Alternatives to Abortion

[Great Nepal]

-deleated-

[Dyakovo]

It CAN be. If those women want the help and are able to get it, fantastic. Many women don't want the baby. Period. Full stop. End of story. No clinic is going to be able to offer the support for that. It also doesn't combat the issue of medical necessity.

Right, I understand your points and don't disagree with them. However, there are a lot of women who give up having their baby for reasons other than medical necessity, no desire for the baby, or something like rape and incest. So while we need to keep abortion a viable option for women in those cases, we also need to address the issue of women who give up their pregnancy based on fear or economic status. Most of these women would make good mothers, if they only knew that there would be people there to help them.

I don't know about most, but it is a good point regardless.

[Dyakovo]

There are approximately 565,000 children in foster care, of which 134,000 are awaiting adoption. [1]
Approximately 51,000 American children are adopted each year. [2]
The are approximately 1,370,000 abortions are performed each year. [3]

Considering these details, how exactly do you expect adoption to be a viable alternative to a woman having an abortion?

These details have nothing to do with the viability of adoption. The fact of the matter is, abortion kills.. Adoption doesn't.. Anyway, everyone that I know that is adopted is happy. Those that are aborted..... Not so much.

Yes, they do have something to do with the viability of adoption as an alternative to abortion. Please learn how to read.

[Norstal]

Yup. It's in the first line. Thanks, I've always been wary when people refer to fetuses as "parasites", but I've never really had a counter-argument not based on my own version of common sense (which is still and all not fact). Thanks for motivating me to look it up, and providing a vital clue, lol.

[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Parasite]Or Perhaps not?
Parasite:- –noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.[/url]

Arrrr, different species. Whatever. Its still not the same thing as fetuses are still the same species, only incapable of thought.

[Dyakovo]

Or not. I have a right to bodily integrity and to determine if, when, and how I will start my family.

Personally, I think the children's rights matter a great deal more here than the specifics of someone's desire to start a family.

Children's rights have nothing to do with abortion...

[Great Nepal]

Arrrr, different species. Whatever. Its still not the same thing as fetuses are still the same species, only incapable of thought.

Fetus is a cell which depends on mother for its survival. It isn't a human untill it actually pops up in the outer world.

[Dyakovo]

Which children?

Both the ones currently in foster homes and the ones in utero at the very least by the time they develop a brain stem.

There are no children in utero.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Arrrr, different species. Whatever. Its still not the same thing as fetuses are still the same species, only incapable of thought.

Fetus is a cell which depends on mother for its survival. It isn't a human untill it actually pops up in the outer world.

Later in prgnancy it is, in fact, a baby, capable of emotion and thought (baby intelligence, but not the point). You can't really say it's not human at that point.

[Great Nepal]

Fetus is a cell which depends on mother for its survival. It isn't a human untill it actually pops up in the outer world.

Later in prgnancy it is, in fact, a baby, capable of emotion and thought (baby intelligence, but not the point). You can't really say it's not human at that point.

Is it able to survive if the mother dies off?

[Augarundus]

There are approximately 565,000 children in foster care, of which 134,000 are awaiting adoption. [1]
Approximately 51,000 American children are adopted each year. [2]
The are approximately 1,370,000 abortions are performed each year. [3]

These numbers are painful; I expect their lives are a burden to society.

Henceforth, I propose a sociological project that mandates abortion under circumstances in which a child of sub-par socioeconomic status or gene quality is eliminated before birth. As for an immediate solution to the abundance of useless lives awaiting adoption (the vast majority of which will likely become crime-ridden scum), we could begin hanging them, but this seems to be an expensive undertaking. Of course, letting them loose in society would be too 'laissez-faire' (free will? Pshaw! They might have a chance to thrive then, and then imagine what would happen!)... gas, then?

I really detest these harsh measures, but preventive care just wasn't enough to take care of these undesirables. If we take the right steps now, we could cure the problem altogether... and move on to other, more controversial undesirables.

This is a bad argument. A REALLY bad argument against the anti-abortion movement.

