[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

11 week fetuses are not cognizant.

People in temporary comas are likely not cognizant either, but do to the temporary nature of their incapacity, we are not allowed to kill them either.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The episode TNG "Half a Life" deals with this subject. Someone like Michael J Fox would be expected to save his family the expense and anguish that comes with succumbing to Parkinson's

Originally Posted by Athens 

Thats a danger of allowing self termination, the pressure from insurance companies, doctors and family because its cheaper to self terminate. I think the option should be open to the person if they are in great pain and want to have a scheduled termination. But I can imagine it being abused by pressure factors.
Voyager did a good episode when the Klingon girl was going to have Toms kid she wanted to Alter it to look normal. I think ST has covered most social issues during the years.

ST did indeed do that. In fact, that is exactly what happens in "Half a Life"

After some questioning by Lwaxana, Timicin reveals that experiment's failure is not the only fact troubling him. Indeed, Timicin is about to turn 60, and on Kaelon II, everyone who reaches the age of 60 kills him or herself in what is known to their people as "the Resolution," a means of ridding their culture of the need to care for the elderly. Lwaxana is outraged by this fact, and when Picard makes it clear that he will not interfere in the planet's local affairs, Lwaxana tries to beam herself down to the planet to halt the process. When she is thwarted, she goes into hysterics until Deanna comforts her.

After Lwaxana and Timicin end up spending an evening together, he tries to explain the custom of the Resolution to her, stating that they should never expect to be repaid for the care they show their children, and a fixed age had to be selected because just randomly choosing a time to die would be heartless. However, she still considers the custom barbaric, and refuses to accept their tradition, listing an example in Betazed history of a woman who went against the tradition of wearing a ridiculous wig and changed their civilization for the better. When Timicin's analysis of the failed test turns up some promising options, he suddenly realizes that no one else has the knowledge to carry on his work to save his world, and requests asylum on the Enterprise.

B'Tardat, the Science Minister on Kaelon II, is outraged, and sends up two warships to ensure that the Enterprise does not leave the system with Timicin on board. As Picard orders the bridge crew to analyze the offensive capabilities of the Kaelonian ships, Timicin realizes that his situation is not as simple as he had hoped, for the planet below will not accept any further reports from him. Indeed, he's informed that even if he finds a solution they will not accept it. The final straw comes when his daughter Dara (Michelle Forbes) beams on board to insist that he return. She cannot bear the thought, she says, of him being laid to rest anywhere but next to her mother and, although she loves him, she is ashamed of him.

Timicin realizes that he is not the man to forge a cultural revolution, and agrees to return to Kaelon II. Lwaxana, despite her disagreement, realizes that Timicin's decision is his to make and, as it is the custom for loved ones to be present at the Resolution, beams down with him to be at his side as he dies.

We can hope that life will not imitate art.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

If by "good point" you mean "same old tired argument that gets dragged up over and over" then yes, he does.

Ain't nothing in this thread but the same old tired arguments from all sides.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's arbitrary either way. A 4 year old child would not survive outside the womb.

Haha, what?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Haha, what?

Yes. By the time he's 16 he'll realise this and spend most of the rest of his life trying to get back into one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Some say monogamy is unnatural. Some say man's efforts at "survival of the fittest" makes a whole host of moral behaviors, in light of their not serving a broader goal of self-interest, unnatural.

Yet none would say that abstinence is natural

No one says that you have to CHOOSE not to do what comes naturally to you, or that which makes you feel good. You just have no right to be free from the responsibilities that come with that choice.

Clearly false because we do it all the time. Oops I accepted a more prestigious higher paying job, but I can't handle the added responsibility... do I have the right to abort the new job? Oops I signed up for a credit card for the promo bonus, but I don't want the responsibility of keeping the account... do I have the right to abort the new account? Oops I bought a used car but then I realized I don't know how to drive... do I have the right to re-sell the car? Oops I installed a computer program thinking it would make my Mac faster, but instead it makes it slower... do I have the right to uninstall it?

TL;DR: we have the right to use available remedies, when they exist. The only thing at issue is whether the remedy harms another (vs. whether it harms a meaningless lump of protoplasm).

