what's the argument against adoption?

You would still force a woman to carry on a pregnancy that she doesn't want, risking her life in the process, potentially ruining her career, or any of the risks associated with pregnancy. Plus the enormous phsychological burden to bring a child to life only to surrender him to someone else. I'm all for adoption, but adoption can't just be "substituted" to abortion.

We must make every attempt to save and let the fetus live, before it is dismissed

Why?

@wct What about artificial wombs?

Tabby, you make some interesting points, many of which I agree with, some I don't. But unfortunately we don't have artificial wombs yet. I think your discussion applies to future possibilities, and so it is relevant in the sense of the ethical, technological, and medical side of things. But most of the ongoing debate is centred on what is to be allowed in the here and now, and so most people are more interested in the legal and political angles currently. There is some overlap on the ethical side of things, but I'm afraid you'll probably find that many/most people will dismiss many of your ideas because they won't see your ethical arguments as 'realistic' (I'm not one of those, BTW).

Another future technology that will have a huge impact on this debate is that of human cloning. Currently it's not feasible, and so the 'nose scratch holocaust' argument is more a humorous argumentum ad absurdum than a medically relevant one, but as soon as human cloning becomes feasible, it will suddenly become perfectly relevant. That's why I feel comfortable using it, because cloning has already been demonstrated to be possible.

To directly answer your question: Without guarantees for the quality of life of the child after the artificial womb, I think there would still be objection to it from the 'liberal' side. Who takes care of the person after birth, until they become adults? Why 'create' a person whose quality of life will be low? Why do all eggs (and, if cloning exists, all human cells) need to be developed into human adults? Just as global warming is a real problem, so is human over-population. Why exacerbate it? Why not just keep a sustainable population of humans all with increasing qualities of life (via increasing technology) rather than an unsustainable population all with decreasing qualities of life (due to the consequences of over-population)?

to carry on a pregnancy that she doesn't want, risking her life in the process, potentially ruining her career, or any of the risks associated with pregnancy.

Hitchslap I said in all scenarios where the life of the mother is not at risk...we have the scientific tools (in most cases) to identify at risk mothers who could have serious pregnancy complications. Also if she knew that being pregnant might ruin her career why did she engage in behavior that got her pregnant (assuming it was not due to rape or incest)?

Plus the enormous phsychological burden to bring a child to life only to surrender him to someone else.

I would argue (truthfully), that it is an enormous psychological burden to fertilize an embryo in your body with the DNA of man and then have that fetus destroyed. There are 100s of stories where mothers regret their decision...some even committing suicide.

http://liveactionnews.org/studies-show-risk-of-suicide-elevated-in-women-after-abortion/

Edited 2/13/2016 00:08:25

But almost all Conservatives hold exceptions in the case of the mother's life, rape, and incest (or a combination of those 3). So excluding these cases what's the argument against adoption? I agree with the costs of carrying to term a child (greater food requirements, testing, hospitalization, etc). But again if we redirect resources from wasteful discretionary spending at the federal government level, we can sufficiently subsidize or cover these sources of expenses so there can be no excuse for a pregnant women to carry to term a child and give it up for adoption.

You can't compensate for all of those costs and risks, it's not possible. Several of the risks are of health and life. How are you going to compensate a woman who dies from complications during pregnancy? Not all costs and risks are monetary.

Ultimately, it's up to the woman to choose whether she wants to undergo that risk.

why did she engage in behavior that got her pregnant

are you saying that woman who don't want to be pregnant should not have sex? Do you really think thas this is a reasonable argument?

that it is an enormous psychological burden to fertilize an embryo in your body with the DNA of another man and then have that fetus destroyed.

It is. abortion is almost always psychologically very hard, but it is their choice to have. No need to shame them by telling them that they shouldn't have sex if they didn't wan't a baby or by accusing them of being terrible persons for having an abortion. Instead we should show support, it might help them not to want to kill themselves

Edited 2/13/2016 00:14:37

Hitchslap I said in all scenarios where the life of the mother is not at risk...we have the scientific tools (in most cases) to identify at risk mothers who could have serious pregnancy complications.

There is always a risk of life during any pregnancy. It's unavoidable. Example: Woman slips and falls. The shock causes the placenta to tear the lining of her uterus, causing her to die of internal bleeding before anyone even knows to call an ambulance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_pregnancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrical_hemorrhage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Edited 2/13/2016 00:18:34

For something to be living it must have all 6 characteristics of living things:

- Sense & Respond to change - Yes
- Use energy - Yes
- Grow and Develop - Yes
- Has Cells? - Yes
- Has DNA? - Yes
- Can reproduce? - Here's where the debate is...

are you saying that woman who don't want to be pregnant should not have sex?

