Embryology and abortion

[sacrament]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite

Personally, I think that's why pro-life sentiment repeatedly polls so much higher than it used to. Moreover, the general trend is the same as it's been for most practices that were ultimately discredited: at first people favor it, then as it gains a human face they express a personal opposition to it but allow for the right of others to practice it, and finally the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they can't allow the contradiction any longer.

Well... I agree that the ability to image a fetus with greater clarity has certainly fueled some pro-life sentiment. As to whether that is even remotely rational is another question entirely. I'm not a fan of your usage of the word "evidence." Yeah, there is evidence that a human fetus looks humanoid and it moves around. I'm not entirely surprised.

 

[Purifyer]

It's quite... scary to read these posts and I had no idea the thread would balloon like this.

I don't know how to put it in a way that won't offend. The complete rape of patients' rights excused away by some belief in your own moral superiority is... well, it's frightening. Yes, I can understand how the termination of a fetus could be morally wrong to some people. But just because you see it as morally wrong, how can you possibly assert that your morality is any more or any less worthy than the patients perception of morality? Unless you believe god has stated some 'universal morality' to which you adhere. If you said this, I would understand your view point, even if I did not agree with it. But you haven't, indeed many anti-abortion posts have criticized any link of pro life morality to religion.

I presume most of you are medical students. What exactly have you been doing during those years of boring as hell ethics tutorials?

How are you possibly respecting a patients autonomy? Yes it's merely the right for informed consent under a different name.

So you may be morally outraged. You might think the mother is going to hell, where little pygmies will insert catheters into various orifices for all eternity. You may laugh at such religious quirks! You aren't religious or 'fundamentalist'! But child killing is wrong!

Well the simple fact of the matter is, you have a conflict of interest. You wish to advance your own moralist cause... well that's great, good for you! Show that pagan scum!

You also have a patient who needs you to act in HER best interest. YOU have a conflict of interest. Her best interest may or may not be an abortion. But you have a vested interest in one outcome. This cannot possibly be considered good care.

My anti-abortionist friends will probably reply 'But preventing an abortion is in her best interest!'. Well, it very well be. But to tell me with a straight face you have no conflict of interest is a laughable as a CEO of a power company wanting to contract out work to company 'b' that he owns 80% of. Company b may very well be the best, most efficient contractor out there, but it is not your decision to make.

If you have a vested interest in anti-abortion, I'm not asking you to do things against your conscience. I am asking you to realise you can't possibly make decisions in this area for other people. Please, please refer your patients to those with no vested interests in the subject.

 

[12R34Y]

In response to purifier...........our ethics debates that occur in small groups and in a larger setting are OVERWHELMINGLY in agreement with the pro-life movement.

It is completely accepted and mainstream practice to not refer to abortionist and to discourage the patients you are charged with care for.

Don't you realize that ethics is a debatable subject and there is usually at least 10 ways to skin a cat.

Let's tackle the "great commandment" of pro abortion movement. By the way it is pro abortion because you are for allowing abortion to occur right? does that not make you pro abortion? if you are repulsed by abortion and aren't "for it" then why are you for the choice of abortion...........don't you agree with the "choice" of abortion.....no way out of that one.

Back to the "great commandment" of the pro abortion movement.......TOLERANCE.

one of the most common arguments pro abortion folks use.

"We're not making YOU have an abortion, so why can't you be tolerant of those who choose to?".........translated........"Don't impose your antiquated morals on me."

At first it may sound reasonable, but it is still yet another weakness.......and one of the same arguments spouted ad nauseum.

"Don't like rape? Don't rape anyone.....Just don't impose your morality on me." same reasoning right?

Tolerance usually brings in a religious attack of some sort. Pro abortionists argue that government should not take one theory of life and impose it on others.
OBVOIUS PROBLEM with this......is that not only is the pro abrotion position FORCED on Christians and pro life folks, but we are also required to FUND IT!.

Amazingly, pro abortionists fail to perceive their own violation of this standard!

They're intolerant (extremely) of those who think tolerance is less important than preserving innocent human lives......

Every society has the obligation to impose morals on its citizens. Toleration works in the world of expressing opinions, NOT in a crowded movie theater when someone yells, "FIRE!"

We may be tolerant of one's religious views, but not if they include enslaving grandmothers or cannibilizing teenagers. Of course society/government has to legislate that. It would be anarchy and debauchery if we didn't.

Separation of church and state does not extend to divorcing all moral values from the state........if this were the case then we would eliminate all legislation that hs anything in common with a religious point of view!

LOGIC ISN"T WORKING GUYS!!

this is not inflammatory it is just that the same old arguments that NEVER address the actual issue.........abortion.

later

 

[GoodMonkey]

it is not a pro-abortion position and not a pro-abortion movement. it's a pro-WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. don't twist the issue. and your assertion that the accounts of unsafe abortions performed prior to their legalization were propaganda is frightening.

i am pro-family. pro-wanted children. pro-children that will be provided for. pro-less babies in dumpsters. pro-women feeling they have a choice. that does NOT equate with pro-abortion.

Originally posted by 12R34Y
In response to purifier...........our ethics debates that occur in small groups and in a larger setting are OVERWHELMINGLY in agreement with the pro-life movement.
...
Don't you realize that ethics is a debatable subject and there is usually at least 10 ways to skin a cat.

then so why is your cat skinning, specifically, inherently correct and all other cat-skinning ways wrong, if you yourself say an ethical topic is highly debatable, implying there are no black/white right/wrong choices? you make an additional point of mine for me yourself.

Originally posted by 12R34Y
LOGIC ISN"T WORKING GUYS!!

then what do you propose we utilize? rubes and seers? i mean, come on, what makes you think that your "logic" is "working" any better. if we don't have logic, then we're back to the religious arguments on this topic, and there is no place for that in providing medical care, unless the patient SPECIFICALLY asks for a religious perspective. otherwise, you use logic and professionalism. conflict of interest, morally? remove yourself from the situation.

and purifyer: aside from all this crap, i think that you made very good points. 🙂 i've got to get out of this thread. it makes me shakingly angry.

 

[....]

