Abortion limit time for change ?

[Deleted User X18H]

Seems a strange answer to the question 'Is it time for serious and sound debate?'

Sorry I meant except in extreme cases ie rape abortions should not happen at all ever.

 

[El Presidente]

There has been research that has questioned the accuracy of the Freakonomics conclusions by the author of the book 'More Guns, Less Crime', I wonder if the author is a Republican?

 

[El Presidente]

Sorry I meant except in extreme cases ie rape abortions should not happen at all ever.

So you would prevent abortions when

1: There is DNA evidence from an amnio that the child may be born disabled and in extreme pain
2: The condom splits, it's a one night stand with someone you have never met before


Life's all about opinions.....

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

There has been research that has questioned the accuracy of the Freakonomics conclusions by the author of the book 'More Guns, Less Crime', I wonder if the author is a Republican?

not the paper I read so can't comment. You are aware no doubt, that the gun lobby transcends US politics. The Democrats in the Southern States are mainly all anti-gun control. Anyway, not all Republican writers are arses - just most of them. P J O'Rourke has always been a fantastic writer.

 

[drew]

Personally I would be against abortion except for serious medical defects however I believe it is not up to me to impose my views on those in other situations. Having said that, something should be done about women who routinely use it as a form of contraception. Make them pay for future procedures through higher taxes or something.

The debate about the limit is not that clear cut. Abortion is legal virtually right up until full term but this would be when there is extreme medical conditions. In 2007 there were 136 falling into this category out of 200,000 in that year.

The current limit is 24 weeks however very few are carried out after 20 weeks and in order to consider the merits you need to have a breakdown of the reasons for those late terminations. According to Wikipedia (not 100% reliable) the rate of abortions over 20 weeks in the UK was 0.8%. So, based on the 2007 figures that is 1,600. However, there is, as far as I am aware, no publicly available breakdown of the reasons for those. However, it is likely that the vast majority of these were for medical grounds rather than lifestyle choices.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

So you would prevent abortions when

1: There is DNA evidence from an amnio that the child may be born disabled and in extreme pain

Life's all about opinions.....

If you Trisonomy mean 21 or Downs then NO an abortion should not take place especially on the evidence of the 13 week scan.IMO

However nor in my opinion should one be carried out after the CVS or Amniocentesis show Downs.

 

[El Presidente]

Which does make me wonder if your claim that more abortions = less crime is inadvertently making a case for some sort of eugenics.

It does make the case that unwanted children are more likely to commit crime than those who are wanted, which is not quite the same as selective 'improvement' of the gene pool, as you could end up with The Midwich Cuckoos scenario

 

[mistahclarke]

I do find this woman's right to choose argument flawed. I wouldn't have thought that her life was any more or less precious than the life she's carrying. Just my view though and not trying to preach.

my argument would be social and financial, some children may be actually better off not being born, if they are coming into a life of poverty or abuse.

 

[El Presidente]

not the paper I read so can't comment. You are aware no doubt, that the gun lobby transcends US politics. The Democrats in the Southern States are mainly all anti-gun control. Anyway, not all Republican writers are arses - just most of them. P J O'Rourke has always been a fantastic writer.

I think you may have read Christopher Foote's article which is a good reply to Levitt's original suggestion.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

It does make the case that unwanted children are more likely to commit crime than those who are wanted, which is not quite the same as selective 'improvement' of the gene pool, as you could end up with The Midwich Cuckoos scenario

Unwanted children are more likely to be criminals? The way I read Freakonomics was that it was POOR children brought up by single mothers (especially inner city black mothers) struggling to cope that were more likely to commit crime. The type of anti-social crimes that Ed Koch was taking the credit for beating.

 

[El Presidente]

my argument would be social and financial, some children may be actually better off not being born, if they are coming into a life of poverty or abuse.

...or parents who support Palace

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

my argument would be social and financial, some children may be actually better off not being born, if they are coming into a life of poverty or abuse.

Sorry, I don't buy that. That really is eugenics.

 

[mistahclarke]

well is it more humane to abort or let your child die of starvation while you spend all your money on crack?

 

[El Presidente]

Unwanted children are more likely to be criminals? The way I read Freakonomics was that it was POOR children brought up by single mothers (especially inner city black mothers) struggling to cope that were more likely to commit crime. The type of anti-social crimes that Ed Koch was taking the credit for beating.

I agree with you about the demographics and link to poverty. Roe v Wade however gave these mothers a chance to not have children.

If you lock people up for longer, it certainly prevents them committing offences, but the cost of incarceration to the public purse is very high. Depends whether those costs exceed the costs of the crimes committed by the miscreants.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

well is it more humane to abort or let your child die of starvation while you spend all your money on crack?