That the children will have miserable lives... Using the same logic, we should begin the extermination of the poor, especially the third world, because it eliminates the problem of their suffering.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Later in prgnancy it is, in fact, a baby, capable of emotion and thought (baby intelligence, but not the point). You can't really say it's not human at that point.

Is it able to survive if the mother dies off?

If it is cared for and removed from the womb. But a baby can't survive without someone taking care of it anyway, in the womb or not.

[Dyakovo]

In my humble opinion, alternatives to abortion include but are not limited to:

Abstinence (An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure) ¹

If abstinence doesn't work (sadly it often doesn't ) you have contraception. But that has a high failure rate too.²

So if contraception fails, give the baby to someone in the parents' family.³ Its better than murder.⁴

Handing the baby to the state is also better than murder, but since the foster care system is so crappy, there are better options, like taking care of what you created by taking care of the baby.⁵
After all, you had vaginal sex, when there were many other, no-pregnancy physical intimacy options that I will not mention here.⁶
This is not to be judgmental, but In a way, the people responsible were not patient or considerate of the spectrum of possible backfire, so taking care of the baby is of course a more sensible, if not difficult, option. This of course takes us back to square one, because if you could take care of the baby, you wouldn't even be considering an abortion.

Rape however, is an entirely different context but still the same problem. Orphanages seem decent, but the mother should be keen on find a good one, and coming back to the orphanage from time to time to see how the kid(s) is(are) doing.

Murder is never justifiable, even if the state permits it for people under age 9 Months. Do somethingother than abortion.
The only reason it is no longer a crime is because the world is slowly loosing its morality.

Just remember what I said, and if you like it, pass it on...

-From Caleb, Leader of DASHES

1: Abstinence doesn't work as there isn't always a choice in the matter.
2: And thus is not a viable option.
3: And if no-one in the woman's family wants the baby?
4: Abortion is not murder.
5: What if you have no desire to have the child and/or lack the ability to care for it properly?
6: Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy

[Great Nepal]

Is it able to survive if the mother dies off?

If it is cared for and removed from the womb. But a baby can't survive without someone taking care of it anyway, in the womb or not.

A baby can survive if it is cared for if it is out of mother's body, even if mother dies.
A fetus cant survive if mother dies no matter what. (not as far as I understand)

[Lancaster of Wessex]

4: Abortion is not murder.

Millions, if not billions of people disagree with you.

And millions more will agree with you also.

You can't say you're right; and they can't say they're right either.

You'll have to agree to disagree.

[Dyakovo]

This seems to be one of those useless forum topics.

By useless I mean:
(a) If you disagree with the person who started the thread, you're going to get ridiculed and abused (which also gets returned by those who were first ridiculed). Who would want to disagree?
(b) If you agree with the person who started the thread, you're basically just preaching to the choir (and giving each other butt-pats). What's the point of agreeing (except to fulfill your need for encouragement/self-esteem)?

Oh, how I long for forums that don't simply descend into name calling, misquoting and the spouting of one-liners.

It has sparked discussion and might actually bring out some viable ideas, so it isn't useless. If you aren't interested in contributing to the thread you could have saved yourself the effort of posting.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

If it is cared for and removed from the womb. But a baby can't survive without someone taking care of it anyway, in the womb or not.

A baby can survive if it is cared for if it is out of mother's body, even if mother dies.
A fetus cant survive if mother dies no matter what. (not as far as I understand)

Well no. Not in the womb. What's you're point? But there is a point in pregnancy where the fetus can be taken out of the womb and it can survive.

[Augarundus]

4: Abortion is not murder.

Millions, if not billions of people disagree with you.

And millions more will agree with you also.

You can't say you're right; and they can't say they're right either.

You'll have to agree to disagree.

Might =/= Right.

Abortion is, logically, murder. The entire "proof" that abortion is morally justifiable is based off of the premise that a majority vote (i.e. sociological perceptions) change the reality of human life.

[Dyakovo]

I just don't like abortion for the wrong reasons.

I'm going to ignore the rest of this primarily because I have no issue with it...
What, exactly, are the "wrong reasons" for having an abortion?

[Zilam]

Except it is ignoring the fact that abortions are sometimes necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman...

