You "give it up for adoption" idiots are going to make me drag out the sociology again, aren't you?
You are not superior to the rest of us, lose the attitude, this is a debate, not a flame match!!
Two reputable sociological studies have actually found that crime rates are lower in areas where access to abortion services is (1) readily available and (2) legal.
Please show me the evidence and statistics. Also show me a direct correlation between that and a country where abortion is illegal.
Social conditions are also better in those jurisdictions. Why? Because the vast majority of unwanted children who are born are never actually given up for adoption (for a variety of reasons). Instead, they are raised by families unable or unwilling to care for them.
What are these reasons. Please state.
Is it the grandparents or other parents raise the child rather than see it destroyed by abortion?
That correlates directly with involvement in criminal activity (it's not causal, it's correlative). It also costs the social support system a fortune in resources dedicated to crime prevention, drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment, subsidized housing, anti-homelessness programs, etc.
This could occur in any number of different environments, it is too simplistic to state that it is merely down to being adopted. Can you take into account the social area to which the child is born, the background, the family lifestlye?
Drugs problems, crime hot spots generally take place within areas of civil unrest, social disorder or economic turbulance.
This avoids a whole host of other valid issues of course, namely:
The biology of the issue; aborting a pluripotent cellular mass at a few weeks gestation is not the termination of a human life, it's the termination of something which - given a very narrow set of circumstances - has the potential to become a human life.
So where does human life begin? Birth? If that birth has defects, then should than life be terminated?
Or the fact that pregnancy takes an enormous, and still often fatal, toll on the female body.
What are the numbers of fatalities in relation to births then?
Or the fact that men bear as much if not more responsibility for a pregnancy than women, yet share none of the biological or emotional cost.
If the child dies at birth, the father will still feel a huge amount of emotional pain, if the child survives, generally, the father will feel deep joy. There is without doubt, a lot of emotion involved for males. They are involved with all the bumps, fuzzy feelings, helping the lady along her way, they try the best to feel every kick that the baby makes inside the womb, they are very, very invovled. How dare you say otherwise.
Or the fact the number of pregnancies aborted remains constant regardless of the legality of the procedure, while female mortality is dramatically higher in jurisdictions where the procedure is illegal.
once again, evidence please. how can this be so, in many countries when the process is illegal, and you have nothing to compare it against?
Or the fact that sexual education is, in general, woefully inadequate and the same people that typically advocate the anti-abortion stance are also the biggest proponents of abstinence-only sex education which actually has the effect of INCREASING teen pregnancy rates in jurisdictions where it is taught.
How is it been taught? By what standard? What statistic do you have to show that this is true. Abstence taught is bound to fail, since it is very natural for humans to engage in sexual relations. So naturally, if this method of education is taught, then it is bound to fail, as it requires zero babies, while each school is bound to get at least two.
Or the fact that it is patently unreasonable for the decision (either way) to be forced upon anyone.
What about the decision if it is forced upon the male. This child will be born, you must support it?
Ultimately, the decision to abort a pregnancy is the sole decision of the people who created it in the first place. It is no one else's business if they choose to conceive a child or not.
As long as the law permits the couple to do law: eg: incest?
The parents are required to bear the biological, psychological, social, and financial cost of the pregnancy even if they are able to give the child up for adoption.
Yes of course.
Until someone else is prepared to take over ALL of those costs (I'm especially interested in seeing someone claim the biological cost can be accounted for), then they have precisely ZERO say in that couple's affairs. The same goes for sex itself; the only people who have any say in it are those directly involved. Everyone else can concern themselves with their own affairs.
It is not possible to claim the biological cost, are you going to swap the womb or eggs?
If regards to sex, that only the couple are directly involved, then all laws regarding, age and incest are not relavant, since its their 'own affairs'
And for any of you more conservative-minded folk who are prepared to debate me on this, I'm warning you in advance that you will be called to account for your opinions based on the following topics:
-Biology.
-Social cost.
-Rights of liberty, equality, and freedom.
-Rights of government.
-The governing constitutional document of your nation.
fire away mate
I'm warning you in advance so you have some prep time. There are a lot of hypocrites around here that espouse libertarian principles when it comes to government and then promptly turn into facists when it comes to individual social rights. You can't have it one way for one issue and a different way for another just because you personally don't agree with it.
What gives you the right to put people into one camp or the other. Maybe the average person is trying to judge for themselves what they feel is right, and not get stuck in a brand of a way of life! You can have it both ways. You can choose a medium or a centre approach, not merely right or left. It is not that simple.