I didn't say that. That's why contraception and contraceptive implants exist.

No need to shame them by telling them that they shouldn't have sex if they didn't wan't a baby or by accusing them of being terrible persons for having an abortion.

In all likelihood the grief associated with abortion is self-inflicted and is not due to stigma against abortion. Its been around since 1973 in the US and has been preformed in the tens of millions. If they do feel suicidal or depressive its because they truly feel guilty for the actions they've committed and the mistakes they've made. Why would they feel guilt though if the fetus isn't "alive"? This is where human emotion trumps scientific aspects. I think mothers innately feel sadness after abortion because they see the "thing" they've destroyed as actual life.

it should not be controlled through abortions..instead getting humans to have less sex naturally is better

good luck with that, you might have to do some serious gene manipulation to overcome the few million years of evolution that are responsible for human (and any other living form) behaviour.

Promoting condoms also work as well

This is not consistent with your idea that every potential for life should be exploited. If abortion is bad because it restrain the potential for human beings, the same apply to contraception

There are certain humans who are naturally too rational to be suited to a conformist entity such as a family who should instead just be allowed to learn to be researchers or engineers as they wish.

getting creepy

That's why contraception and contraceptive implants exist.

The only way you can be 100% sure that you won't be pregnant is by not having sex Jai

they truly feel guilty for the actions they've committed and the mistakes they've made. Why would they feel guilt though if the fetus isn't "alive"?

Because society keeps telling her that she is a murderer, and in some cases she believes it.

For something to be living it must have all 6 characteristics of living things:

- Sense & Respond to change - Yes
- Use energy - Yes
- Grow and Develop - Yes
- Has Cells? - Yes
- Has DNA? - Yes
- Can reproduce? - Here's where the debate is...

The debate is not over if a fetus is living, rather than if it is a human being.
A bacteria is a living organism, a virus can be considered a living organism in some aspects, etc

Because society keeps telling her that she is a murderer, and in some cases she believes it.

But that just isn't true...society isn't telling her that. The Supreme Court told her its legal. Almost all scientists have said that the fetus isn't life, and is therefore not murder. The entire Democratic party tells her its legal, safe, and should be done if she chooses.

The idea that a women who aborted a baby feels as if society is stigmatizing her is absurd, since those who are vigorously against abortion make up maybe 31% of America (according to gallup) and are becoming very very weak. I think around 45 million abortions have been preformed since Roe v. Wade...so the activity of abortion has become almost a cultural norm.

Lastly, if she does feel society is calling her a murderer, why did she go through with it in the first place? Is guilt only a post-abortion feeling, and if so why is that?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/social-ideology-left-catches-right.aspx

Edited 2/13/2016 00:37:05

risking her life in the process

Hitchslap, you do realize that generally, something is more likely to go wrong in an abortion than in a regular pregnancy?

@Jai, regardless, pretty much all women who have abortions generally have to deal with post-abortion depression.

Also if she knew that being pregnant might ruin her career why did she engage in behavior that got her pregnant (assuming it was not due to rape or incest)?

This question already assumes that abortion is/should be illegal.

If abortion is legal, then having unprotected sex would not endanger her career, it would only have the costs and risks associated with the abortion procedure (ignoring STDs). So, it would be more risky than protected sex, but not so risky that she would have to worry about endangering her career.

If abortion is *not* legal, then the question of 'why was she having unprotected sex' is moot, because it is subordinate to the *main* question, which is, 'why isn't abortion legal in the first place?'.

Plus the enormous phsychological burden to bring a child to life only to surrender him to someone else.

I would argue (truthfully), that it is an enormous psychological burden to fertilize an embryo in your body with the DNA of man and then have that fetus destroyed. There are 100s of stories where mothers regret their decision...some even committing suicide.

If you were to compare the two, I guarantee you'd find that giving up a fully developed child is more traumatic than having an abortion. Unfortunately, I don't have anything to back that up other than common sense, and I'm not interested enough in the point to try to google it. I think it should be pretty damn obvious, IMO.

I think it should be pretty damn obvious, IMO.

Eh its not obvious because I would reason its not true.

