedly on overpopulation always gloss over two very important things: First, the Earth can not, by nature, support more human beings that it can support. That's would violate the first fundamental law of logic. Secondly, technology is always increasing the amount of human beings that the earth can support.

We're not going to see disasterous overpopulation because it is impossible. If the earth can't support 10 billion people, for instance, the difference between that number and what the earth CAN support will perish.

But see, my point is simple: ultimately, we fail ourselves as a species (philosophically speaking) when we start attributing a value to any human life due to its perceived burden upon our resources. When we start saying that we don't need these babies, because other babies MAY have to sacrifice something, we open a very nasty door. At one point do we say the same about the handicapped? The unskilled? A culture which we just don't like?

[NeonSamurai]

Well I support the woman's right to choose, though I do not generally support third trimester abortions (unless there are special reasons to justify it).

Furthermore fetuses, and even young infants do not really have higher brain functions. Reflexive actions and recognition are not evidence of such. Heck my goldfish when they were still alive would recognize me when I entered the room the tank was in by displaying specific behavior. They also displayed their own separate personalities too. Potential is also not a good argument as that can be spun out in all kinds of absurd directions. Actuality (the then and now) is all that matters. Btw with cloning, a cell with complete genetic material is all you need to start a new life.

As for men having a say, well I am sorry but no you have no rights to the woman's body. If the technology ever comes where the child could be transferred to you (or an artificial womb), then and only then would you have an equal say in the matter. This applies to the woman wanting to abort the baby only though. The opposite way is far more dicey as both parties should have a say on keeping the baby (or the financial results of keeping it). If a woman absolutely insists on having the child and the male does not want it from the start, should the male have to pay child support? Hard to say IMHO.

Originally Posted by Aramike

The people who harp repeatedly on overpopulation always gloss over two very important things: First, the Earth can not, by nature, support more human beings that it can support. That's would violate the first fundamental law of logic. Secondly, technology is always increasing the amount of human beings that the earth can support.

We're not going to see disasterous overpopulation because it is impossible. If the earth can't support 10 billion people, for instance, the difference between that number and what the earth CAN support will perish.

I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with that statement.

The problem is you are not looking at the big picture, its not a question solely of how many humans the earth can sustain, but how many the earth can sustain with out trashing the ecosystem (which is essential to our own survival; destroy the ecosystem and you destroy ourselves with it). Right now with the current population we are straining the ecosystem to the limit. The problem is not as much apparent in the west (though we are a major contributor to the problem globally), where birth rates are about equal with death rates. It exists in the 2nd and 3rd world countries where birth rates are at astronomical levels, and the resources don't exist to support them. These populations survive by plundering the local ecosystem (and by world aid) trying to survive in the short term by destroying any long term future. They are the ones hacking down the forests, and causing mass extinction.

It also takes time to hit the population wall where the effects hit home. You can observe this when ever a certain animal population gets out of control. Lets take deer for example:

Deer have been known to have massive population explosions, where they have a really good year, or the predator population which keeps them in check has a really bad year (or gets wiped out). The next year there are far more deer then the ecosystem can take, but there are still enough resources for the deer to continue to grow, at the expense of their ecosystem (they start stripping the bark off trees and other stuff which damages their food supply). The year after that they start to run into the wall, but have not yet damaged their ecosystem sufficiently to halt the problem. At this point the ecosystem is taking major damage, and the plants the deer rely on are being destroyed by all the hungry deer. By the next year they have caused massive damage to their ecosystem, not only is there not enough food to support the current population, but the ecosystem is so badly damaged by their feeding that there isn't even enough left to support 1/8th of their normal population. This results in mass starvation and further damage to the ecosystem by the survivors. Not only does this affect the deer, but it affects all the other creatures in the chain both plant and animal. The populations all drop to very low levels, and after many decades the ecosystem will slowly recover (assuming it wasn't damaged beyond the point of repair).

Right now we are the deer, and we are pushing the ecosystem of the entire world to the breaking point. Our capacity for destroying the ecosystem of the globe far exceeds that of any other creature. From my perspective from all the information I have gathered, we have already hit the wall, and the global ecosystem is rapidly reaching the breaking point. The big problem with us though is the wall is not as hard as it is for the deer in a forest. Our world is much bigger then theirs, and it takes far longer before the effects are completely clear for everyone.

The problem is there is no magic number. We just expand and take over all that is around us. But when we do that we take the risk of destroying ourselves, as we are forever linked to the ecosystem of the planet. We destroy the wrong thing in our foolishness and we get taken down with it.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

If a woman absolutely insists on having the child and the male does not want it from the start, should the male have to pay child support? Hard to say IMHO.

That seems to be how this question is always addressed. Pure avoidance.

[NeonSamurai]

Its a tough one to answer and highly circumstantial too. There is the question of responsibility from both sides, the use of contraceptives or lack of, etc. Also does the male have the right to force the female to abort? It's her body as far as choosing not to have a child, but it is his genetic material along with hers. Then there is the possibility of manipulation, that the female intentionally got pregnant to take advantage of the male.

If you want a harder answer from me, it depends on circumstance. Ultimately I say that the mother has the right to conceive the child, that she cannot be forced to go through a medical procedure to abort the child. As for child support, well that depends on circumstance. If they both got drunk, had unprotected sex, well I think they are both on the hook. If they were careful and still had an accident, then it gets more tricky (there is some responsibility for the possibility of having a child even with protection) and would have to be judged case by case on merrit. If the woman purposely got pregnant with out the consent or knowledge of the male then she deserves nothing, though proving it would be most difficult.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Agreed.

Personally, I would like to see abortion cease to exist as a form of casual contraception, meaning, that no more "the condom broke" cases. In cases of rape, etc, I can see early term abortion being acceptable.

I agree there are special cases and circumstances that make abortion acceptable. However, early stage of conception the procedure should be done.