Someone who is annoying. There are medical procedures that can be done on that person in order to negate the effect of their annoyance to me, including sucking the brains out of their heads.

I'm sorry for not re-specifying the part of the analogy that you started with. Please name one thing we do that has consequences which we "have to" live with, despite a readily available remedy. You didn't make the person annoying.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yet none would say that abstinence is natural

Why is it unnatural?

Clearly false because we do it all the time. Oops I accepted a more prestigious higher paying job, but I can't handle the added responsibility... do I have the right to abort the new job? Oops I signed up for a credit card for the promo bonus, but I don't want the responsibility of keeping the account... do I have the right to abort the new account? Oops I bought a used car but then I realized I don't know how to drive... do I have the right to re-sell the car? Oops I installed a computer program thinking it would make my Mac faster, but instead it makes it slower... do I have the right to uninstall it?

TL;DR: we have the right to use available remedies, when they exist. The only thing at issue is whether the remedy harms another (vs. whether it harms a meaningless lump of protoplasm).


I'm sorry for not re-specifying the part of the analogy that you started with. Please name one thing we do that has consequences which we "have to" live with, despite a readily available remedy. You didn't make the person annoying.

"meaningless lump of protoplasm?"

12 weeks old, when most abortions take place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Why is it unnatural?

Uh, because it's not found in nature, and the concept was consciously invented by humans?

"meaningless lump of protoplasm?"

12 weeks old, when most abortions take place.

That is the question, yes.

Just because it looks like a duck doesn't make it a duck.



PS. Most abortions (88%) are obtained in the first trimester of pregnancy (earlier than your image). In fact, over half of all abortions are obtained within the first 8 weeks. (wikipedia)

[Athens]

**** it, the only kind of Abortion I can actually tolerate is for damaged, defective babies. If its going to be a healthy baby more then enough people out there who can't have babies or want babies that it shouldn't be a problem taking a baby to full term. The option a couple needs is a easy adoption process so they are not stuck with a baby they don't want. The only exceptions to this would be a mother who would be in danger from serious complications or is having complications and a rape victim. If the baby would be otherwise healthy there is no reason to kill it. We are only talking about 9 months of hardship. Back ally abortions would still occur though but you know what if your stupid enough to have some un-trained person rip apart your insides to abort a baby you can adopt out and it kills you so be it, Darwinism at its best. Shouldn't be part of the gene pool if your that stupid.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

12 weeks old, when most abortions take place.

That's a cute parasite.

[besson3c]

Yeah, it looks stupid

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

**** it, the only kind of Abortion I can actually tolerate is for damaged, defective babies. If its going to be a healthy baby more then enough people out there who can't have babies or want babies that it shouldn't be a problem taking a baby to full term. The option a couple needs is a easy adoption process so they are not stuck with a baby they don't want. The only exceptions to this would be a mother who would be in danger from serious complications or is having complications and a rape victim. If the baby would be otherwise healthy there is no reason to kill it. We are only talking about 9 months of hardship. Back ally abortions would still occur though but you know what if your stupid enough to have some un-trained person rip apart your insides to abort a baby you can adopt out and it kills you so be it, Darwinism at its best. Shouldn't be part of the gene pool if your that stupid.

China would be out of the baby selling business.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"meaningless lump of protoplasm?"

That is the question, yes.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's a cute parasite.

OK, If it's a "parasitic meaningless lump of protoplasm" why is it necessary for the abortionist to take inventory of the "parasitic lump of protoplasm's" body parts to make sure nothing was left in the uterus?

[Waragainstsleep]

Because leaving useless protoplasm in a uterus is unhealthy?
Or perhaps because its traumatic if you wake up several days later with a small arm protruding from your cervix.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

OK, If it's a "parasitic meaningless lump of protoplasm" why is it necessary for the abortionist to take inventory of the "parasitic lump of protoplasm's" body parts to make sure nothing was left in the uterus?

Don't know. What's the answer?

What happens when a woman has a miscarriage? Doesn't a miscarriage happen in 20% of pregnancies? Does a woman have to report it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see how that answers the question... are people feeling like they "have to" abstain from the available treatments for these conditions? Do the treatments even qualify (I said "negate")?

