yesterday in another thread I asked the anti-abortionists to tell me how

[donsu]

NYC would have handled 90+ thousand new babies in one year.

because that's how many abortions there was last yr. in NYC.

(that's just one city)

you think they will come up with an answer?

[Maggie_May]

1. That a great question

The Repukes just want to cut health care welfare education for the poor. Are they going to take care of all the unwanted children in the United States? Hell they don't even want to care of the poor elderly and children we have now.

[FloridaPat]

2. They only care about the unborn. Once it's born it's the parents problem

[BlueCaliDem]

36. In essence, they "throw the baby out with the birthwater". n/t

[Dark]

43. That is both true and untrue.

It is untrue in the sense that some pro-lifers do their best to help downtrodden women who are pregnant rebuild their lives. They offer shelters to the women and children, as well as help getting a job.

However, there are other pro-lifers, such as those in my family, who are more than willing to shout "Abortion is murder" and spit on the clients of the clinic.

I asked my aunt why does she feel that women should have to carry a baby to term if they don't want him. Her answer is that there is still adoption.

I then asked her why she hasn't offered to adopt some of the babies who are going to be adopted. She couldn't answer.

Why don't they put their money where their mouth is and adopt a child who may be aborted?

[CottonBear]

3. See, once the kid is born, it becomes a punishment for having had sex.

That is their twisted logic. Sex is bad. Children are a punishment for pleasurable sex. There should be no pleasure in sex. Sex is only for reproduction. Only the rich and the godly (with good insurance) should have children.

edit: I'm not making this up. A wingnut, old white guy CSPAN caller from Texas recently espoused this point of view. Sick, isn't it?

[Clark2008]

22. So, even if you're married, but either don't want children

because you're not ready or because you can't afford them, you're still punished for having sex - even though you're married, like these nuts want you to be?

:crazy:

[CottonBear]

24. Exactly. :( n/t

[HeeBGBz]

46. A permanent reminder of a temporary feeling

Or so they say.

[Nobody]

63. Would you just loooove to be someone's punishment?

Children as punishment is a horrible way to think of your offstring. Aren't children supposed to be loved? And if you think of your child as a punishment, how much easier is it to abuse that child?

[TheBaldyMan]

65. the rich and godly's daughters can afford to have abortions IOKIYAR

[Orangepeel]

4. they'll say legal abortion encourages sex

and that if people had to face the consequences of their actions, they would have been more responsible and not had sex.

I don't agree with this position (not all of those unwanted pregnancies were the result of "irresponsible" sex and even if they were, someone who doesn't think ahead enough to use birth control isn't going to think ahead enough to consider what they'll do if they get pregnant and abortion is illegal), but that's what they'll say.

[donsu]

5. could NYC handle 90+ thousand babies in one yr.?

how would that change the city?

[Dawgs]

6. Here's a question for you...

Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?

[donsu]

9. pro choice

nt

[Dawgs]

7. Here's a question for you...

Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?

[rhino47]

14. I do not think anyone is pro-abortion.

I am pro-choice.That does not make me Pro-abortion.
I am for preventing unwanted pregancies in the first place.
A properly funded family planning would do that.

[Dawgs]

15. Agree..

I think it's wrong to label people pro-abortion or anti-abortion. This is a point that many pro-choicers miss.

[Orangepeel]

50. it isn't wrong to label people "anti-abortion"

that's what they are.

People who consider themselves "pro-choice" are NOT "pro-abortion" because they aren't in favor of abortion. They are in favor of letting women choose for themselves. People who use the label "pro-life" ARE "anti-abortion" because they are against abortion.

Anti-abortion organizations prefer the term "pro-life" because it frames what they want as a positive rather than as a negative. But the fact of the matter is, what they want is to restrict and/or stop something from occuring. That, accurately, makes them anti-abortion.

I use the terms that I consider to be most accurate, which are pro-choice and anti-abortion. I wouldn't argue with the accuracy of the terms "anti-making-abortion-illegal" (although that is much too much of a mouthful) and "pro-birth." But I do dispute the accuracy of the term "pro-life" when used to describe only the belief that abortion is wrong, because usually, the concern stops at birth.

[stoneisland]

8. I'm uncomforttable with the notion...

that children are to be treated as means, rather than ends in themselves. Economics is not the measure of man. There is an inherent dignity to human life. That's why we help the poor, the downtrodden, and why we oppose capital punishment. Shouldn't the same calculus apply to babies? If we wanted to treat people according to their monetary cost/benefit to society, we would shoot the homeless, castrate the wicked, and do all those other terrible things society does when it forgets that people are ends in themselves, and not a means to the benefit of others.