Originally posted by Purifyer


I don't know how to put it in a way that won't offend. The complete rape of patients' rights excused away by some belief in your own moral superiority is... well, it's frightening. Yes, I can understand how the termination of a fetus could be morally wrong to some people. But just because you see it as morally wrong, how can you possibly assert that your morality is any more or any less worthy than the patients perception of morality? Unless you believe god has stated some 'universal morality' to which you adhere. If you said this, I would understand your view point, even if I did not agree with it. But you haven't, indeed many anti-abortion posts have criticized any link of pro life morality to religion.

Are argueing that a prolife doc should inform patients of the options without bringing his own ethics into it?

Or are you argueing that a doc should not let his conscince prevent him from preforming abortions beacuse HE didnt make the decision, he merely preformed the operation?

 

[12R34Y]

goodmonkey,

So you aren't going to believe Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former leader of the National abortion Rights Action League? in his own book?!

He wrote these things acknowleding that those outrageous claims of all kinds of deaths and illness as a result of botched abortions is hogwash!

and the U.S. buruea of vital statistics stated that there were only 39!!! deaths the year before Roe V. Wade.

these are the same tired arguments that keep getting circulated and aren't true.
it is absolutely propaganda lambasted by one of your own. a former pro abortionist

man......listen to reason.

goodmonkey you point out YET ANOTHER common and overly used arugment that pro abortion folks use. And stop arguing that it is NOT pro abortion and is pro choice..........are you or are you not supporting the choice of ABORTION! oh my goodness people.

Pro choice is a twisted deception.......

what about the baby's human rights.
rights of the parents of a pregnant minor.
rights of the BABY's FATHER.
the mother's right to accurate information about fetal development and the negative consequences of abortion.
the rights of society to protect all its members ---no matter what their social status, economica situation, or physical limitations.

You feel free to walk all over those choices, but as long as you can have your abortions legal then screw those.......am I getting this right?

later

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Goofy, mFleur,

I'll consolidate replies to both your latest posts.

I do believe that most elective abortion, except for the very earliest stages of pregnancy, will become illegal, most likely in the near future. I think that your grandchildren will be horrified that a four-month-old fetus could be aborted with few restrictions back in the day.

I'm confident of this because abortion isn't an arbitrary moral issue. If I were an orthodox Jewish doctor, I wouldn't recommend to my patients that they refrain from eating dairy with their meat. If I were a Catholic doctor, I wouldn't recommend that they attend Mass once a week. However, whatever the faith, I would do everything in my power to convince patients that abortion is a poor option: Opposition to abortion comes from moral principles universal to humanity, not from religious quirks.

Opposition to abortion isn't a moral principle universal to humanity. We wouldn't be arguing about it if it was.

It was easy to legalize abortion: the right to privacy and free choice was already enjoying a renaissance, and it was set up against essentially nonexistent science. Neonatology didn't become a viable specialty until the late 70s at the earliest.

But with the technology we have both to preserve life at an incredibly young age (again, there' sa significant survival rate well before the third trimester) and to image life, the choice is a bit starker. It's not between an abstract right and an abstract fetus anymore; it's between an abstract right and something, whatever it is, that sucks its thumb before the second trimester and smiles long before birth.

What does sucking a thumb prove? Suckling is instint to all mammals. Monkeys smile when they're angry and they're still not human. Okay, so a fetus can survive before the third trimester if we incubate it. Still not proof that it's human.

Personally, I think that's why pro-life sentiment repeatedly polls so much higher than it used to. Moreover, the general trend is the same as it's been for most practices that were ultimately discredited: at first people favor it, then as it gains a human face they express a personal opposition to it but allow for the right of others to practice it, and finally the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they can't allow the contradiction any longer.

Again, what does a face prove? A child born with anencephaly has a face, but I don't consider it to be a human being. This isn't overwhelming evidence of being human, it's just an example of how people let their emotions cloud their reasoning.

Two thousand years ago, the people in the neighboring country weren't considered human; two hundred years ago, people from Africa were considered to be exactly 3/5 of a human. Twenty years ago, a fetus was legally ruled human in thirds. America's shown a constant and welcome willingness to expand, not limit, the notion of what it means to be human, though, and there's every reason to believe that trend will continue. [/B]

Then lets just expand that thought a little more and say that sex is immoral because us men are sending millions of our little troopers to die inside the harsh acidic world of the vagina on the chance that one will survive to make it to the final destination: the coveted egg. But seriously, I think functioning frontal lobes (awareness or sentience, as one put it) are the essence of a human being. So their is no clear dividing line between human and non human, as development happens gradually. I think the laws are pretty good the way they are, allowing abortions in early pregnancy, but I wouldn't be opposed to making it legal in only the first trimester, i.e. one third of a human.

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by 12R34Y
In response to purifier...........our ethics debates that occur in small groups and in a larger setting are OVERWHELMINGLY in agreement with the pro-life movement.

It is completely accepted and mainstream practice to not refer to abortionist and to discourage the patients you are charged with care for.

Don't you realize that ethics is a debatable subject and there is usually at least 10 ways to skin a cat.

Let's tackle the "great commandment" of pro abortion movement. By the way it is pro abortion because you are for allowing abortion to occur right? does that not make you pro abortion? if you are repulsed by abortion and aren't "for it" then why are you for the choice of abortion...........don't you agree with the "choice" of abortion.....no way out of that one.

Back to the "great commandment" of the pro abortion movement.......TOLERANCE.

one of the most common arguments pro abortion folks use.

"We're not making YOU have an abortion, so why can't you be tolerant of those who choose to?".........translated........"Don't impose your antiquated morals on me."

At first it may sound reasonable, but it is still yet another weakness.......and one of the same arguments spouted ad nauseum.

"Don't like rape? Don't rape anyone.....Just don't impose your morality on me." same reasoning right?

🙄Not the same reasoning at all. I think we would all agree that rape is wrong. But obviously not all of us agree that abortion is wrong. You assume that everyone "knows" abortion is wrong. If that was true, there wouldn't be any pro-choice arguments. I don't see many pro-rapist movement.

Tolerance usually brings in a religious attack of some sort. Pro abortionists argue that government should not take one theory of life and impose it on others.
OBVOIUS PROBLEM with this......is that not only is the pro abrotion position FORCED on Christians and pro life folks, but we are also required to FUND IT!.

Amazingly, pro abortionists fail to perceive their own violation of this standard!

I don't think that chiropractic care has any scientific basis and I don't think it works for most diseases. Yet I am required to fund it through insurance premiums. That's just the way it is.