At the most they're equally traumatic. I know for a fact women have higher rates of depression and suicide after abortion. I don't know if there are any studies on neural effects of giving up a child for adoption. Usually because adoptions are done willingly and the mother reasons and accepts that she is actually acting in the best interest of the child, I would reason that she wouldn't feel as depressive. Although that's speculative.

@Jai
Doesn't matter if it is legal or not. 31% is still a huge number, and most importantly, they are quite vocal (especially when they are represented by an entire party)
If you think that society and the media doesn't have any part in shaming women into guilt when they have an abortion, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. When people say that if women don't wnat to get pregnant they should not "engage in behaviour that get her pregnant", this is a way o shaming women in my opinion.

@Varys

Hitchslap, you do realize that generally, something is more likely to go wrong in an abortion than in a regular pregnancy?

No i don't "realize" it, because it is not true

@wct Well I'm mostly an idealist. :-) I believe in an absolute right to exist.

For what/whom? Everything? Where do you draw the line? Do plants have an absolute right to exist? If not, why not?

There is no reason humanity should ever restrict or weaken itself in any form. "Human overpopulation" is a symptom of the disease of low human development.

We are naturally limited by the finite space we have available to us and the other life that exists in which to live. We will *always* be limited this way, whether we like it or not, and no matter how developed we are.

There is only so much matter and energy available to life. Blame thermodynamics, not human development.

Even if human overpopulation exists it should not be controlled through abortions..

Why not?

instead getting humans to have less sex naturally is better.

It's not an either/or proposition. Why can't we have many methods of managing population levels?

Preventing too many new humans from appearing is not the same as killing them after they have already appeared.

Again, terminology is important here. Skin cells are also 'human'. You don't seem to have any concern with the absolute right to exist of individual human skin cells, so again, where do you draw the line? I would argue that the appropriate 'line' is that between person and non-person. That's admittedly a difficult line to distinguish, but it's better than all the others I've seen proposed.

Board schools also work for new humans without a family, sometimes actually desirable. There are certain humans who are naturally too rational to be suited to a conformist entity such as a family who should instead just be allowed to learn to be researchers or engineers as they wish. Not every individual is supposed to always live with others...some come from families and do not end up in them..

To properly consider the scenario, you need to look at the quality of life of everyone, not just the exceptional few. I would imagine that 'expected average quality of life' would be in the right neighbourhood of statistical measure.

I think you'll have a hard time showing that board schools are better on average than loving families.

Edited 2/13/2016 01:23:58

I believe in an absolute right to exist.

I'm just curious...are you a vegan/vegetarian?

then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

Edited 2/13/2016 00:59:21

@Lord Varys:

Hitchslap, you do realize that generally, something is more likely to go wrong in an abortion than in a regular pregnancy?

I think you will have a hard time backing up that claim with facts/evidence. Modern abortions are usually out-patient procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

When allowed by local law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine.[2][3] Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions.[4] The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy.[4][5] Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be used immediately following abortion.[5] When performed legally and safely, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems.[6] In contrast, unsafe abortions cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year.[6][7] The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Safety

The health risks of abortion depend on whether the procedure is performed safely or unsafely. The World Health Organization defines unsafe abortions as those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities.[65] Legal abortions performed in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine.[2][66] In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures,[3] making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).[67][68] This is equivalent to the risk of death from driving about 1200 km (760 miles).[3] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.[69][70][71]

Vacuum aspiration in the first trimester is the safest method of surgical abortion, and can be performed in a primary care office, abortion clinic, or hospital. Complications are rare and can include uterine perforation, pelvic infection, and retained products of conception requiring a second procedure to evacuate.[72] Preventive antibiotics (such as doxycycline or metronidazole) are typically given before elective abortion,[73] as they are believed to substantially reduce the risk of postoperative uterine infection.[52][74] Complications after second-trimester abortion are similar to those after first-trimester abortion, and depend somewhat on the method chosen.

There is little difference in terms of safety and efficacy between medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol and surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration) in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation.[43] Medical abortion using the prostaglandin analog misoprostol alone is less effective and more painful than medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol or surgical abortion.[75][76]

Some purported risks of abortion are promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups, but lack scientific support.[77] For example, the question of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer has been investigated extensively. Major medical and scientific bodies (including the World Health Organization, the US National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) have concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer,[78] although such a link continues to be studied[79][80] and promoted by anti-abortion groups.[77][81]