Last night the state of California put to death a man who was, basically, human trash. He had nothing to offer, and had brought nothing to this world other then misery, death, and pain. Yet, at the same time, he was a human being, with rights, and should not have been sacrificed in the name of vengence.

Who knows what those 90,000 children would have brought to this world. I imagine there would be some good, some bad, some terrible, some beautiful, some evil, some just. But they would have been alive, they would have had a chance.

[CottonBear]

10. When you get pregnant, then you can decide whether to abort or not. n/t

[donsu]

11. you must remember that the 90 thou. babies had mothers who did not

want to be pregnant.

how good can forced mothering be?

[stoneisland]

26. Forced Mothering?

Better than DEATH.

Anyway, there is such a thing as adoption. Is adoption perfect? No. But, to quote a great movie, "The dead know only one thing, it is better to be alive."

People and babies exist for their own sake.

Republicans judge people based on their financial worth. Republicans execute men who society no longer wants. Republicans kill foreigners and allow foreigners to die in order to get their oil. Republicans cut social programs in our most at risk communities. Republicans didn't fix the levies because those communities in the 9th Ward were poor anyway.

Republicans are about money and a comfortable lifestyle over our common humanity. Are you? Am I nothing but my bankbook? Am I nothing but my clothes, my lifestyle, my car?

Or, am I a human being?

Are you telling me it's NOT okay to kill Iraqi's in order to get their oil which we need to run the world, it's NOT okay to kill a man who was put on death row for ordering the murder of four people, but it is okay to kill a child so that a mother won't be inconvenienced? How's that logic work?

Let me know. Tell me how it's right to reduce PEOPLE to an economic argument based on what's good for someone else.

Slavery was good for the plantation owners, after all. It made good economic sense for them. Funny, but it doesn't seem like a good justification to me. What about you?

[donsu]

29. could NYC adoption agencies handle 90 thou in one yr.?

are there enough foster homes for 90 thous more?

think Alito

[stoneisland]

32. Good Question

That's a problem that could be solved.

[Book Lover]

39. self-delete

just not worth it.

[Coexist]

61. INCONVENIENCE??? That is a ridiculous argument that I am sick of.

"No. But, to quote a great movie, "The dead know only one thing, it is better to be alive."

Well, most religions teach quite the opposite. That heaven comes after death - that people who die go to a "better place".

"but it is okay to kill a child so that a mother won't be inconvenienced?"

INCONVENIENCE??? Are you kidding me. I have three children and they are a HELL of a lot more than an INCONVENIENCE. They are 18 (minimum) years of sacrifice and work and worry (as well as love and joy - but we are talking about unwanted children).

If I have to sit through another news piece about an 11 year old who died weighing 40 lbs because they were abused, neglected and tortured by their foster parents I will tear my hair out. Or about a man who adopts a little girl to be his sexual slave and trades photos of her over the internet - these things are real, and these things happen. Biological parents also do these things to their 'INCONVENIENT' children.

Adoption is a MUCH scarier choice for me than abortion - to live my entire life not knowing what kind of home my child is in, if they are being treated fairly, not being abused or molested. Every time I heard one of these stories I would get a sick feeling in my stomach that my own may have suffered the same fate.

If you believe that life begins at conception - than that aborted zygote would be much better off with a loving God than here on earth.

Peace.

[Nobody]

64. Let's consider the woman who is already here. Women are people.

Women abort for a number of reasons. You might actually agree with some of the reasons: Rape, the fetus is already dead, ectopic pregnancies, incest, something going horribly wrong and the risk of dying is too high. There are a myriad reasons that women choose to abort.

If there is one reason and one reason only that a woman might be allowed to abort her fetus, embryo, zygote, blastocyst, you are pro-choice. Pro-Your-Choice-And-Not-The-Woman's-Choice. After all, she might do something that affects your life not at all that is of utmost importance to her and her already existing family, and you might not like what she does.

You don't have the information to make such a decision on her behalf. She isn't about to share her medical records with you so you can be sure that the chance of death is 15% instead of 10% which would be an acceptable risk to someone else but too high for her. She isn't about to let you read the police report submitted when she was raped so you can satisfy yourself with the knowledge that a rape took place. You also don't get to be privy to the records of the emergency room visit.

And if you're one of the people who consider abortion to be so horrible that no exceptions can EVER be allowed, you are placing a non-viable and undifferentiated life form above the life of an already existing human being who has a family who needs her.