They're intolerant (extremely) of those who think tolerance is less important than preserving innocent human lives......

That's the problem with your argument. Not everyone agrees these are human lives.

Every society has the obligation to impose morals on its citizens. Toleration works in the world of expressing opinions, NOT in a crowded movie theater when someone yells, "FIRE!"

We may be tolerant of one's religious views, but not if they include enslaving grandmothers or cannibilizing teenagers. Of course society/government has to legislate that. It would be anarchy and debauchery if we didn't.

Separation of church and state does not extend to divorcing all moral values from the state........if this were the case then we would eliminate all legislation that hs anything in common with a religious point of view!

LOGIC ISN"T WORKING GUYS!!

this is not inflammatory it is just that the same old arguments that NEVER address the actual issue.........abortion.

later

Dude. Your entire argument rests upon the assumption that everyone thinks that abortion is immoral. If that were true, there wouldn't be debate on the subject! I think I illustrated that with your rape comment. That IS something that people universally consider immoral, that's why there are laws against it, and nobody is challenging it. Abortion is entirely different.

 

[m4kim]

Lets say that we forget all the religious and philosophical aspects of abortion and focus in on the current laws in this nation.
Can someone tell me why is it that if a person has an abortion, it is not considered murder, yet if person kills a pregnant mother and her fetus that person is guilty of double murder?

Also, many people claim that although they disagree with abortions, they dont agree with banning it because it infringes on the right of the woman to do as she wishes with her body. what about the right of the fetus? Why do we not consider their rights? Do they not have the ultimate right to life? Isnt that more important than anything else? Can one person's rights infringe on another persons???

one last thing...in terms of speaking of peoples rights... I believe, for most woman (excluding rape victims), that their right to chose was lost when they chose to have sex. Is it acceptable to make choices in life and not accept the consequences of the actions, especially in situations where another life is involved such as abortion?

i apologize because i know this may have offended people. In no way was i trying to attack people we believe abortion is ok, but rather to raise some questions. I welcome any remarks...maybe you can open my eyes to things i nevered considered.

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by 12R34Y
goodmonkey,

So you aren't going to believe Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former leader of the National abortion Rights Action League? in his own book?!

He wrote these things acknowleding that those outrageous claims of all kinds of deaths and illness as a result of botched abortions is hogwash!

and the U.S. buruea of vital statistics stated that there were only 39!!! deaths the year before Roe V. Wade.

these are the same tired arguments that keep getting circulated and aren't true.
it is absolutely propaganda lambasted by one of your own. a former pro abortionist

man......listen to reason.

goodmonkey you point out YET ANOTHER common and overly used arugment that pro abortion folks use. And stop arguing that it is NOT pro abortion and is pro choice..........are you or are you not supporting the choice of ABORTION! oh my goodness people.

Pro choice is a twisted deception.......

You're right. It's a matter of semantics.

what about the baby's human rights.
We don't know if they're human, therefore we can't say they have human rights.
rights of the parents of a pregnant minor.
I think minors become their own guarantors when they get knocked up and can make their own medical descisions. I could be wrong on this. Does anyone reading this know? Please, discuss.
rights of the BABY's FATHER.
I agree that the father should have some say, but this argument doesn't really adress whether abortion is right or not. I think the mother is like the co-owner of a company with 50.1% of the shares. Ultimately, the woman is right. The sooner you learn this, the better off you'll be.
the mother's right to accurate information about fetal development and the negative consequences of abortion.
Agreed. I think anyone considering abortion should consult with a psychiatrist first.
the rights of society to protect all its members ---no matter what their social status, economica situation, or physical limitations.
True. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, except to repeat your human rights for fetuses argument.

You feel free to walk all over those choices, but as long as you can have your abortions legal then screw those.......am I getting this right?

later

No. You're not getting this right. As I've just shown.

 

[....]

bear with my spelling 🙂

Originally posted by GoodMonkey
it is not a pro-abortion position and not a pro-abortion movement. it's a pro-WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. don't twist the issue. and your assertion that the accounts of unsafe abortions performed prior to their legalization were propaganda is frightening.

Everyone belives that all things being equal we should have choices over not. But it is the pro-choice camp which agrues the stronger claim that a womans (yet to be proved) right to choose overrides the fetuses (yet to be proved) right to life. No one seriously belives that the pro-choice camp is literaly pro-abortion. But neither is it true that is it simply a matter of Right to Choose. It is right to choose vs right to life.

i am pro-family. pro-wanted children. pro-children that will be provided for. pro-less babies in dumpsters. pro-women feeling they have a choice. that does NOT equate with pro-abortion.

Who isnt profamily?! Who isnt prowanted children?! Some would say that the means to achiving those aims is through resposible use of contraception instead of abortion. Some would argue that a woman chooses to throw her kid in the dumpster. Letting her kill it halfway out of the body and viable as opposed to a month later in adumpter is no solution to the problem at all. I doubt its much different to the baby.
You complain about being saddled with the title "pro-abortion" but then twist words to imply that pro-lifers are somehow less apauled by tossing kids in dumpsters than you.

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by m4kim
Lets say that we forget all the religious and philosophical aspects of abortion and focus in on the current laws in this nation.
Can someone tell me why is it that if a person has an abortion, it is not considered murder, yet if person kills a pregnant mother and her fetus that person is guilty of double murder?

It's just an example of how prosecutors use emotionally charged arguments to try and get criminals stiffer penalties. As you can see, it's quite effective.

Also, many people claim that although they disagree with abortions, they dont agree with banning it because it infringes on the right of the woman to do as she wishes with her body. what about the right of the fetus? Why do we not consider their rights? Do they not have the ultimate right to life? Isnt that more important than anything else? Can one person's rights infringe on another persons???

There is debate as to whether fetuses are human. Therefore, there is debate as to whether fetuses have human rights.

one last thing...in terms of speaking of peoples rights... I believe, for most woman (excluding rape victims), that their right to chose was lost when they chose to have sex. Is it acceptable to make choices in life and not accept the consequences of the actions, especially in situations where another life is involved such as abortion?