I must still be missing the foundation of the question because it seems to be loaded in that it doesn't acknowledge the premise of the pro-life position. In other words, if I fail to accept the pro-choice premise, I would counter with the question; "At what other times does medical intervention involve deliberately killing a person?"

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

OK, If it's a "parasitic meaningless lump of protoplasm" why is it necessary for the abortionist to take inventory of the "parasitic lump of protoplasm's" body parts to make sure nothing was left in the uterus?

The mothers own immune system treats it as a foreign parasite, the baby has to produce special peptides to protect itself.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

11 week fetuses are not cognizant.

This illustrates the crux of the debate. This criteria may be as arbitrary and arguable as ethics themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The mothers own immune system treats it as a foreign parasite, the baby has to produce special peptides to protect itself.

You realize of course that this loose a definition of parasite literally encompasses all living organisms?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

W

mmm taco

[Athens]

Maybe the debate should be looked at from a different perspective. forget about if the fetus feels pain and so forth. Lets look at it this way, is there any need to abort a Fetus that isn't defective or going to cause medical issues for mother. And isn't from a rape.

What has more value. Woman carrying a baby to term loses 9 months of her life and one can argue its only 4 months since most pregnant woman stiff function normal during the first few months. Vs killing a fetus which at this point in time science can not answer if it feels pain, if it is aware and there is a high demand for babies at adoption centers for people who can't have a kid. Is the procedure really needed?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

11 week fetuses are not cognizant.

That would apply to most residents of a nursing home.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Maybe the debate should be looked at from a different perspective. forget about if the fetus feels pain and so forth. Lets look at it this way, is there any need to abort a Fetus that isn't defective or going to cause medical issues for mother. And isn't from a rape.

What has more value. Woman carrying a baby to term loses 9 months of her life and one can argue its only 4 months since most pregnant woman stiff function normal during the first few months. Vs killing a fetus which at this point in time science can not answer if it feels pain, if it is aware and there is a high demand for babies at adoption centers for people who can't have a kid. Is the procedure really needed?

Well, who gets to make the list of what is and isn't acceptable? Rape? Medical issues for the mother? Partner said he had vasectomy but really didn't?

That doesn't matter. If it's ok to abort a fetus that is a result of rape, then it's ok to abort a fetus. If it's not ok to abort a fetus that is a result of careless sex, then you are assigning right to live to the fetus. Then you must assign right to life to a fetus that is the result of rape. After all, it's not the fetus' fault it was a result of rape.

Either you believe a fetus has a right to life or you believe the choice is with the mother.

The real debate is how far a long in the fetus' development should it acquire the right to live? Some say from the moment of conception, some say birth, some say when consciousness is achieved. "When" is the real debate, and that's why it won't go away.

[Chongo]

Has any actually seen what happens to an unborn child as a result of the "available remedy?" Links or pics can be provided if allowed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

OK, If it's a "parasitic meaningless lump of protoplasm" why is it necessary for the abortionist to take inventory of the "parasitic lump of protoplasm's" body parts to make sure nothing was left in the uterus?

First of all, I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that is the question (rather than the question of whether pregnancy is a just punishment for having sex, and women shouldn't try to cheat their way out of it, as stupendousman frames the issue). Second, not all abortions are the same, and you seem to be cherry-picking. Finally to answer your question, it's the same reason that surgeons take inventory of their sponges and retractors to make sure nothing was left inside, and the same reason they double-check that the entire tumor was removed: it's their job.

[Chongo]

Suction, D and C, or D and E. They all have to make sure everything has been removed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I must still be missing the foundation of the question because it seems to be loaded in that it doesn't acknowledge the premise of the pro-life position. In other words, if I fail to accept the pro-choice premise, I would counter with the question; "At what other times does medical intervention involve deliberately killing a person?"

That question is the only real question: is the fetus a person or not? Stupendousman is trying to claim that the abortion issue is about punishing fornicators, not about protecting innocent fetuses. So he claimed sex was but one of "a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards [despite other options like abortion]," and all I'm asking for is an example. That's where you came in. Can you think of an example (one that doesn't discard the fornicator punishment angle for the more appropriate personhood angle)?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Has any actually seen what happens to an unborn child as a result of the "available remedy?" Links or pics can be provided if allowed.

