Talk:Abortion

Foster Care

The foster care system in this country is completely out of whack. Children go from orphanages, or abusive families into awful foster care situations. Ending abortion isn't a matter of making it illegal, it is a matter of creating a world where no little girl ever need feel lost. It's easy for us to blame the people involved in the abortion but the responsibility is on the shoulders of us all. Generally the people most vocal about abortion issues are Christians, but if Christians were living up to the message they are preaching, they would be doing everything they could to make this world a better place. It's not for the government to solve all of our problems or answer every moral question, it is for us as members of a responsible society to create safety nets outside of the government that help all the lost little girls in the world, preferrably before they end up in the arms of someone who won't take care of their baby with them. We don't need to return to a world of coat hangers and back alley abortions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinker (talk • contribs). 13:43, 1 December 2005 (MST)

Abortion in Utah

I wrote this position statement during my last house campaign. It is a pragmatic perspective, which discusses measures to reduce abortion that have a real chance of working, without getting into morality or prohibition:

---

Abortion and unplanned pregnancy

Teen pregnancy in Utah is a relatively small problem when you compare our numbers to other states, and, according to Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 29, No. 3, May/June 1997, Utah has the lowest abortion rate in the US (at least, we did in 1992). Despite these facts, abortion is an especially heated topic in Utah, and nobody is immune to the social problems caused by unplanned pregnancies, especially amongst teenagers. Some facts about abortion in Utah

• Teenagers are more than twice as likely to abort a pregnancy than women between the ages of 20 and 44.
• Data indicates that "one of the strongest predictors for early sexual initiation is school failure," according to the Report on Adolescent Pregnancy in Utah, students failing in junior high or middle school are at risk.
• Teen pregnancy rates are also higher in lower income and minority groups.
• Under current state law, unmarried teens (under 18 years of age) must have permission in writing before receiving information about, or services from, a state-funded family planning agency. A change in this law might yield a drop in teen pregnancy rates (along with abortions) in Utah.
• Despite the law, Utah teens are more likely to use family planning services than in the past. The rate of teen pregnancy has declined 35% between 1980 and 1997.
• Nationwide, 71% of unintended pregnancies in 1987 occurred among teens who were not using contraceptives.
• Contrary to popular belief, abortion was a significant problem prior to Roe vs. Wade. Abortion did not spring suddenly out of thin air when state laws banning abortion were over-turned. In fact, abortion related maternity deaths declined after the ruling.

Pregnant teens are more likely to:

• Have maternity expenses paid for by your tax dollars.
• Drop out of school.
• Earn lower incomes.
• Rely on social services later in life.

While I am morally opposed to abortion, it is my policy to take a long hard look at what works and what doesn't in order to solve social problems.

It seems clear to me that teens are going to continue to have sex outside of marriage, regardless of the laws.

I believe that the heart of the matter is that if there were fewer unplanned pregnancies, there would be fewer abortions.

According to the reports, abortion rates are highly correlated to income levels, performance in school, the availability of family planning services, and a variety of other factors that we can address. A plan to reduce abortion rates should not concentrate exclusively on banning abortion. A comprehensive, bipartisan plan to fight unplanned pregnancy can work, and should be pursued.

• Teenage Abortion and Pregnancy Statistics by State, 1992, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 29, No. 3, May/June 1997
• Report on Adolescent Pregnancy in Utah, Utah Department of Health
• Overhaul new abortion law - Deseret News, illustrating some of the problems associated with legislation.

Dilvie 03:49, 28 December 2005 (MST)

General

Can someone else think of a better term for "poison pill"? In this section re: abortion, it sounds like a rather unfortunate bit of unintended dark humor. --Everett 21:32, 3 January 2006 (MST)

Morals

This is an issue involving morals that are not universal to the American public. Thus, they cannot be legislated, in the spirit of the First Amendment. Such issues as robbery and the murder of humans any time after birth (to make a distinction for those who view life beginning at conception) can be argued as universal to American culture, and thus suitable for legislation. Indeed, it doesn't matter whether it is 'right' or 'wrong.' In the same vein as sexual promiscuity, it has no place being legislated by state or federal government. For example, would a law making premarital sex illegal be appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZendarPC (talk • contribs). 11:47, 4 January 2006 (MST)