This is my personal reason why I wouldn't want my girlfriend to have an abortion. Using abortion as a form of birth control is pretty irresponsible. Also, since there is debate on whether and when a fetus is human, I would feel funny about chancing it and killing it. Others may be more comfortable with this chance.

i apologize because i know this may have offended people. In no way was i trying to attack people we believe abortion is ok, but rather to raise some questions. I welcome any remarks...maybe you can open my eyes to things i nevered considered.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not offended one bit 🙂 . I welcome reasoned arguments, and I've learned a lot by arguing with people on SDN.

 

[....]

Originally posted by m4kim
Also, many people claim that although they disagree with abortions, they dont agree with banning it because it infringes on the right of the woman to do as she wishes with her body. what about the right of the fetus?

We unless you can show a fetus is a person at such and such a time you will have difficulty giving it rights.

Why do we not consider their rights? Do they not have the ultimate right to life? Isnt that more important than anything else? Can one person's rights infringe on another persons???

Yes. every day rights conflict and the stronger wins. The term right to life isnt a good term really. Who really has a right to life? Who is resposible for giving it to them? I i need a kidney transplant to live are you required to give me one of your to satisfy my right to life? nope. Maybe a right to noninterferece for adults is appropriate. Maybe a right to use a mothers body is something a fetus could claim.

one last thing...in terms of speaking of peoples rights... I believe, for most woman (excluding rape victims), that their right to chose was lost when they chose to have sex. Is it acceptable to make choices in life and not accept the consequences of the actions, especially in situations where another life is involved such as abortion?

hear hear

 

[LukeWhite]

Lots of shrillness (a few notable exceptions).

I hate these arguments exactly at the point they devolve into abstractions, since people free to bandy about arguments without following them to their logical conclusion. E.g. "If it weren't a universal moral principle, we wouldn't be arguing about it." That, of course, presumes that everyone is fully aware of every universal moral principle and argues according to them at all times. Not true.

Personally, I prefer to discuss the merits of the argument on more concrete grounds, since there should be enough evidence either way. I have a few questions asked before that no one's answered yet, and I'll tack on a few more:

WOMEN'S HEALTH:

Abortion is universally safer than pregnancy, and if the abortion rate went up to 100% and the live birth rate down to 0%, fewer women would die. If the right to an abortion is premised on the woman's right to protect her own health, why shouldn't we allow termination of pregnancies at any stage?

DEPENDENCY ON THE MOTHER:

If women should be allowed to terminate any pregnancy still dependent on her for viability, at what point do we draw the percentage? Babies born two weeks premature certainly don't have a 100% survival rate; babies born at 22 weeks have about a 15% survival rate on a good day. What survival rate is sufficiently low that the mother's choice should trump the baby's chances of survival?

CHILD'S HUMANITY, FRONTAL LOBES, SENSE OF SELF, ETC.

We are, again, essentially extraembryonic fetuses for our first year of life. The child's cognitive machinery isn't fully built at birth. The sense of self (which I think would be as clear a distinguisher of humanity as anything) isn't formed for some time after birth--the baby can't distinguish herself from her surroundings. The sense of self can be objectively tested. Why not allow termination of the child until it is?

 

[omores]

Originally posted by m4kim
one last thing...in terms of speaking of peoples rights... I believe, for most woman (excluding rape victims), that their right to chose was lost when they chose to have sex. Is it acceptable to make choices in life and not accept the consequences of the actions, especially in situations where another life is involved such as abortion?

You make a good point, but unfortunately we as a species have persistently demonstrated just how poor we are at understanding and accepting the consequences of our actions. It's always easier to respond to the immediacy of a current situation than it is to factor in future concerns, no matter how dire. It's a bad way to act, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Combine this with the truly amazing amount of ignorance and misinformation that many folks have when it comes to pregnancy and contraception -- I consider myself a jaded soul, but the volunteer sex education stuff I do in local high schools and women's shelters consistently reveal misconceptions that are really eye-popping.

The add the rhapsodizing and glorifying of sex that we see on TV and in the movies. Much of this is sex without consequence, too.

The result is whole lot of unsought, possibly unwanted pregnancies.

Though I'm very much anti-abortion at a personal level, I'm reluctantly pro-choice. I believe that we as a society have gotten ourselves into a bit of a mess, and it's one that can't be cleaned up simply by outlawing abortions. To do so strikes me as shutting the barn door after the horses have fled (to use a cliche). I think that before we actively demonize abortions and the women who seek them, we need to take a hard look at ourselves -- what can we address to get us to the point where the unplanned pregnancies don't happen in the first place?

 

[12R34Y]

you just agreed with almost everything i said and you still don't get it.

you pointed out nothing......you simply detracted from the actual issue aborting babies. attack away and detract from the real issue.........just another tactic. all too common.

1/3 human.......that is laughable.

later

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Lots of shrillness (a few notable exceptions).

😕


I hate these arguments exactly at the point they devolve into abstractions, since people free to bandy about arguments without following them to their logical conclusion. E.g. "If it weren't a universal moral principle, we wouldn't be arguing about it." That, of course, presumes that everyone is fully aware of every universal moral principle and argues according to them at all times. Not true.

I said that if it WERE a universal moral principle then there wouldn't be any argument. Are you saying that being against abortion is a universal moral principle, but we just don't know it? Isn't that begging the question? Last time I checked, morality was an established version of what's right and wrong. Well, whether abortion is right or wrong (obviously) hasn't been established yet. 🙂

Personally, I prefer to discuss the merits of the argument on more concrete grounds, since there should be enough evidence either way. I have a few questions asked before that no one's answered yet, and I'll tack on a few more:

WOMEN'S HEALTH:

Abortion is universally safer than pregnancy, and if the abortion rate went up to 100% and the live birth rate down to 0%, fewer women would die. If the right to an abortion is premised on the woman's right to protect her own health, why shouldn't we allow termination of pregnancies at any stage?

I'm sure this wasn't meant for me, since I never argued in favor of abortion on the grounds of its health benefits (which are arguable as well).

DEPENDENCY ON THE MOTHER:

If women should be allowed to terminate any pregnancy still dependent on her for viability, at what point do we draw the percentage? Babies born two weeks premature certainly don't have a 100% survival rate; babies born at 22 weeks have about a 15% survival rate on a good day. What survival rate is sufficiently low that the mother's choice should trump the baby's chances of survival?

ibid

CHILD'S HUMANITY, FRONTAL LOBES, SENSE OF SELF, ETC.