If the "unborn child" can't sense it anyway, I don't care if they go abu ghraib on it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That would apply to most residents of a nursing home.

Why are these apples trying to taste like oranges?

[Shaddim]

Abortion: Is it time?

Yes, this thread should be aborted.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That question is the only real question: is the fetus a person or not? Stupendousman is trying to claim that the abortion issue is about punishing fornicators, not about protecting innocent fetuses. So he claimed sex was but one of "a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards [despite other options like abortion]," and all I'm asking for is an example. That's where you came in. Can you think of an example (one that doesn't discard the fornicator punishment angle for the more appropriate personhood angle)?

There are STD s. With most you can get a shot/take a pill and you're good to go. A few of them, like herpes, there isn't a shot/pill for that. Left untreated, like Syphilis, can result in death.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That question is the only real question: is the fetus a person or not? Stupendousman is trying to claim that the abortion issue is about punishing fornicators, not about protecting innocent fetuses. So he claimed sex was but one of "a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards [despite other options like abortion]," and all I'm asking for is an example. That's where you came in. Can you think of an example (one that doesn't discard the fornicator punishment angle for the more appropriate personhood angle)?

If his statement was; "a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards", then his statement at the core is not arguable. If you drink, drive, and hurt someone, you have to live with that afterwards. If you've chosen to use hard drugs for 30 years and have fried your mental capacity, you have to live with that afterwards. If you cheat on your wife, she may leave and take your family with her. You have to live with that afterwards, etc, etc...

You included medical intervention because you're maintaining in the case of abortion, a doctor is removing/negating the consequence of your actions, but this isn't entirely true either. For example, abortion itself is something women do and can have both mental and physical implications they have to live with afterwards.

To be clear, I agree with you that the personhood angle is more appropriate, but too much focus only on that piece of the debate leads others to the ideal that the pro-life position is anti-woman as others have implied. I have as much a problem with what the industry and the societal ill is doing to women as I do aborted children. I'm not interested in "punishing" women for the choice to have sex because, very simply, it takes two to tango. Most of my scrutiny in this has been against men who support less restrictions on the procedure than women and have long-sought to protect their own sexual freedoms under the guise of a woman's right to choose. I'm not sure its most ardent supporters care any more about women than they claim of pro-lifers.

I don't want to speak for Stupendousman, but let's say his point is that the problem today is people believing "it must be okay because it's legal" and that by making abortion illegal, people would eventually conclude that it must not be okay. A side benefit of this would be greater forethought, responsible sex, decrease in STDs, truly planned parenthood, carrying pregnancies to term, and yes... back-alley abortions.

Back-alley abortions did not come to be because of where women were having the procedure performed contrary to the FUD we've all been fed, but how they entered the licensed medical clinics after-hours. Why are abortions safer today than they were long before Roe V Wade? For starters, anti-biotics. Just prior to Roe V Wade, the overwhelming majority of abortions were in fact being performed by licensed medical practitioners and this was the selling-point of its most ardent, vocal supporters at the time. The fact is more women suffer unsafe abortions today than they did prior to Roe V Wade.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes.
11 week fetuses are not cognizant.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That would apply to most residents of a nursing home.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why are these apples trying to taste like oranges?

re

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I certainly don't agree with his animal liberation views. His infanticide views seems unnecessary, since we can screen for devastating deformities in utero, and waiting until birth seems like a stupid idea (just like waiting times for abortion, for instance). But given the single example at the end - the child born without a brain - assuming it wasn't detected earlier for some odd reason, seems reasonable to me.

I see part 2 is linked, so I'm gonna go watch that now.
I find it interesting that the video description misrepresents what she said. She didn't say she would smother disabled babies, she said she would smother a suffering child.

I find it interesting that we, culturally, are fine with giving our pets a peaceful death when it comes time, but we allow our children (and everyone else) to die long, horrible deaths because we are afraid of the slippery slope. But you ask if I agree with this woman, and really I don't know, because I just hadn't thought about it before now. I've pretty much assumed that the certainly of long illness until death is mitigated by pain killers and such, but frankly that's ignorance on my part since I don't really know what long term pain is like.