No, I recognize that and have addressed it already. However, lets be honest shall we? 6% of abortions are done for medical reasons and 1% are due to violent sexual cases. These are the two most common reasons people think abortion should stay legal and be funded properly and all that. The rest of the reasons deal largely with two other reasons:

the woman feels they don't have the resources to provide for a child
OR
convenience for the woman.

(sources found in at the bottom of here

So while 7% of abortions happen because of rape/incest or possibility of injury or death, 21% happen because the women feel they cannot afford to carry a baby. That is why I posted what I did about just one place that has been open for almost 20 years now, helping pregnant women carry their baby to birth, and providing them with the resources to meet the needs of that baby after it is born.

Around 44% decided to have one done out of convenience, whether its because they want to wait, they are in school, or they simply don't want to have any more children. To me, this is really irresponsible. Anytime you have sex, there is a chance for pregnancy. When you have sex, you need to realize that. That is why condoms, spermicide and birth control are out on the market. I realize that some people are prevented from getting access to these. We know that needs to change. But I really hate that people cannot accept responsibility for their actions, and take the easy way out of something they have done. Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for something that one has done.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Millions, if not billions of people disagree with you.

And millions more will agree with you also.

You can't say you're right; and they can't say they're right either.

You'll have to agree to disagree.

Might =/= Right.

Abortion is, logically, murder. The entire "proof" that abortion is morally justifiable is based off of the premise that a majority vote (i.e. sociological perceptions) change the reality of human life.

Agreed. Abortion is murder, and is wrong. But as I stated before, right and wrong do not equal legal or illegal. Government itself is wrong, but it is necessary.

[Dyakovo]

But a fetus is NOT a human, it is a parasite. It feeds on a host (mother), it breaths from host (mother), it lives on a host (mother) and gives back nothing. All of which characteristics of a parasite not a human.

Wrong. it is human. Also, it is more accurate to say it is parasitic in nature as parasites are generally a different species than their host.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

What, exactly, are the "wrong reasons" for having an abortion?

I can think of only one, at the moment: when zero protection/care/precaution was used by both male and female parties, knowing full well of what the consequence may be, i.e. the possibility of creating a life.

I don't smile upon irresponsibility too highly and to take away a potential life just because one didn't bother to stick a condom on their dick or take a birth control pill...that doesn't sit too well with me.

ADDENDUM: Having no money/recourse to support a child as well isn't the best reasoning either, same with the "they will live a horrible life because we are poor/destitute/uneducated" whatever. There are services available as others have noted, and these people, again as others have noted, could very well go on to lead productive happy lives.

[Dyakovo]

No one is putting price tag on human life.
But a fetus is NOT a human, it is a parasite. It feeds on a host (mother), it breaths from host (mother), it lives on a host (mother) and gives back nothing. All of which characteristics of a parasite not a human.

Well, for it to be called a parasite, it has to be a different organism.

Not really...

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

Source

[Great Nepal]

helping pregnant women carry their baby to birth, and providing them with the resources to meet the needs of that baby after it is born.

Why should taxpayer be forced to bear additional burden when abortion is a lot more cost effective?

Around 44% decided to have one done out of convenience, whether its because they want to wait, they are in school, or they simply don't want to have any more children. To me, this is really irresponsible. Anytime you have sex, there is a chance for pregnancy. When you have sex, you need to realize that. That is why condoms, spermicide and birth control are out on the market. I realize that some people are prevented from getting access to these. We know that needs to change. But I really hate that people cannot accept responsibility for their actions, and take the easy way out of something they have done. Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for something that one has done.

Anytime you go out to a ground for almost any game, you have a chance that you are going to be seriously injured. So say if that happens, should we say "take responsibility for your action" or should we take you to hospital?
Seriously, the fetus has no right to enslave a woman. If she doesn't want the baby, which at the moment is still part of her body, she should be able to terminate it. Her body her choice.

[Great Nepal]

I don't smile upon irresponsibility too highly and to take away a potential life just because one didn't bother to stick a condom on their dick or take a birth control pill...that doesn't sit too well with me.

Each sperm is a potential life, each egg is a potential life.