We are, again, essentially extraembryonic fetuses for our first year of life. The child's cognitive machinery isn't fully built at birth. The sense of self (which I think would be as clear a distinguisher of humanity as anything) isn't formed for some time after birth--the baby can't distinguish herself from her surroundings. The sense of self can be objectively tested. Why not allow termination of the child until it is? [/B]

I give up, why not?

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Lots of shrillness (a few notable exceptions).

I hate these arguments exactly at the point they devolve into abstractions, since people free to bandy about arguments without following them to their logical conclusion. E.g. "If it weren't a universal moral principle, we wouldn't be arguing about it." That, of course, presumes that everyone is fully aware of every universal moral principle and argues according to them at all times. Not true.

It also presumes there are universal moral principles, which I equate with a religious worldview. (Because if you don't believe in God, like myself, then what force, exactly, is establishing these universal rules which apparently exist independently of the human mind?) This is why every abortion debate DOES, ultimately, come down to a religious debate, whether you want to admit it or not. Because it always boils down to "Well, it's just fundamentally wrong, can't you see that?"

WOMEN'S HEALTH:

Abortion is universally safer than pregnancy, and if the abortion rate went up to 100% and the live birth rate down to 0%, fewer women would die. If the right to an abortion is premised on the woman's right to protect her own health, why shouldn't we allow termination of pregnancies at any stage?

Sounds good to me.

DEPENDENCY ON THE MOTHER:

If women should be allowed to terminate any pregnancy still dependent on her for viability, at what point do we draw the percentage? Babies born two weeks premature certainly don't have a 100% survival rate; babies born at 22 weeks have about a 15% survival rate on a good day. What survival rate is sufficiently low that the mother's choice should trump the baby's chances of survival?

The whole "when can a baby survive outside the womb?" question is, to me, completely nonsensical. I have no idea why anybody thinks viability has anything to do with anything. Someday the technology will exist to remove a fertilized embryo at two weeks and support the entire development process in a laboratory. So then will all the people who support abortion up until the point of viability believe that the moral scene had suddenly changed? Viability is a purely biomechanical issue of no relevance, IMO, to any deeper question of morality.

CHILD'S HUMANITY, FRONTAL LOBES, SENSE OF SELF, ETC.

We are, again, essentially extraembryonic fetuses for our first year of life. The child's cognitive machinery isn't fully built at birth. The sense of self (which I think would be as clear a distinguisher of humanity as anything) isn't formed for some time after birth--the baby can't distinguish herself from her surroundings. The sense of self can be objectively tested. Why not allow termination of the child until it is?

Theoretically: yeah, why not? Practically: because after birth, the development of "sense of self" is certainly entirely unpredictable.

Most pro-lifer's arguments resemble this: "Situation A is obviously completely unacceptable. But according to a pro-choicer's philosophy, Situation A is okay! ERGO, pro-choice is wrong!" You can't use your own conclusions to argue why your conclusions are correct.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by 12R34Y
In response to purifier...........our ethics debates that occur in small groups and in a larger setting are OVERWHELMINGLY in agreement with the pro-life movement.

Well, at my school it's the other way around. I'm not going to try to use that as any sort of "evidence" for my viewpoint.

 

[lattimer13]

i can't believe i bit at this🙁 . i'm sure many didn't agree with my argument and i know i don't agree with many of your pro-life arguments. let's just agree to disagree since we all probably have better things to do on this fine weekend. i'm out.😎

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by lattimer13
i can't believe i bit at this🙁 . i'm sure many didn't agree with my argument and i know i don't agree with many of your pro-life arguments. let's just agree to disagree. i'm out.

A very sensible idea. I'm going to have a beer.

 

[mfleur]

Someone answer my question...Does it even matter if we make abortion illegal if people will just be able to illegally obtain RU486 and do it themselves with little to no contact with a health care provider?

 

[Elysium]

The thing I find interesting about these absurd abortion debates is that the people who are most vocally anti-choice are men. Not that there aren't anti-choice women as well, god knows there are. But when I used to work at the abortion clinic there were always a lot more men out there yelling insults at us than women. Just a coincidence? Don't think so. Men are so very good at sticking themselves in an issue that is really only marginally about them. Oh, I know, you zealots, that men and women are equally responsible for the child at least from a biological basis, but I think we all know that women will be forced to be the primary caregiver for the child while the male will follow his biological imperative to impregnate as many female as possible. That's the nature of reproduction as any biologist will tell you. So now what?

Look guys, you're never, ever going to know what it is like to carry a child inside your body for nearly 10 months, what is obligated of you as a mother. There's a difference. ANd I think that men who vehemently oppose the autonomous decision of the person who is carrying this fetus are very suspect. I pray to god that I'm never in Kansas City, BTW. What a ****ing nightmare that place must be.

Also, I will be performing abortions because I trust my patients. I am pro-autonomy.

 

[idq1i]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
.......I'm amazed by how otherwise subtle and intelligent people can become so illogical when they're arguing that physicians should be obligated to facilitate abortion. This dogma of unfettered choice is a sham. .....

And I am amazed when anti-abortion, right-wing loonies try to shove their opinions down everyones' throats.

You are going into a profession where you are required to provide your patients with medically acceptable treatment options. Whether you like it or not, abortion is one of these procedures. We can argue until we are blue in the face about the social/religious/moral/political ramifications of this, so I will not try to argue these points with you or with any other antiabortionist.

If you want to further your agenda through your position, you picked the wrong profession. Perhaps social work is more befitting of your views

 

[Purifyer]

Originally posted by 12R34Y
In response to purifier...........our ethics debates that occur in small groups and in a larger setting are OVERWHELMINGLY in agreement with the pro-life movement.

Well that's hardly a debate then is it.

It is completely accepted and mainstream practice to not refer to abortionist and to discourage the patients you are charged with care for.

You seem to have missed my point. I am not asking you to refer to an abortionist. I am asking you to realise you are in no position to care for a patient in this situation. Read my last post as to why. I am asking you to refer to another doctor who then can decide if he should refer to an abortionist or not.

Completely accepted and mainstream? Umm. If it is completely accepted why are we arguing?

Don't you realize that ethics is a debatable subject and there is usually at least 10 ways to skin a cat.

You seemed to have missed my point again, this is my point. Ethics is a debatable subject. Why are your ethical views any more valid than your patients ethical views?