I think culturally we're slowly approaching a tipping point regarding self-euthanization, but I don't think infanticide is on the horizon, mostly because we see and experience adult suffering all the time, but infant suffering is hidden, and heavily mitigated by abortion, which has drastically changed the ratio of healthy births. If the public was more exposed to tragic cases, our attitudes might change, but really I'm not certain what is to come here.

It's a small step to start "euthanizing" Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients because they are no longer cognizant and wasting resources that could be used on younger and productive members of society. You can include those who are suffering from terminal cancer as well. (long, horrible deaths)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It's a small step to start "euthanizing" Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients because they are no longer cognizant and wasting resources that could be used on younger and productive members of society. You can include those who are suffering from terminal cancer as well. (long, horrible deaths)

Are you incapable of seeing the difference between choosing euthanasia and having society forcing it on you? Because every one of your posts makes this same error.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I was trying to avoid the multi-quotes, but I guess it's inevitable...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If his statement was; "a lot of things most people do which have results they have to live with afterwards", then his statement at the core is not arguable. If you drink, drive, and hurt someone, you have to live with that afterwards. If you've chosen to use hard drugs for 30 years and have fried your mental capacity, you have to live with that afterwards. If you cheat on your wife, she may leave and take your family with her. You have to live with that afterwards, etc, etc...

You included medical intervention because you're maintaining in the case of abortion, a doctor is removing/negating the consequence of your actions, but this isn't entirely true either. For example, abortion itself is something women do and can have both mental and physical implications they have to live with afterwards.

Nearly all medical interventions have side effects. This changes nothing. It is the patient's right to make an informed decision whether the side effects out-weigh the therapeutic effects if and only if the treatment causes no harm to another. So again, the only question at issue is whether the fetus is a person or not.

To be clear, I agree with you that the personhood angle is more appropriate, but too much focus only on that piece of the debate leads others to the ideal that the pro-life position is anti-woman as others have implied.

No, calling it "anti-women" is just as big a misdirection as calling it "anti-fornicator." If the fetus is a person, it's no more "anti-women" than the murder law is "anti-murderer" or the drunk driving law is "anti-drinker." However if the fetus is not a person, then to outlaw abortion is akin to holding the rights of house-pets above the rights of women; even though we might love a house-pet, and even though the law prevents cruelty to house-pets, we can kill them for pretty much any reason we want under medically controlled conditions.

In both these side-angles, the decision follows the personhood question 100%, and the side-angle holds no weight at all.

I have as much a problem with what the industry and the societal ill is doing to women as I do aborted children. I'm not interested in "punishing" women for the choice to have sex because, very simply, it takes two to tango. Most of my scrutiny in this has been against men who support less restrictions on the procedure than women and have long-sought to protect their own sexual freedoms under the guise of a woman's right to choose. I'm not sure its most ardent supporters care any more about women than they claim of pro-lifers.

It's a fair point, and like I said the whole "anti-women" framing is inaccurate (though wildly successful in convincing women who have never had an abortion). But I still want to emphasize that this makes no difference if the fetus is not a person. If the only down-sides to abortion are the medical side-effects, then if men want to "protect their own sexual freedoms" it is not a problem, any more than supporting HIV research for the purpose of sexual freedom is a problem (HIV treatments also have side-effects of course).

I don't want to speak for Stupendousman, but let's say his point is that the problem today is people believing "it must be okay because it's legal" and that by making abortion illegal, people would eventually conclude that it must not be okay. A side benefit of this would be greater forethought, responsible sex, decrease in STDs, truly planned parenthood, carrying pregnancies to term, and yes... back-alley abortions.

*cough* war on drugs *cough*

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

there is a high demand for babies at adoption centers for people who can't have a kid

There is not a high demand for babies at adoption centers. At all. The adoption system is overcrowded with unwanted children, many, if not most, of whom will go on to at least minor criminal careers. Many others of whom will be abused by foster parents and fellow unwanted children until they end up committing suicide. Many others of whom will kill themselves through drug abuse.

