abortion vs holocaust (page 54)

jgnat

As for the 75% who are unprepared either emotionally or financially to raise a child, I think the ultimate solution is to reduce the income inequality, raise the general prosperity of the nation, and have a stable society and government.

The Dutch approach to preventing teenage pregnancy has often been seen as a model by other countries. The curriculum focuses on values, attitudes, communication and negotiation skills, as well as biological aspects of reproduction. The media has encouraged open dialogue and the health-care system guarantees confidentiality and a non-judgmental approach. [ 90 ]

When this is done, teen pregnancy drops to 7.7/1000 births, and abortion rate to 3.9/1000 births. Compare this to Texas, 46.9/1000 births, and teen abortion rate of 31/1000 births.

mrhhome

As for the 75% who are unprepared either emotionally or financially to raise a child, I think the ultimate solution is to reduce the income inequality, raise the general prosperity of the nation, and have a stable society and government.

You forgot promoting world peace and eliminating hunger in your list.

The Dutch approach to preventing teenage pregnancy has often been seen as a model by other countries.

Cross cultural comparisons are risky business. There are many demographic and cultural reasons why Texas has a higher teenage pregnancy rate than the Netherlands. You could adopt all of the Dutch policies, and it would likely only have a marginal impact on the teenage pregnancy rate.

So can I deduce from your response that you think abortion should be legal when the mom just doesn't want the baby?

unstopableravens

just for clearification, so we can stop talking about me , i will state my postion as clear as i can so we can move on. i view the defination of abortion as follows: the willfull killing of a fetus/baby in the womb. i do not see letting the baby die to save the mom as abortion. if the moms life is in danger and the baby has to be removed and the doctors removing the baby are not purposely killing the baby than its not abortion. the mom is not aborting or stopping the preg,. so under that i do not agree with any abortion. if you take the scernio to still be an abortion, than under your terms it would be an abortion. i think the will of the mom and doctors plays a huge roll and if it is abortion. that is as clear as i can say it.

cofty

i view the defination of abortion as follows: the willfull killing of a fetus/baby in the womb. i do not see letting the baby die to save the mom as abortion - Unstop

The doctors must willfully, purposefully, deliberately kill the baby in order to save the life of the mother. They do not "let it die". There is no other option. I have explained this very clearly already.

You don't get to make up your own unique definitions so you can take the moral high ground and judge others.

The fact remains that you are in favour of abortions in this specific instance.

We could explore it further and consider other similar situations and you would eventually see that it is not as simplistic as you like to pretend.

unstopableravens

cofty: its not about a moral high ground, its the same thing with rape, i dont view someones evil act(rape) sin(rape) to be an excuse and give a pass to kill fetus/baby. cofty the fact remains these cases are not pleasent for any mother and its nothing they asked for, some may feel different about these unqiue case, however most abortions are not in this catagory. you know this, and yet you shy away from it, you would rather discuss rare life threating scenrios

cofty

I have said a number of times that once we establish your position THEN I would be willing to discuss my views on abortion.

It has taken 27 pages and STILL you won't state unequivocally that you approve of an abortion to save a woman's life.

If you don't have the moral courage to be honest about that then the conversation can't get started.

valkyrie

USR: just for clearification, so we can stop talking about me , i will state my postion as clear as i can so we can move on. i view the defination of abortion as follows: the willfull killing of a fetus/baby in the womb. i do not see letting the baby die to save the mom as abortion. if the moms life is in danger and the baby has to be removed and the doctors removing the baby are not purposely killing the baby than its not abortion. the mom is not aborting or stopping the preg,. so under that i do not agree with any abortion. if you take the scernio to still be an abortion, than under your terms it would be an abortion. i think the will of the mom and doctors plays a huge roll and if it is abortion. that is as clear as i can say it.

Congratulations on this long overdue clarity of your answer, explaining your viewpoint and 'reasoning'!

Although it dismays you to be bound to a word that you have subjectively villified, the fact is that what you describe as an acceptable instance where the fetus is removed (dies) so that the mother continues to live, is called a medically necessary abortion. In this case, the fetus itself is the ailment that threatens the life of the woman; removal (abortion) of the fetus is the solution... not incidental to the solution.

J. Hofer

valkyrie

jgnat

mrhhome: You forgot promoting world peace and eliminating hunger in your list....Cross cultural comparisons are risky business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfr2706vmI

You may suggest this is unrealistic unless there is hard evidence that the solution I offer has been demonstrated in country after country, culture after culture, regardless of other factors. The common factor has been found.

Unrealistic to implement? A good part of the world is actively seeking these goals and succeeding.

Teen births in the US is dropping, and I suggest that it is because of improvement in these areas. It could be speeded up by paying attention to them.

abortion vs holocaust

Share this