How many children of crack addicts actually starve? I'd say that it would be front page news if it ever happened. I can't recall ever hearing of such a case (involving a crack addict). In almost all cases social services are involved from a very early stage and in most cases do a very decent job of rescuing the child.

So - what's the criteria then. Just as a rough guide, how much money should a parent(s) be bringing in for them to be allowed to have a child in your opinion?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Abortion is a common day contraception now. A strain on the state.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

I agree with you about the demographics and link to poverty. Roe v Wade however gave these mothers a chance to not have children.

If you lock people up for longer, it certainly prevents them committing offences, but the cost of incarceration to the public purse is very high. Depends whether those costs exceed the costs of the crimes committed by the miscreants.

Prevention is always cheaper than cure but the paper I read (must try and find it) was aimed specifically at inner city USA and it referred to not enough black role models outside of sport, entertainment and (worryingly) crime, a failure by poor urban black men to take responsibility for raising their children, a failure by schools to address specific problems of poor young black boys (lack of father figure, gang culture, mental and sociological problems addressed incorrectly if at all). A failure of the system to give black boys aspirations or a credible route of escape from their very humble origins.

Roe v Wade was a victory (apparently) for white middle-class America and the strong feminist lobby at the time. It never engaged black women, was never intended for them and even now many black women (according to this paper) see motherhood as an escape for them from their own loneliness, poverty etc etc.

As I say, directed at a USA audience but the parallels with the UK are there.

 

[mistahclarke]

How many children of crack addicts actually starve? I'd say that it would be front page news if it ever happened. I can't recall ever hearing of such a case (involving a crack addict). In almost all cases social services are involved from a very early stage and in most cases do a very decent job of rescuing the child.

So - what's the criteria then. Just as a rough guide, how much money should a parent(s) be bringing in for them to be allowed to have a child in your opinion?

Just using a worse case scenario, which is admitedly unlikely in the UK.

I wouldn't set a criteria, hence the original point I felt the parents were best judged to make an informed decision. Which is the point, how can someone else make the judgement call? It's a bit like defining when is someone an adult or of a mental age capable with dealing with the emotions of having sex for the first time.

For the record, as a Catholic I used to be highly against abortion, but changed my views as I became a bit more aware of real live situations from people I've met, when circumstances have dealt a shit hand. My religion means my cousin has a child from when she was raped as a 15 year old, a constant reminder of that night. How can the Pope know how she feels every day?

You can look at things many ways though, like when does a foetus become a human being? Because some may feel I am a mass murderer for wasting my sperm.

Anyway, bit too serious for NSC for me.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

Just using a worse case scenario, which is admitedly unlikely in the UK.

I wouldn't set a criteria, hence the original point I felt the parents were best judged to make an informed decision. Which is the point, how can someone else make the judgement call? It's a bit like defining when is someone an adult or of a mental age capable with dealing with the emotions of having sex for the first time.

For the record, as a Catholic I used to be highly against abortion, but changed my views as I became a bit more aware of real live situations from people I've met, when circumstances have dealt a shit hand. My religion means my cousin has a child from when she was raped as a 15 year old, a constant reminder of that night. How can the Pope know how she feels every day?

You can look at things many ways though, like when does a foetus become a human being? Because some may feel I am a mass murderer for wasting my sperm.

Anyway, bit too serious for NSC for me.

Agreed. Too many questions that I don't have answers for. That's me out of it too, Cheers.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I do find this woman's right to choose argument flawed. I wouldn't have thought that her life was any more or less precious than the life she's carrying. Just my view though and not trying to preach.

People can be very selective about what life should be protected and what is seen as acceptable to kill for whatever reason - There is already a wide ranging debate about killing the animals for food, clothing etc and some people have chosen not to have anything to do with by products from animals as a result (everyone has that choice)

However what about things like parasites etc, that people might contract from time to time such as Head lice for example - so should people be forced to endure them as technically its life that they are carrying and therefore no more or less precious than the human host, or should people have the choice to treat and kill them or not? - same thing goes for other things like bed bugs, should people be stopped from taking steps to control numbers or maybe even be made to provide ideal breeding condictions so they can thrive.

Is the difference that one is human life and therefore seen as more valuable and the other types of life are seen as being insignificant? Usally people who choose to abort don't take the issue lightly and decide that there is a good and valid reason for a termination - but do things like head lice etc get the same fore-thought and consideration?


Also I suspect its a bit of an urban myth that there are people who deliberately set out to use abortion just as a means of contraception - surely there are easier, safer and less traumatic alternatives than someone deciding to get pregnant, wait 20 odd weeks and then get it terminated?