Partial-birth abortion

[Larry Flyntz]

--The world is overpopulated

People keep saying this, but I really really don't think it's true. Especially not in America. I mean, sure, maybe China has overpopulation problems, but what do abortions in America have to do with China's population? America does not, by any means, have an overpopulation problem.

Also, I do believe that most partial-birth abortions occur in the second trimester, or even later. Some occur in the first trimester, and that was the problem with the partial birth abortion ban: it reached abortions pre-viability. However, most of the abortions covered by the PBABA are post-viability, or late-term abortions.

[Smiff]

Okay, it might not be full to capacity, but do we really need to cover every square inch of the planet with sprawl? Human beings have no more right to the planet than anyone else, and yet we've affected nearly every part of the ecosystem, from overfishing the seas, to global warming, to destruction of most natural spaces.  

I just don't see the point of adding anymore (unwanted) human beings to the world. Let's save those resources for children who are going to be cared for and loved.

[Larry Flyntz]

Human beings have no more right to the planet than anyone else

Liberal propaganda! I completely disagree with this. As the species that evolved to rule the world, I think we have a right to do so as we see fit. We evolved the capacity for intelligent thought and technology. We should use that.

And you're extremely over-exaggerating. "Destruction of most natural spaces?" Look out almost any window in Pennsyvlania and you'll probably see trees. Our world is not the cement fortress that tree hugging hippies would like us to believe it is. It's still pretty damn green, last time I checked. Sure, we've put up buildings and things of that nature. What would you have us do instead? Live in the trees? Teepees?

But the problem with your argument "Let's save those resources for children who are going to be cared for and loved." is that it assumes a sort of equal allocation of resources, as if baby A's not being born will allow baby B to have more. That's not how it works. It's not like baby B will lead a better life if baby A is aborted. Plus, we can't just assume that an unwanted baby will not be cared for or loved. Lots of people want to adopt kids.

[Smiff]

I really don't know where to approach your latest arguement, other than   , so I might just add the interesting theory that was first put forward in Freakonomics.

The idea is that in the early '90s, there was a significant decrease in inner-city crime.  This has been attributed to economics, police action, etc, etc, etc.  However, most analysts are still mystified, because those factors should not have affected things as much as was being demonstrated.  However, the time of this sudden drop in crime was pretty much 20 years after Roe v. Wade and the building of affordable, available clinics where one could have an abortion in the '70s.  The idea is that the unwanted children who would have been born in the inner cities would have become criminals, and since they were aborted, crime dropped on a huge level.

This is supported by the areas in which abortion clinics were adopted earlier and later, their crime drop was respectively earlier and later, depending on the proliferation and availability of abortion.  

Of course, there is no way to prove this completely, but so far there haven't really been anyone that's come forward to disprove this in a major way.  It's an interesting theory, for sure, and likely to be debunked if false, imho, because of its pro-abortion stance and the popularity of that book.

[Larry Flyntz]

Now there's an argument I can agree with. I saw an interview with the guy who wrote Freakonomics, and that argument is very compelling.

[Infinite Jerkgrinders]

This is going to be a female take on things, mainly because Davey asked.
A fetus isn't a person/citizen/whatever in my eyes for one very important reason. Its still dependent upon the mother for a vast majority of the time it spends in the uterus. It is not a citizen because it is essentially a parasite, feeding off of the mothers nutrients and energy so that it may sustain itself and grow. It has not become its own power just yet, and if anything, is a sliver of a person and citizen (I.E. Mama). I think it passes through the "portal" into citizenship the exact day that it could be extracted from the mothers womb and live outside of her body. (So what, 7/8 months?) Until then, A mother would essentially be removing a part of her own body at her own will and violation. This is how I have always looked at abortions and will conitnue to do so.

I heartily agree.

[Cowboyninja]

Human beings have no more right to the planet than anyone else

Liberal propaganda! I completely disagree with this. As the species that evolved to rule the world, I think we have a right to do so as we see fit. We evolved the capacity for intelligent thought and technology. We should use that.

Flyntz, does this mean you would also support the idea that a nation(or better yet a government) incapable of defending itself has no right to exist? I know it's off topic but it is a similar premise and I was curious.

[Larry Flyntz]

Human beings have no more right to the planet than anyone else

Liberal propaganda! I completely disagree with this. As the species that evolved to rule the world, I think we have a right to do so as we see fit. We evolved the capacity for intelligent thought and technology. We should use that.

Flyntz, does this mean you would also support the idea that a nation(or better yet a government) incapable of defending itself has no right to exist? I know it's off topic but it is a similar premise and I was curious.

I never said that other species don't have a right to exist; I said that humans have a more of a right to conduct their business as they wish. In other words, human freedom to do what we want overrules other species' "right to exist." Similarly, I think America, being the strongest nation, has more of a right to sovereignty in international relations than other nations. By being the strongest nation, we put ourselves in a powerful position, and we have the right and the duty to use that power as we wish. Unfortunately "as we wish" is not always "as I wish," but that's how it goes.