I hope that you advocate for cheap, easy to obtain, easy to use, 100% effective birth control methods. Then maybe this year there will be 90,000 fewer unwanted conceptions.

[Mabus]

37. forced pregnancies aren't a good option either

A few years back I became pregnant, almost. I had a blighted ovum that resulted in a partial miscarriage in the first trimester. I went and had an abortion procedure done (D&C) to stop the hemorrhaging had been going on for several weeks. Officially it was an abortion because it removed what embryonic material was there but it was never a baby. I had a friend who got an abortion because her pregnancy would have ended naturally on its own or the child would have been born severely handicapped with an abbreviated lifespan. She made the choice to end the pregnancy when she was emotionally prepared for it rather than waiting for it to end on its own time schedule or watching her child die of its deformities. And yes, one of the things that she thought about before having an abortion was the financial consequences. It was one thing to be emotionally devastated but it was another to be way in debt and emotionally devastated.

I am in no position to question those who terminated their pregnancies under other circumstances. No one should. It is, more often than not, a difficult decision that isn't arrived at easily. Forced mothering isn't a good idea and I don't think forced pregnancies do anyone any good either. I, for one, am very grateful that the right to choose whether or not I remained "pregnant" was available to me. I'm more grateful that it is available to others, like my old friend, and for whatever reason they choose to exercise their right to determine what happens to their bodies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. And I'm uncomfortable with the notion

that a zygote is a baby.

A fetus is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree.

Can you prove differently?

[donsu]

25. I'm with you

nt

[stoneisland]

27. Read the

Initial premise. How would NYC have handled 90,000 babies?

90,000 PEOPLE.

[DerekG]

38. You may find this article useful

Disclaimer: I am pro-choice (the recriminalization of abortion will only intensify suffering), but as a Christian socialist, I have avoided taking an ardent position. Frankly, this subject, like that of euthanasia, disturbs me.


Here is an excerpt of a memorable 1980 piece from The Progressive, penned by a veteran of the anti-war and civil rights movements. Meehan clearly shared your trepidation with this issue, and I suspect the gulf she alludes to remains significant.

Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life
Consistency Demands Concern for the Unborn

By Mary Meehan

--snip--

First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.

Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have. It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.

Third, abortion is a civil-rights issue. Dick Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide. Confirmation of this comes in the experience of pro-life activists who find open bigotry when they speak with white voters about public funding of abortion. Many white voters believe abortion is a solution for the welfare problem and a way to slow the growth of the black population. I worked two years ago for a liberal, pro-life candidate who was appalled by the number of anti-black comments he found when discussing the issue. And Representative Robert Dornan of California, a conservative pro-life leader, once told his colleagues in the House, "I have heard many rock-ribbed Republicans brag about how fiscally conservative they are and then tell me that I was an idiot on the abortion issue." When he asked why, said Dornan, they whispered, "Because we have to hold them down, we have to stop the population growth." Dornan elaborated: "To them, population growth means blacks, Puerto Ricans, or other Latins," or anyone who "should not be having more than a polite one or two `burdens on society.' "

Fourth, abortion exploits women. Many women are pressured by spouses, lovers, or parents into having abortions they do not want. Sometimes the coercion is subtle, as when a husband complains of financial problems. Sometimes it is open and crude, as when a boyfriend threatens to end the affair unless the woman has an abortion, or when parents order a minor child to have an abortion. Pro-life activists who do "clinic counseling" (standing outside abortion clinics, trying to speak to each woman who enters, urging her to have the child) report that many women who enter clinics alone are willing to talk and to listen. Some change their minds and decide against abortion. But a woman who is accompanied by someone else often does not have the chance to talk, because the husband or boyfriend or parent is so hostile to the pro-life worker.

--snip--

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/meehan_progressive.html

[stoneisland]

40. Jesse Helms Got One Right? The Horror! The Horror!

Jesse Helms: "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged."

[DerekG]

41. Well, Hitler was a vegetarian

Even monsters can have redeemable proclivities.

[Th1onein]

12. I'm an anti-abortionist

I also believe in the right to bear arms. But I am a liberal. And a woman.

I think that I would rather figure out how to handle 90 thousand new lives than figure out how to end them. Abortion is not the answer in this day and age. Not with all that we have to see to it that we don't get pregnant.

It is my understanding that liberals are proactive and conservatives are reactive. Being proactive prevents things like unwanted pregancies by providing birth control pills, sex education, etc., to those who are most at risk for having unwanted pregnancies.

