Legal restriction of abortion doesn't change the rate

[Bob Hubbard]

The arguments concerning abortion have and always will divide. Most of those arguing on either side of the fence, have no first hand knowledge of what it really and truely involves.

Those arguing against it, most often fail to consider the costs, both financial and emotional involved, either in the act of abortion it self, or in deciding against it. They make broad condemnations regarding premarital sex, youth and not believing in the same imaginary man in the sky as they do. They discount the emotional and often heart wrenching experience of those considering it. They ignore the costs, again both financial and emotional in deciding to raise a child to term, and perhaps through it's first 2 decades of life. They will make assinine suggestions like "just give it up for adoption", again ignoring both the financial and emotional costs in that decision.

Those arguing for it, choose to ignore custom, faith, and family. They often will ignore the same financial, physical and emotional considerations as their opposition.

The simple fact is, more than half the people arguing are incapable of ever having one. A majority of those capable of having one, will never be in a position where it even becomes a consideration.

The only people the decision matters to, is the woman who is for what ever reason considering it, and that potential childs father.

There are many reasons why someone would consider ending a pregnancy. some are truthfully frivilious, but many others are not. Which is which, should be determined by those involved in that painful decision. Not some anonymous person with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation, and certainly not by some so called 'lawmaker' or religious zelot acting out of their own bias and ignorance.

I personally, don't believe in it, however, it is not my place to decide what is right for anyone else. If and when the decision involves me I would give my thoughts to her. In the end, it is however her decision, since unlike a seahorse, I as a male cannot carry a child. In any event, such things should be private, and not done in public.

 

[heretic888]

Those arguing for it, choose to ignore custom, faith, and family. They often will ignore the same financial, physical and emotional considerations as their opposition.

Bob,

With all due respect, just who exactly argues "for" abortion?? Its not like anyone here is advocating forcing pregnant mothers to have abortions. You seem to be using a Straw Man argument here.

The pro-choice argument is not necessarily that abortion is "right" but that it is a personal choice left to the mother and her family. The overriding difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers in this debate is that the latter believe their personal beliefs should be legally imposed on every woman in the country.

Laterz.

 

[CoryKS]

Bob,

With all due respect, just who exactly argues "for" abortion?? Its not like anyone here is advocating forcing pregnant mothers to have abortions. You seem to be using a Straw Man argument here.

The pro-choice argument is not necessarily that abortion is "right" but that it is a personal choice left to the mother and her family. The overriding difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers in this debate is that the latter believe their personal beliefs should be legally imposed on every woman in the country.

Laterz.

You're arguing semantics. One can use pro-abortion to describe someone who is for the legalization of it, not that should be imposed on unwilling participants. As a comparison, you hear people use the term pro-death penalty to describe a person who thinks this should be a legal option for certain criminals. It doesn't mean they want to empty the prisons into a mass grave.

 

[heretic888]

You're arguing semantics.

Not really.

As I stated before, the overriding issue here is that one group wants their personal beliefs to be legally imposed on the populace while the other group thinks it is a personal decision best left to the woman and her loved ones. Drawing analogies to the death penalty is, at best, a Red Herring.

This has nothing to do with the terminology used to describe individuals, as many who oppose a legislative banning of abortion also find abortion to be distasteful on a personal level. Its a Straw Man argument to suggest such persons are "for" abortion. What they are "for" is that the mother and her family are the ones that make the decision, not the government.

This is similar to how some religious conservatives interpret a removal of official "school prayer" time during public schools' morning announcements to be some kind of banning of prayer of any kind in schools (you may do so on your own at any time you wish). It is the same groups of people in both cases and all they *really* want is their personal beliefs to be imposed on everybody by the government.

I mean, really....

 

[CoryKS]

Not really.

Yes, really. It was clear from the context that Bob was referring to those who are for the legalization of abortion, regardless of their position on the morality of it, rather than to people who believe that "abortion rawks!!!" So, Straw Man declined. The analogy to the death penalty had nothing to do with the topic of the death penalty itself, but rather the use of pro- or con- labels to identify those who want it to be legal or not. So, Red Herring declined.

 

[heretic888]

Yes, really. It was clear from the context that Bob was referring to those who are for the legalization of abortion, regardless of their position on the morality of it, rather than to people who believe that "abortion rawks!!!" So, Straw Man declined. The analogy to the death penalty had nothing to do with the topic of the death penalty itself, but rather the use of pro- or con- labels to identify those who want it to be legal or not. So, Red Herring declined.

Hi Cory,

Perhaps you can explain to me why a person who supports the "legalization of abortion" (a rather curious choice of words on your part) would also "choose to ignore custom, faith, and family" (as Bob put it)?? Why would leaving the issue of abortion up to the mother and her loved ones instead of the government in any way impugn "custom, faith, and family"??

Now, perhaps Bob misspoke or perhaps I am simply misunderstanding him (and, if so, I apologize). However, taking his words at face value, this is clearly a Straw Man argument. If there is some meaning that I am not perceiving, I am sure he will enlighten me shortly.

I just don't see how leaving abortion up to one's own personal choice (as opposed to the government deciding for you) somehow prevents you from acting in accord with the wishes of "custom, faith, and family".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob,

With all due respect, just who exactly argues "for" abortion?? Its not like anyone here is advocating forcing pregnant mothers to have abortions. You seem to be using a Straw Man argument here.

The pro-choice argument is not necessarily that abortion is "right" but that it is a personal choice left to the mother and her family. The overriding difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers in this debate is that the latter believe their personal beliefs should be legally imposed on every woman in the country.

Laterz.

Didn't say anyone here was. I just posted a blanket bit, in part because of this discussion, and in part due to some stuff that's been flooding my email from a list I'm on. So, ignore the bits that don't fit this topic.

 

[heretic888]

If there is some meaning that I am not perceiving, I am sure he will enlighten me shortly.

Didn't say anyone here was. I just posted a blanket bit, in part because of this discussion, and in part due to some stuff that's been flooding my email from a list I'm on. So, ignore the bits that don't fit this topic.

Consider me enlightened!