There is a high demand for babies from people who can't conceive, but this is because our adoption laws are so fundamentally broken that it's inanely difficult to adopt a child. We have a glut of children sitting in the system who will never be adopted.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why are abortions safer today than they were long before Roe V Wade? For starters, anti-biotics. Just prior to Roe V Wade, the overwhelming majority of abortions were in fact being performed by licensed medical practitioners and this was the selling-point of its most ardent, vocal supporters at the time. The fact is more women suffer unsafe abortions today than they did prior to Roe V Wade.

So abortions are safer today, but more women are having unsafe abortions even though its legal and regulated now?

This makes no sense. You keep making this claim and failing to back it up with even unsound reasoning, let alone sound reasoning or evidence. This time it even looks like you are contradicting yourself. Explain better please. (If you can.)

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Well, who gets to make the list of what is and isn't acceptable? Rape? Medical issues for the mother? Partner said he had vasectomy but really didn't?

That doesn't matter. If it's ok to abort a fetus that is a result of rape, then it's ok to abort a fetus. If it's not ok to abort a fetus that is a result of careless sex, then you are assigning right to live to the fetus. Then you must assign right to life to a fetus that is the result of rape. After all, it's not the fetus' fault it was a result of rape.

Either you believe a fetus has a right to life or you believe the choice is with the mother.

The real debate is how far a long in the fetus' development should it acquire the right to live? Some say from the moment of conception, some say birth, some say when consciousness is achieved. "When" is the real debate, and that's why it won't go away.

Thats the kind of thinking that sucks, its either this or its either that. No middle ground. The world isn't black and white. A fetus has no right to life or to death. It comes down to is it a medically necessary procedure. Common sense issues like risk to life, defectiveness and rape babies in my opinion and most people who don't have religion making the choice for them will agree to those things being acceptable for termination. I wouldn't count ops the condom fell off or ops my balls are supposed to be snipped as medically necessary reasons to abort an otherwise healthy baby.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There is not a high demand for babies at adoption centers. At all. The adoption system is overcrowded with unwanted children, many, if not most, of whom will go on to at least minor criminal careers. Many others of whom will be abused by foster parents and fellow unwanted children until they end up committing suicide. Many others of whom will kill themselves through drug abuse.

There is a high demand for babies from people who can't conceive, but this is because our adoption laws are so fundamentally broken that it's inanely difficult to adopt a child. We have a glut of children sitting in the system who will never be adopted.

Babies and Kids are different things. Couples want young babies, not 4 year old hand me downs. Its no different then at the Pet Store or SPCA. People want baby Animals, not second hand Animals. The wait list for adopting a baby can be years.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Babies and Kids are different things. Couples want young babies, not 4 year old hand me downs. Its no different then at the Pet Store or SPCA. People want baby Animals, not second hand Animals. The wait list for adopting a baby can be years.

You're not thinking this through very well. How are there unwanted kids if all the babies get adopted out so easily? Sure there will always be some, but if they're flying off the shelves like you claim most of these unadopted kids should have been adopted as babies before they had the chance to become '4 year old hand me downs'.

Part of the reason the wait list is so long is, as I mentioned, the regulations involved rather than the supply of babies.

[nonhuman]

Slightly off-topic, but funnily enough the Biblical passage I mentioned earlier (Numbers 5, otherwise known as Sotah) is the parasha for the week.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So abortions are safer today, but more women are having unsafe abortions even though its legal and regulated now?

Women will have unsafe abortions to avoid being labeled as murderers by the people who supposedly love them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There is not a high demand for babies at adoption centers. At all. The adoption system is overcrowded with unwanted children, many, if not most, of whom will go on to at least minor criminal careers. Many others of whom will be abused by foster parents and fellow unwanted children until they end up committing suicide. Many others of whom will kill themselves through drug abuse.

There is a high demand for babies from people who can't conceive, but this is because our adoption laws are so fundamentally broken that it's inanely difficult to adopt a child. We have a glut of children sitting in the system who will never be adopted.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Babies and Kids are different things. Couples want young babies, not 4 year old hand me downs. Its no different then at the Pet Store or SPCA. People want baby Animals, not second hand Animals. The wait list for adopting a baby can be years.