Let's tackle the "great commandment" of pro abortion movement. By the way it is pro abortion because you are for allowing abortion to occur right? does that not make you pro abortion? if you are repulsed by abortion and aren't "for it" then why are you for the choice of abortion...........don't you agree with the "choice" of abortion.....no way out of that one.

No I am not pro abortion. As I doctor I will have a choice of various treatments, A-Z. Merely because I weigh up the pros and cons of all treatments, and decide (with the patients help) on which one is more suited for my patients needs, does not make me PRO TREATMENT OPTION "F". I will not force my views onto others, if an abortion is a viable treatment option, then it will be discussed.

You however, would never even consider abortion (or in my example, option F) even if it is in the best biopsychosocial interests of the patient. This makes you anti-abortion.

"We're not making YOU have an abortion, so why can't you be tolerant of those who choose to?".........translated........"Don't impose your antiquated morals on me."

At first it may sound reasonable, but it is still yet another weakness.......and one of the same arguments spouted ad nauseum.

"Don't like rape? Don't rape anyone.....Just don't impose your morality on me." same reasoning right?

No, this is not the same reasoning. (i) Rape has no potential benefit to the patient, abortion has (POTENTIAL - I'm not saying it is good or bad) benefit (ii) Rape is the same as anti-abortion in some respects; it is done completely rejecting the autonomy of the person, giving someone the option of abortion gives them autonomy. (iii) Rape is illegal. Abortion is not. (iv) Why do you feel the need to impose your morality on anyone? I'm not imposing my morality on you, merely trying to make you realise that just because a patients views differ to yours, does not make those views wrong.

Tolerance usually brings in a religious attack of some sort. Pro abortionists argue that government should not take one theory of life and impose it on others.
OBVOIUS PROBLEM with this......is that not only is the pro abrotion position FORCED on Christians and pro life folks, but we are also required to FUND IT!.
Amazingly, pro abortionists fail to perceive their own violation of this standard!

No this is not a double standard. No one is forcing a good christian to have an abortion. You are however implying that good christians should be able to force others not to have an abortion. Do you not see the arrogance here? Why is their morality ANY better than anyone elses? I think I have repeated this many times but noone has answered.

As I have said before, I am not a pro abortionist, the very word is laughable... What am I going to do, go running around hospitals spiking patients' drinks with abortifacients?

We are not your enemy. Stop seeing things in black and white. Those who support patient's right to choose don't have to support the patient's actions.

Every society has the obligation to impose morals on its citizens. Toleration works in the world of expressing opinions, NOT in a crowded movie theater when someone yells, "FIRE!"

Why? Every society has the obligation to enact laws to prevent the reduction in liberty of her citizens from murder, crime, oppression. If you are a transgressor of law, you will be punished accordingly. Society has the obligation to follow the laws.

Separation of church and state does not extend to divorcing all moral values from the state........if this were the case then we would eliminate all legislation that hs anything in common with a religious point of view!

What, are you against masturbation as well? Anal sex? Oral sex? What if a homosexual man needs your help as a doctor, he needs you to educate him about safe sex. Are you going to tell him that homosexual sex is wrong? Pressure him into meeting some hairy girls instead?

LOGIC ISN"T WORKING GUYS!!

No logic is working. You are simply in a mindset in which you will not listen to reason. I am not asking you to change your morality... why should I. I am merely asking you to recognise that you cannot possibly care for pregnant women who need help. This does not make you a bad doctor.

An example:

I am against minors having sex. I believe it is wrong. If a teenage female came to me requesting contraception, I may not give her the proper advice, and I may not prescribe the best treatment for her (remember she is the one who needs treatment, not us). Right from the start I would be reluctant to give advice or even offer contraception... I do not want to condone something I find morally repulsive.

We are in exactly the same boat 12R34Y! The difference is, I realise that my morality is neither better or worse than hers. I realise, if I act in a bigotted and morally superior manner, I will be indirectly harming her health (she would leave without contraception, or any idea about 'safe sex'). In this situation I realise my own limitations, and would instantly refer her to a more open minded doctor.

I'm not saying your views are right or wrong. I'm merely saying you have a clearly vested interest in avoiding certain treatments even if they are in the patient's best interest. This will mean patient care IS compromised.

You sound like someone who genuinely cares about people. Why would you then knowingly advise patients on issues in which you know you have a conflict of interest? If you honestly care about your patients and their unborn children, please realise your limitations as a human.

B][/QUOTE]

 

[....]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite


WOMEN'S HEALTH:

Abortion is universally safer than pregnancy, and if the abortion rate went up to 100% and the live birth rate down to 0%, fewer women would die. If the right to an abortion is premised on the woman's right to protect her own health, why shouldn't we allow termination of pregnancies at any stage?

Nobody defend abortion on the basis of a womans personal right to life. Unless your nuts, if a pregnancy directly threatens the mothers life, you get rid of it.

We are, again, essentially extraembryonic fetuses for our first year of life. The child's cognitive machinery isn't fully built at birth. The sense of self (which I think would be as clear a distinguisher of humanity as anything) isn't formed for some time after birth--the baby can't distinguish herself from her surroundings. The sense of self can be objectively tested. Why not allow termination of the child until it is?

Who says sense of self is the end all be all of personhood?

 

[GoodMonkey]

Originally posted by hightrump
Who isnt profamily?! Who isnt prowanted children?! Some would say that the means to achiving those aims is through resposible use of contraception instead of abortion. Some would argue that a woman chooses to throw her kid in the dumpster. Letting her kill it halfway out of the body and viable as opposed to a month later in adumpter is no solution to the problem at all. I doubt its much different to the baby.
You complain about being saddled with the title "pro-abortion" but then twist words to imply that pro-lifers are somehow less apauled by tossing kids in dumpsters than you.

no, i'm not twisting words to imply that. sorry if i gave you that impression. i was trying to make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. i was not making any implications about the pro-life point of view - read back on my post; i don't think i mention the word "pro-life" even once. i was trying to prove that you can be "pro-life" and still believe strongly in upholding a woman's right to choose for herself what is right for her. (and i think "pro-life" is a dumb phrase as well, because it implies that one in favor of a woman's right to choose is diametrically opposed to life, i.e. pro-death.) i was also trying to point out that there may be, just may be benefits to allowing women to choose whether or not bringing a child into this world would be right for her, mentally, emotionally, physically, and socially, and that maybe, just MAYBE if we took away her right to make this choice, we might end up with more babies in dumpsters, more children left at church doors, more unwanted, unloved children in this world.