Instead of standing on "reproductive rights," liberals need to stand on education. We need to fight to see to it that sponges, prophylactics, birth control pills, etc., are handed out in our schools. We need to see to it that these things are talked about freely in our schools. Educate, educate, educate. And, if there are unwanted pregnancies, we need to help these girls both throughout their pregnancy and throughout the time after their pregnancy, whether they choose to keep their babies, or give them up for adoption. THIS is a culture of life.

[donsu]

16. you hopped and skipped right over the question of how the city would

handle 90 thou one yr. olds.

could the cities health community handle that?

could the city handle 90 thou parents out of the workforce or could the cities child care community handle that?

in 5 yrs. could the schools handle that?

and the problems 90 thou women will have by being made to parent.

all of the above will be visited upon the 90 thou children.

the absolute bottom line of the abortion issue is : the problems caused by forcing women to have babies they do not want .

everything flows from that.

[Th1onein]

17. I think the question misses the real issue here.......

You are talking about a law imposed on a sick society--one that does not use intelligence in dealing with the pregnancy issue. When you have a society that shuns sex education and is not open about birth control, you are going to have 90 thousand unwanted pregnancies. If you have a society where all of these issues are addressed in an intelligent, pragmatic manner, instead of inserting religious crap into them, you would not have to worry about 90 thousand unwanted pregnancies to begin with, so the question becomes moot.

[donsu]

28. agree with you, but the question is not moot it is all too real

think Alito

[renie408]

58. I agree....to a point

But speaking from experience, birth control is not 100%. I got pregnant with my first child while taking the pill. And there are instances of rape and incest to be considered. I think we need an open society which frankly discusses birth control and sex AND none judgmental access to abortion in the cases where education and exposure to birth control were not the issue.

[Th1onein]

18. I think the question misses the real issue here.......

You are talking about a law imposed on a sick society--one that does not use intelligence in dealing with the pregnancy issue. When you have a society that shuns sex education and is not open about birth control, you are going to have 90 thousand unwanted pregnancies. If you have a society where all of these issues are addressed in an intelligent, pragmatic manner, instead of inserting religious crap into them, you would not have to worry about 90 thousand unwanted pregnancies to begin with, so the question becomes moot.

[Th1onein]

19. I think the question misses the real issue here.......

You are talking about a law imposed on a sick society--one that does not use intelligence in dealing with the pregnancy issue. When you have a society that shuns sex education and is not open about birth control, you are going to have 90 thousand unwanted pregnancies. If you have a society where all of these issues are addressed in an intelligent, pragmatic manner, instead of inserting religious crap into them, you would not have to worry about 90 thousand unwanted pregnancies to begin with, so the question becomes moot.

[Coexist]

62. I live in a city that used to be rural. Over the past 5 years

it has almost become a suburb. The schools are overrun and on split sessions. Last year, my son's elementary school had 35 portables. The fire department went from volunteer to county after a home burned completely to the ground (not exaggerating) from a small garage fire because of the explosive growth and new streets and confused jurisdictions over them. It has been ugly - and only about 20,000 new people - and we had lots of "room" for growth. I can't imagine that in a fully developed city.

[Bridget Burke]

30. So--you propose ending abortion rights?

In your dream world, "girls" may keep their babies or give them away. But--even in the most perfect world--some women will need to end pregnancies.

[Bridget Burke]

31. So, you think abortion should be outlawed.

In your dream world, "girls" may keep their babies or give them away. But--even in the most perfect world--some women will need to end pregnancies.

Sorry, I'm not giving up on Reproductive Rights.

[Th1onein]

44. Yes, I believe that abortion is murder.

I think that we need to concentrate on providing birth control and sex education, if we want to end abortion.

[Bridget Burke]

49. "We" don't want to end abortion.

Ideally, it would be quite rare.

If you think it should be illegal, why bother with birth control & sex education?

[catnhatnh]

13. I am Pro Choice and will answer...

....90,000 less humans...suppose I could stop just 100....no Da Vinci, no Newton, no Thomas Jefferson, no Abe Lincoln.....I completely support a womens right to choose,but to relegate 90k people to a drag on society is wrong, each may have been a leading support OF this society...one,just one of those may have been a leading light of this century and instead died.I mourn as I think each women did....

[Zodiak]

20. I believe in reincarnation

So my religious beliefs teach me that aborted fetuses just end up in another body within another mother. Preferably a mother that wants her child.

I would also like to counter the "this day and age" argument launched earlier in this thread. In this "day and age", overpopulation is a REAL problem, both here and abroad. How much faster will we reach our human bottleneck due to lack of resources when we force women to have unwanted children to the tune of millions a year worldwide?

