abortion

GROUP SUSTAINABILTY1.) We are not capable of 100% foreknowledge, so the choices we make are always in doubt, but we pursue our best efforts to access the relevant data to help conclude our best options. The choice to abort or not to abort will have consequences; you are not getting out of this, either way you will be contributing to the death of a possible life. (Perhaps you hold some view that you are not responsible for not acting, and/or believe there is some arbiter to natural circumstances for death?) “Group sustainability” does not only mean “Earth’s population”, it can be in respect to her individual circumstances for sustainability as the possible child makes her a group of two ; whether by herself, among a group of 6, or a larger group of a few thousand people and more. Sustainability has been the number one reason for most of human existence, though I might add, for most of that time the process of abortion was not understood, and instead infanticide was the typical course taken. [1] The number one reason for having an abortion in modern times is still “sustainability”. “The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study” –Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005 [2]2.) This certainly is not true, perhaps you have little concept of exponential population growth [3], or the fact that all over the world people are dying from starvation, dehydration, bad hygiene a lack of basic human rights. It is not always so much about if we have enough resources, but how well it can be accessed. For perspective diarrhea causes 1.4 million preventable child deaths per year, and malnutrition 860 000 preventable child deaths per year. [4]What is the reason for these “preventable deaths”? It is lacking access to important resources for survival.“Exclusion from clean water and basic sanitation destroys more lives than any war or terrorist act.” [5]If we can overcome these burdens of access, we will have fewer reasons for a person to perform an abortion.3.) No, but an option should be available for those in the circumstances I have argued.I hope you are not attempting to mask “suffering” in some ambiguous notions so to equate the suffering of a fetus or “unborn child” to a “born child” whose suffering will be greater because their capacity to realizing this burden on themselves and those in his/her life.Your use of the terms “unborn baby” and “killing” must arouse certain emotions in you, so as to distract you from the further consequences of your “lack of action” to prevent unneeded suffering and the emotional, physical damages caused by those state of events. I would contend that many parents have found themselves in the hard place to conclude that their sick and dying child should not be allowed to continue to suffer. You remarked “the obese women do it all the time”, yes I suppose, that is their personal right to choose to do so. Good reasons for or against their personal choice is another matter, and not part of this debate.HUMAN RIGHTS1.) Doesn’t make sense, nor do I think it fits the context of proposition 1. The person, for whom abortion is not an option must by virtue of that circumstance, be unable to participate as an equal and active member of society.2.) Pressure in group participation can come from many different avenues: from the peer pressure to fit in and do what everyone else is doing (foolish or not), parental control demanding their child is not going to jeopardize her education and future career, or forced on those trapped in human trafficking (mainly prostitution) [6]; females have a long history of becoming victims of forced abortion.3.) I certainly am aware people have their own personal ideas, but I am using a defined and nationally agreed upon definition cited earlier in Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights [7]I believe I explained ‘why it is good for society and individuals; maintaining women’s human rights which I briefly elaborated on, I also believe it accomplishes all that I have reasoned in my arguments.I never asked what you thought a woman should do to “fit in”.Adoption is an option. But there are a lot of children out there looking for homes right now, and many that never get adopted, “Each year, over 27,000 youth “age out” of foster care” [8]. Though there was slight drop in recent years in the US, let us not forget around the world there are an estimated 153 million orphans; your (only adoption) is not in proportion with reality, which I think is a common problem with a number of your responses. You are suggesting that we increase the number of orphans by possibly another 40 million a year? Not to mention the increase in the damages caused by illegal abortions, that otherwise would have been done safely.SOCIETAL AND INDIVIDUAL HEALTH1.) That is good you believe abortion should be used for the health of the mother, but then you go on the say you don’t think they should give abortions? That doesn’t seem to me to be congruent with your response to the first proposition, but I may be misunderstanding?2.) That analogy is completely preposterous; there is a huge difference in illegal abortion and the benefits brought to society, most importantly to individuals by allowing safe access to legal regulated professional abortion. “Of the approximately 21 million abortions are performed by unskilled individuals, in environments that do not meet minimum medical standards or both”, and “unsafe abortion is the cause of 70,000 maternal deaths each year” plus many other health complication. [9]Yet, I will turn your analogy on you. Just as I believe I have demonstrated in the above arguments: that legalization can have a greater impact, because of the authority to improve oversight and maintain the healthiest situation of what otherwise would have happened and resulted in greater harm from lack of even minor control of many health variables. So, there may be drugs in the house, but most certainly the dad’s knowledge of the drugs in the house during the party are better than not know about the drugs being there. He can know where it is at, who is possibly doing it and could try and do something about it: watch and care for people as best he can, attempt to take, perhaps have it locked safely away, or call the police, etc...3.) I contest the meaning of “unlimited”, but yes, “regulated safe access” to hamburgers would be better than, unregulated and unsafe access to it. [10]REDUCTION IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR3.) If the first two propositions are true, the conclusion follows; and you answered yes to both. I explained what “criminal activates” in my argument, please review.I said, “Legal safe access to professional abortion will reduce a number of criminal activities that otherwise would have taken place.” The criminal activities are those which take place during an illegal abortion, not by the child who otherwise would have been aborted.Sources:[1] Harris, Marvin (1977). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. NY: Random House. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] 1st Page, under “CONCLUSIONS” -- http://www.guttmacher.org...[3] -- http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] Page 7 -- http://whqlibdoc.who.int...[5] Ch1. Page 27 -- http://hdr.undp.org...[6] http://abcnews.go.com...[7] http://www.un.org...[8] Figure 1 -- http://www.fosteringconnections.org...[9] 1st paragraph & first graph -- http://www.guttmacher.org...[10] http://www.pbs.org...