Re: Abortion

Mjkenoyer wrote:

> See this is what continues to bewilder me about the pro-choice
> argument, so much that it has become cliched: it is somehow OK to
> dispose of a living being who cannot defend him/herself; yet it is NOT
> OK for same pro-choice proponents to kill murderers and rapists who
> prey on the defenseless. I just don't get it.
>
> With the exception of rare and damning circumstances, I am against
> both abortion and the death penalty because I feel both engender
> violence. The surest way to perpetuate violence in any society is to
> create more violence. Besides (and I'm going off on a tangent here),
> the death penalty for even the worst wastes of sperm and egg who rape
> and murder children is somehow the easy way out compared to a lifetime
> spent behind bars, living the guarded life of a prisoner,
> contemplating the wrongs that s/he has committed.
I'm afraid I must disagree with your opinion of the death penalty. The
concept of a death penalty engendering violence is unproven and
illogical. Children are taught that killing other human beings is wrong.
However there must be exceptions to this rule. Self defense is one. If
one believes his life or health is in danger it is perfectly acceptable
to defend ones self even at the cost of the assailants life. There is a
clearly defined circumstance where lethal violence is not only
acceptable but may be absolutely necessary. Another is war. Here the
line becomes blurred. That is a matter of another line of discussion. A
third is the death penalty. It is performed under another clearly
defined set of circumstances. If someone takes anothers life under a
clearly defined set of circumstances their life is forfeit if so
adjudged. This is perfectly understandable to children. In any of the
three cases it is the rule of law. Contrary to your contention the
deasth penalty is a deterent to violence of the most extreme form,
murder. The death penalty wasn't applied, until recent years, since the
mid-seventies. The murder rate rose during those years. Since the death
penalty is again being pronounced the murder rate has declined. It is
now down to pre-ban rates. Those are the facts, check that particular
one here.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,546256,00.html

(Sorry that's not a link. I just installed Netscape 7.1 and it's buggy 
as hell)

Now it is true that violent crime has also declined but at much lower 
rates, which I attribute to the 45 states which have adopted concealed 
carry laws.
Now that's the facts. The death penalty, contrary to liberal squeeling, 
is indeed a deterent. Now, the soaring rate of juvenile violence I 
contribute directly to two factors. Gratuitous violence in the media and 
computer games, and lack of parental supervision. Concerning the first 
the displays of gratuitous violence, according to popular wisdom, 
encourages violent behavior in children. We shield our children from 
explicit sexual content because we believe it will encourage them to 
sexual activity. If we believe that then why should any believe that 
viewing projected violence in films, movie and games will not have the 
same effect. Stupid, huh? Now, you advocate life (and I assume you mean 
LIFE) in prison as a substitute because it is worse punishment. In some 
cases maybe yes. However you miss another factor. That's the lives of 
others compelled to be proximity to them. Without a death penalty the 
lives of other prisoners and prison guards, medical and administrative 
personnel and any others who come into contact with them, is at high 
risk of either death or serious injury. If someone is going to spend the 
rest of their natural lives in prison what does he or she have to loose? 
Those other people desrve to feel free of such a dire danger as much as 
anyone else. I sympathize with your impulse, I just don't think you've 
taken ALL the factors into account.

> In most cases, equally an easy way out is abortion. Abortion
> proponents are so quick to form an either/or argument with no other
> alternative: abort the baby or subject the child to a lifetime of
> neglect and abandonment. As Daniel pointed out, why not adoption? I
> can answer that one--it's too demanding, too emotionally taxing to
> place a child you feel you cannot adequately care for into the arms of
> a couple who wants desperately, and is ready to care for, a child they
> couldn't have on their own. Adoption is the preferable route for all
> involved, but not the most expedient one--abortion deprives not only a
> potential life from reaching fruition; it also deprives a childless
> couple of the potential of having a family.
>
> As much as I feel it is morally repugnant for the pro-lifers to drag
> religion into the mix, I also think it is repugnant for the pro-choice
> crowd to hang the abortion argument onto the women's-rights bandwagon.
> Where Operation Rescue and those right-wing whackos consider abortion
> to be a religious issue, the lefties in the pro-choice movement
> consider it to be a feminist issue. Both are erronous in my
> opinion--abortion should first and foremost be a medical issue. It is
> a clinical procedure that results in the loss of a potential life as
> well as possible damage to the woman's body. It should be taken much,
> much more seriously than a feminist-bandwagon or holy-roller prayer
> meeting rallying point, but it unluckily is not.
>
> The solution? Wear a condom, kiddies, and/or think really hard the
> next time you engage in sex with someone with whom you aren't ready to
> become a coparent. A little advance planning--and thinking--can go a
> long way in helping to prevent the perceived "necessity" of abortion.

Agree with all. The abortionists arguments are foderol. Unwanted 
pregnancies can easily be 100% avoided. Pro abortionists claim the pill 
is "only" 95+% effective. I'd like to see clinical proof of that. 
Personally I believe women are "only" 95+% effective. But that is beside 
the point, mistakes will happen. But judging the number (thnakfully 
decreasing) of unwanted pregnancies one would think these people never 
heard the word redundancy. Any system can fail, that's why engineers 
build redundancy into critical systems. Guys should wear condoms. girls 
should insert daiphragms even if they are on the pill. I believe a pill 
for men will be the final answer but until that time two methods should 
be used in case of one failing. There simply is no reason why 
non-clinical abortion should exist let alone be legal.
--
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an
equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906)