people can talk all they want about the "right" and "wrong" thing to do, but at the end of the day, what you think is right or wrong is not going to matter, in the big scheme of society. why? because there are going to be people out there doin' it and making babies they don't want anyway. this is something we will never be able to stop. it's human nature. if you believe every one of these babies (ranging from teenage pregnancy babies, to wives with 5 children already out of the house, really not wanting any more, to crack babies) will be adopted into loving homes, that's just not going to happen. and our foster/adoption system in this country would be too overburdened for it (if it isn't already - have you ever SEEN the number of children waiting for foster homes??) anyway, my point is, i'm all in favor of giving women the right to terminate a pregancy - early - SAFELY, because if you make it illegal, some of those women may either terminate illegally, or have the baby and dump it, or what have you ... making the abortion illegal is NOT going to stop people from having sex and making babies when they're not ready for them, and it is NOT going to stop people from seeking illegal/unsafe ones elsewhere. trust me. as a woman in general, and as a woman who has worked in free clinics/planned parenthood type clinics, i can tell you that it won't.

and by the way, "responsible use of contraception" can also result in unintentional pregnancy. sex makes babies. no contraception except abstinence is 100% effective. babies are made w/contraception being in full force and properly used.

 

[GoodMonkey]

anyway, round and round we go. i think i said all i want on this subject. my mind is not going to change, and neither are those who think differently then me. so it's time to go do some work. have a nice night, folks. 🙂

 

[....]

Originally posted by sacrament

The whole "when can a baby survive outside the womb?" question is, to me, completely nonsensical. I have no idea why anybody thinks viability has anything to do with anything. Someday the technology will exist to remove a fertilized embryo at two weeks and support the entire development process in a laboratory. So then will all the people who support abortion up until the point of viability believe that the moral scene had suddenly changed? Viability is a purely biomechanical issue of no relevance, IMO, to any deeper question of morality.

I have no quams with abortion in the case of rape. This is because the woman did not agree to let the baby use her body. So even if the baby was fully aware person, she could remove it, becuase it has no right to her body. (I would argue that through consensual sex you would have tacidly agreed to this). But if the baby could live WITHOUT your body than you have do right to kill it. Anyway, viabilty can be relevent depending on the nature of your argument. So yes, a mother whos baby can be taken out of her has no right to then go into the lab and kill it.
(maybe its really not a person and can be killed anyway, but within the confines of the argument at hand, no she cant.)

There is the famous violinist example which is nearly airtight describing the right to ones body. heard about it?

 

[....]

Originally posted by GoodMonkey
no, i'm not twisting words to imply that. sorry if i gave you that impression. i was trying to make a distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. i was not making any implications about the pro-life point of view - read back on my post; i don't think i mention the word "pro-life" even once. i was trying to prove that you can be "pro-life" and still believe strongly in upholding a woman's right to choose for herself what is right for her. (and i think "pro-life" is a dumb phrase as well, because it implies that one in favor of a woman's right to choose is diametrically opposed to life, i.e. pro-death.)

ok cool....and yes pro life is a stupid term as well.

i was also trying to point out that there may be, just may be benefits to allowing women to choose whether or not bringing a child into this world would be right for her, mentally, emotionally, physically, and socially, and that maybe, just MAYBE if we took away her right to make this choice, we might end up with more babies in dumpsters, more children left at church doors, more unwanted, unloved children in this world.

Your statments seem nice....
But flesh out the argument.
1) an abortion is better for the mother that doesnt want the baby.

response)) sure, and killing homeless people and repeat felons would be better for those of us who dont want them. That is not SUFFICENT reason to allow it. ONLY by ALREADY denying that the baby is a person can your "its better for the mother" argument hold water.
maybe fetuses arnt people, i dont know. But your argument is meaningless without that determination.

2) its beter for the child to be killed since it MIGHT wind up unloved or dying in a dumpster anyway.

response)) first...to think that the majority of people who would have had abortions but were thwarted by the law would go on to toss their babies in the dumpter in ludacris and i hope you not making that claim or any like it. And for the sake of argument, lets say a grant you that it is true that they will wind up unwanted and neglected, so you REALLY think thats worse than death??

I mean to quilckly read you post makes it seem like the world would be a better place without these babies and maybe your right. But it would not be better FOR the babies and that is an important consideration.

Our country would be better off if we could painlessly kill all of the homeless and elderly who have no family and only burden society....but it would not be better FOR THEM....and that makes all the differnece. Personaly i would take my chances in a dumpster than with an abortion doctors knife.

people can talk all they want about the "right" and "wrong" thing to do, but at the end of the day, what you think is right or wrong is not going to matter, in the big scheme of society. why? because there are going to be people out there doin' it and making babies they don't want anyway. this is something we will never be able to stop. it's human nature. if you believe every one of these babies (ranging from teenage pregnancy babies, to wives with 5 children already out of the house, really not wanting any more, to crack babies) will be adopted into loving homes, that's just not going to happen. and our foster/adoption system in this country would be too overburdened for it (if it isn't already - have you ever SEEN the number of children waiting for foster homes??) anyway, my point is, i'm all in favor of giving women the right to terminate a pregancy - early - SAFELY, because if you make it illegal, some of those women may either terminate illegally, or have the baby and dump it, or what have you ... making the abortion illegal is NOT going to stop people from having sex and making babies when they're not ready for them, and it is NOT going to stop people from seeking illegal/unsafe ones elsewhere. trust me. as a woman in general, and as a woman who has worked in free clinics/planned parenthood type clinics, i can tell you that it won't.

and by the way, "responsible use of contraception" can also result in unintentional pregnancy. sex makes babies. no contraception except abstinence is 100% effective. babies are made w/contraception being in full force and properly used.

Again, same stuff as before....disregarding morality for social convinience.

 

[....]

from sacrement

It also presumes there are universal moral principles, which I equate with a religious worldview. (Because if you don't believe in God, like myself, then what force, exactly, is establishing these universal rules which apparently exist independently of the human mind?) This is why every abortion debate DOES, ultimately, come down to a religious debate, whether you want to admit it or not. Because it always boils down to "Well, it's just fundamentally wrong, can't you see that?"

christ.