When we ALL die from wars, starvation, famine, etc. because we could not control our population, we are going to feel really silly about tromping all over people's rights to save unwanted fetuses.

[zbdent]

21. Since they're on the subject - ask them how it would affect the crime rate

since they're on the same page as William Bennett . . .

:evilgrin:

[Nederland]

33. What a lousy argument

Abortion should be legal because a fetus has no rights, not because it makes things cheaper for government.

Think of the implications of having your argument applied to others areas of government.

[donsu]

34. are you nuts? I never said abortions made things cheaper for govts.

think Alito

what if NYC would have to face 90+ thou. births in '07

what would happen?

[Nederland]

51. what would happen?

Provided there was enough money (you said this wasn't about money) to care for them, I guess NYC would have a bunch more kids. Why is that such a bad thing? If this isn't about money, I'm kinda at a loss as to where you are going with this...

[donsu]

54. I didn't say it wasn't about money. and I didn't say govts. could save

money because of abortions.

I was asking how NYC or any city or town would handle all those births in one yr. if the religiously insane get their way and make abortions illegal.

if abortions became illegal there would be a first yr. for the country when govts. would have to come up with more money and services they hadn't planned for. cities are dying for lack of money as I write this. many parts of the country don't have doctors/clincs/hospitals, etc. without going miles and miles from home.

and the other question is about the children born to women who don't want them. the affect on the children; if adopted, if in foster care or kept by the woman. forced parenting does not bode well for the child.

how many newborns would be found in dumpsters, on church and police doorsteps?

[Nederland]

60. here's what you don't get

You ask:

how many newborns would be found in dumpsters, on church and police doorsteps?

The underlying assumption that you are making here is that terminating the fetus is preferable to having a baby left in a dumpster. To the pro-life crowd, that assumption is incorrect: the two actions are equally immoral. In the end therefore, your argument only appeals to people that already agree with you on the issue of abortion.

[donsu]

67. I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking a question.

(and most babies found in dumpsters are dead

[Nederland]

69. Yes you are

...and I'm pointing out that your question contains an underlying assumption.

[mdmc]

35. here is the answer

compassion! There is more than enough resources in this world for all of humanity, aborted babies included. We need the love of God, not the love of money, to rule our actions.

We could eliminate hunger and poverty, if so motivated.

[dsc]

42. The same way they handle the current number

which I admittedly don't know. I am presuming it is about 270,000 since about 1/4 of pregnancies end in abortion. I would presume some number would be put up for adoption which might make them the problem of other places. Bottom line I don't think a lack of finances is the problem, it is a lack of will to take care of the people who are here. I would imagine that the amount of money spent in Iraq in one month would more than pay for it.

[Yupster]

45. Isn't New York City's population

something like 9 million?

So 90,000 would be an increase of another 1 %. Is that really a big problem?

Anyway, I don't think it's a good argument for Democratic activists to make that we're better off without some people. It seems that would be an argument the other side would make.

[Scout1071]

47. How about a link for that figure? n/t

[donsu]

53. c-spans Wash. Journal two days ago

nt

[Scout1071]

55. So, no actual facts, just the word of a caller on CSPAN? nt

[donsu]

68. it wasn't a caller. the W.J. host read and the camera showed the info

nt

[neverevergivein]

48. it's not a FREAKING Baby. n/t

[catabryna]

52. In the context of the OP...

baby was most certainly the proper usage. The OP was speaking to 90K babies being born in NYC as opposed to 90K aborted babies.

[ieoeja]

57. Somewhere in between

The OP talked about the addition of 90k more children to the population of New York City.

In the OP's scenario, those children would be added to the population by criminalizing abortion. But the question could be the same if, say, a movement popped into existence whereby 90k New Yorkers in one year adopted a new born child. What kind of strain would that put on the infrastructure?

[Kablooie]

56. The Christian thing to do is to allow them to be born ...

... live in unwanted poverty all their childhood and when they get to be teens throw them in jail for life.

That's the proper Christian way to handle it.

[renie408]

59. Ouch. The truth hurts. n/t

[bobbieinok]

66. and protect vigorously the unborn and as soon as there is a birth

the right says to the baby as the cord is being cut 'OK, kid, now you're stuck with life and it's your own fault you allowed yourself to be born to a minority or poor or dysfunctional family. But hey, we made sure you'd get born, now you're on your own with your mom and your dad. (Hope he's around and she's strong enough physically and psychologically to take care of you.)

Just so you know, don't expect any help with food, housing, clothing, education; and, grief, don't expect any help with insurance and health care. You and whatever family you have are on your own; have a great day.'