This should interest both of you.
Have Foreigners Unwittingly Adopted Victims of Baby-Selling in China? - Yahoo! News

Time.com

By HANNAH BEECH – Wed May 11, 4:30 pm ET

In recent years, one of China's most beloved exports has been babies adopted by overseas individuals eager to complete their families and help needy children. Now an investigation by respected Chinese magazine Caixin has uncovered evidence of Chinese family-planning officials taking children from local couples who supposedly had violated the country's one-child policy and selling them to orphanages. The child welfare centers, it is alleged, then used falsified records to allow the children to be adopted overseas. Under international regulations, many countries require children who are being adopted to truly be orphans or abandoned. The Caixin report focused on the cases of babies from China's mountainous Hunan province, where Chairman Mao was born and where many farmers struggle to pay the heavy fines imposed on families with extra offspring. The abducted children reportedly ended up in the U.S., Poland and the Netherlands, according to the Caixin report and a summary by official media agency Xinhua. Similar baby-trafficking cases tied to overseas adoptions have been reported in recent years, one in Guizhou province and another also in Hunan. (See "How China Has Pruned Its Family Trees.)

In the wake of the Caixin story, Hunan provincial officials have officially begun a probe into the alleged cases, which involve some 20 children from Longhui county over the past decade. But previous attempts by family members to locate their children were thwarted by local officials, says the Chinese magazine. Keeping population growth figures low is one way for local bureaucrats to gain promotion, and the link has led to various abuses nationwide, including forced abortions of late-term fetuses. Caixin claims that some of the children weren't even in violation of the one-child policy. But their parents were migrant workers who had little control of the removal of their offspring from family homes.The scandal also hints at one less reported fact: the declining number of Chinese girls available for overseas adoption. Traditionally, Chinese families have preferred boys because they will stay in the family home when they grow up, enabling them to take care of their elderly parents. Unwanted girls crowded Chinese orphanages; most overseas adoptions of Chinese babies, therefore, involved girls. But in part because of widespread access to sonograms, Chinese women have taken to aborting female fetuses. Doing so is illegal but commonplace. Indeed, China's latest census results this year show that the country's gender ratio is now 118 boys to every 100 girls.

Baby-selling has occurred in other countries that offered children for adoption, most notably in Cambodia and Vietnam, where the abuse had been so rampant that countries like the U.S. put moratoriums on adoptions from those places. But a further tragedy of baby-trafficking is that it hurts the chances of truly needy kids finding adoptive parents, as the entire process is tainted by allegations of malfeasance. Homes are needed for many babies. But, as the Hunan case appears to show, finding the right children can sometimes be deceptively difficult.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Are you incapable of seeing the difference between choosing euthanasia and having society forcing it on you? Because every one of your posts makes this same error.

Baby Joseph comes to mind.
Who has right to tell Baby Joseph to die? - HealthPop - CBS News

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Baby Joseph comes to mind.
Who has right to tell Baby Joseph to die? - HealthPop - CBS News

To be quite honest, when I read that all I see is pointless sentimentality blinding them to obvious reality and causing them to waste who knows how much time and money.

[Athens]

Seriously what is the point. The kid is doomed and isn't exactly living a nice life. I totally agree with the doctors who refused to do the surgery and appears the courts agreed too. Ignorant people like that are what costs the medical system tons of money a year in desperate attempts to prolong by months the suffering of others. Let the kid die a natural peaceful death go have sex and try again.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Women will have unsafe abortions to avoid being labeled as murderers by the people who supposedly love them.

Not seeing a causal link there. Do you have to carry a sandwich board around with you for a week if you get a safe abortion?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People in temporary comas are likely not cognizant either, but do to the temporary nature of their incapacity, we are not allowed to kill them either.

Sure we do. It's call pulling the plug and taking the person off life support.

We let people die all the time because they can't afford the medical treatment.

Besides, I don't consider a 12 week old fetus a human being. Comparing apples to oranges.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Abortions are safer today just as they were shortly prior to Roe V Wade, but exponentially more women are having abortions because they're legal now and not well-regulated.

Fixed to answer your little question.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sure we do. It's call pulling the plug and taking the person off life support.

It is illegal to "pull the plug" on people in temporary comas, who if given basic life support care would be expected to be able to later live without aid of life support.

Besides, I don't consider a 12 week old fetus a human being.

Your opinion is noted.