You think the only way to arrive at morality is through religion?


Pain is bad right? I mean, you must agree with that....

We as humans have the ability to understand that some of our actions cause pain.

This gives us the responisiblity to avoid causing pain if we can.

That is bedrock...there is nothing simpler....
Whats water? Molecules. what a are molecules? atoms, what are atoms, quarks...ect ect ect...
Well none of that here.
If you cannot understand why causing others pain is bad there is no simpler rational that it can be broken down into for you.
You either get it, or you dont.
Even the ideas about why to obey god eventual distill down to....cause it causes god pain to disobey or god will cause you pain if you disobey.
Thats it.

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by mfleur
Someone answer my question...Does it even matter if we make abortion illegal if people will just be able to illegally obtain RU486 and do it themselves with little to no contact with a health care provider?

Hey, does anyone else find the name of that drug ironic?

Was it planned that way?

RU 4 86?

Think about it

 

[LukeWhite]

Good...some of this is productive, the nasty name-calling aside. I think the value of these debates is less to change the minds of those debating than to make positions more clearer and to force people to state their beliefs to logical extremes.

So: on the one hand you have Luke's extreme:

No abortion except when the life of the mother is in significant danger or before the last possible point of twinning. No exceptions for rape or incest. Barring such restrictions, no personal recommendations or referrals for abortions, and to the contrary, exhaustive efforts to discourage abortions and to promote alternatives through adoption and enhanced social care. All this based on the notion that certain principles are universal and absolute, irrespective of religion or philosophy.

On the other hand, the sacrament extreme:

Abortion permitted for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, with no regard for fetal viability. No problems with partial birth abortion or the like, since "theoretically" it's fine to kill children after their born up to a point. Practically, the only reason we don't do this is that birth is a more convenient line. All this based on the idea that there are no absolute rights and wrongs, that morality is a social construct that can change at whim.

I'm glad to see that someone has the wherewithal to take the argument to its logical ends; sacrament's is the only I've seen so far that's based on some sort of real and defensible principle. It's actually very chic to argue for limited infanticide after birth these days. A few prominent US Senators even got roped into it when they were goaded in following their pro-abortion positions to logical extremes.

I'd be very comfortable putting those two worldviews in a referendum. I'm fairly confident which side would prevail.

Goofy: a side-note on the women's health issue. I didn't say that it was a life issue. Rather, it's overall HEALTHIER for women to abort than to carry a child to term. This alone should force those who advocate allowing abortions when the woman's health is at risk to also advocate allowing abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

Mfleur: Whether or not the issue becomes irrelevant, I think there is an overall good accomplished by terminating pregnancies earlier rather than late, if they must be terminated. So if outlawing most abortion leads to an underground industry of providing RU-486 for early termination of pregnancy, more the better.

As for those casting about the "zealot" and "men have it easy" cliches, I'm not denying your right to do so, but it might be a bit more effective to drop the rote lines. They're old news. If I'm a zealot, force me to say something overzealous; if I'm an ignorant man who knows nothing about the travails of pregnancy and does nothing to help, elicit evidence for that. Let's get more concrete. Evidence and logic are good; rhetoric's dull.

 

[Goofyone]

Goofy: a side-note on the women's health issue. I didn't say that it was a life issue. Rather, it's overall HEALTHIER for women to abort than to carry a child to term. This alone should force those who advocate allowing abortions when the woman's health is at risk to also advocate allowing abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

I wasn't arguing with you on this. I never justified abortion by relating it to health benefits of the mother.

I'm glad to see that someone has the wherewithal to take the argument to its logical ends; sacrament's is the only I've seen so far that's based on some sort of real and defensible principle. It's actually very chic to argue for limited infanticide after birth these days. A few prominent US Senators even got roped into it when they were goaded in following their pro-abortion positions to logical extremes

Sacrament said the same thing I did. I never argued against infanticide.

The bottom line is this: The chance an egg is a human is zero before fertilization, and approaches 100% as the child reaches developmental milestones. To say that abortion, especially in the early stages of pregnancy, is immoral and is tantamount to killing a human is sheer speculation, and cannot be proven. Thus, a law forbidding such acts is ill-reasoned, and should not, in my opinion, be enacted based on these assumptions.

PS. I liked the RU486 thing so much, I added it to my signature!

 

[....]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
On the other hand, the sacrament extreme:

Abortion permitted for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, with no regard for fetal viability. No problems with partial birth abortion or the like, since "theoretically" it's fine to kill children after their born up to a point. Practically, the only reason we don't do this is that birth is a more convenient line. All this based on the idea that there are no absolute rights and wrongs, that morality is a social construct that can change at whim.

I'm glad to see that someone has the wherewithal to take the argument to its logical ends; sacrament's is the only I've seen so far that's based on some sort of real and defensible principle.

your impressed by cultural relativism?

 

[LukeWhite]

Well, not impressed by cultural relativism, per se, but rather by the willingness to take relativism to its logical extremes. But it seems other are too. Goofy has also made the impressive and brave claim that he never argued against infanticide. One person's a quirk; two's a movement!

 

[....]

Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
Well, not impressed by cultural relativism, per se, but rather by the willingness to take relativism to its logical extremes. But it seems other are too. Goofy has also made the impressive and brave claim that he never argued against infanticide. One person's a quirk; two's a movement!

i suppose your right, at least people have the nuts to agrue their claims to their logical culmination. Which is more sanity than can be expected around here.

 

[Street Philosopher]

The slippery slope is not merely hypothetical....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/international/asia/26INDI.html

For the last 20 years, local parents in search of a son, a prize in Indian culture, have taken advantage of a mixture of technology and tradition to bear their child of choice. They have used ultrasound machines to determine the sex of the fetus growing in the mother's womb. If the fetus is male, the parents keep it, census figures suggest. If it is female, they often abort it.

 

[LukeWhite]

Ah, conundrum! Women's right to choose vs. misogyny. Will the disproportionate number of males born lead to the next generation outlawing abortion because of the male inability to fully appreciate the difficulties of pregnancy? (Not to mention their irritation at not having a population sufficient for marrying on a 1:1 ratio) Will the excess allow for a larger army and less downside if war with, say, China (which has an identical problem) erupts?

Supply and demand...it gets so terribly ugly when there's no morality to keep it in check.