Ethics and Morality

Not editing the above, but regarding the statement: "The federal government should not be involved in the debate over the morality of abortion."
There is a problem with that word "morality". Where do morals come from? Historically, the answer has been "religions". But in the USA we are supposed to have Separation of Church and State! Not to mention that something that is considered immoral by some religions (e.g., eating pork) is not considered immoral by other religions. Doesn't it make sense that if morals were truly as Universally Valid as they are claimed to be, then all religions would have exactly the same list of morals? So, why are arbitrary religious pronouncements that are called "moral" allowed to become manifested as Law (such as prohibition of abortion)? One answer is that there has not been any serious effort to publicize this dilemma. Another is that if morals-as-Law are objectionable on Church/State-Separation grounds, then what alternative basis for Law do we use? There is an answer to that: "ethics". Since this concept does not derive from religious bias, there is every reason to think that an ethical foundation for Law can be Universally Valid. We simply need to procede as rationally as possible, and avoid any aribitrary claims that a particular thing is or is-not ethical. Every aspect of ethics should be fully explainable in simple terms, why something is or is-not ethical. Which means that the deciding criteria (for is/is-not ethical) must be indisputable. How about this?: "If it helps people to get along with each other, then it is ethical, and if it doesn't, it isn't."
If the preceding is acceptable, then ordinary crimes like robbery and rape and murder are all unethical because those activities do not help people to get along with each other. Poisoning the environment with pollutants becomes unethical, also (because people have to live in the environment), while perhaps such actions had never been called "immoral" before. And abortion will still be subject to debate, due to the definition of "person". That is, the issue is not whether an unborn human is alive; the issue is whether it qualifies as anything more than a mere animal organism (which it completely truly is, in objective scientific fact). What is it that distinquishes "persons" from "animals", anyway? The U.S. Constitution references "persons" many many times, and "humans" not at all. That's neat because it means the Constitution is all ready to accommodate "huddled masses" of non-human people seeking refuge from a cruel Universe (see fictional TV series "Alien Nation"). It logically follows that a growing yet unborn human organism is purely an animal, and at some point in its life it develops traits such that the human can then be called a person. Scientifically, these traits all appear to be associated with advanced mental abilities, such as Free Will (ordinary animals are pretty much nothing more than stimulus/response biological machines), empathy (no mere animal can imagine itself experiencing the situation of another organism), abstraction of concepts to symbols (no mere animal can understand a topographic map), and manipulation of those symbols (no mere animal can do mathematics like algebra). Scientific measurements of human abilities indicate that humans don't grow enough brainpower to fully qualify as persons until two to three years after birth. Logically, therefore, no unborn human qualifies as a person, and since the above-chosen basis for ethics involved people getting along with each other, unborn humans are as exempt from ethical consideration as any ordinary animal, such as an annoying fly that you might want to swat. (Of course the PETA group would not appreciate this conclusion. However, PETA is less against the killing of animals ("best it were done quickly", though) than it is against the torturing of animals, and there is no ethical situation in which people need to learn torture.) Abortion can be ethical, therefore. Note that a conclusion like this, if derived from a Universally Valid standard of ethics, would have to be a national-level (even an interstellar-level) rule, and not a state-level rule. Logic is such that the same premise leads to the same conclusion, no matter where the logical reasoning is performed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vernon (talk • contribs). 11:36, 4 January 2006 (MST)

In my opinion the options available to women when abortion is illegal are far more dangerous. Simply eliminating abortion will not make it go away. Women have always aborted their children for reasons that many may not understand. I personally would consider abortion if I were raped or if the baby had severe abnormalities. If I were a lawmaker I would stand up for abortion rights. I would want specific stipulations about how far into the pregnancy abortion would be available, and I would advocate plenty of free counseling and education for women faced with this decision. I understand the need for healthy, safe abortion options. Even now, when abortion is legal in some places, we hear stories of women hiding pregnancies full term and throwing their babies in dumpsters. In fact, I am very upset about what is going on with our lawmakers right now in regards to abortion. When I was looking through a textbook I was struck by how human the embryo looks after only eight weeks. I wondered if many women would choose adoption upon seeing that picture. It would certainly affect my decision. This may be a concept to implement into abortion couseling. Also, consider the varying ideas about social birth. Many people include an unborn fetus in their families. They consider this unborn baby human a part of their life... Some don't. In countries with high mortality rates it is too emotionally dangerous to consider a baby "born" or realized until it has proven it's resilience and will to live. I think our country is struggling with a decision about when exactly it is that this unborn babe is realized as a member of our society. As in.... is abortion murder?

The Right to Privacy

South Dakota has passed a far reaching anti-abortion law which, when it comes before the U.S. Supreme Court, will squarely present the opportunity for Roe v. Wade to be oevrruled. By the time this case makes its way to the Court Justice Stevens may well be retired, and a third Bush Justice would be avilable to join Thomas and Scalia. Priority one would seem to be to pray for Stevens.

I have seen little general acknowledgement that the abortion conflict actually involves something far greater than the possible loss of the right to an abortion. Along the road to taking away abortion rights the Court would first have to say that cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia were also wrongly decided. Namely, the Court would have to explicitly state that our Constituion contains no actual "Right to Privacy".

Remember when we were told as children that the greatest right we have as humans and Americans is the right to privacy, i.e. the general right to have the government leave us alone. Well that may be true culturally and historically, but in point of fact no such language actually exists in the U.S. Constitution. Sure the Warren Court did some mental gymnastics in ferreting out this grand right for us, but they were not given more help in this task by the Founding Fathers for a simple reason. Back at that time it was inconcieveable that the government might want to muck around inside our very bodies, or that anyone would actually want that to happen. If they had had any experience with modern americam conservatives, they would have had far less faith in humanity.

Anyway, there is a war going on right now that only one side knows we are even fighting. The fear, and maybe even the probability is that we will not wake up to what we are losing until after it is gone.