[Turambar]

I always remembered GenDisc as horribly liberally (reality) biased, which i like.  Conservatives trot out their crap arguments and Karajorma destroys them.  After that happens a few times, they stop posting about that stuff in gendisc.

[Bobboau]

maybe I'm remembering from the 2000-2005 era too strongly.
Jesus that was more than a decade ago, I was on a pentium 3 in my parent's living-room...

though now that I think about it it was liberals using the Columbia shuttle disaster as an excuse to America bash that led to Dave Barnec to leave this place in disgust. so maybe you are right.

[Luis Dias]

Hm. Noticed this just now, from a really right wing piece. But still:

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/07/16/planned-parenthoods-real-crime-making-us-notice/?singlepage=true

Naturally, we are shocked by the video, secretly recorded by the Center for Medical Progress, that depicts Nucatola so casually illustrating that the grisly business of infanticide has a sordid commercial side. The video illustrates that Planned Parenthood is harvesting organs and other body parts from the unborn children the media takes pains to call “fetal tissue.” It is not merely (merely?) discarding the inconveniently unavoidable remains of these “surgical procedures”; it is planning, with malice aforethought, how to execute the killing while maximizing the commercial value — oh, I’m sorry, the “medical research” value — of the corpse.

As the good doctor put it:

You’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax so that, you know — we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we now that — so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.

Harvesting body parts, technically, is a federal crime. So is homicide by partial birth abortion. The video suggests that Planned Parenthood may be performing this “surgical procedure,” perhaps routinely.

Two interesting things: First, it establishes the the idea that this whole scandal is purely based on the disgust of those who consider abortion a monstruous thing. As I said before, anyone who thinks this will be utterly regurgitating when reading or listening others so casually discussing the remaining organs of the unborn. Not only the author is disgusted at abortion, he even thinks it is a sign of our bad times that we even consider partial birth abortion a crime only to be punished by 2 years tops.

The other thing might be more interested for the continuation of this thread: 2 claims of illegality are here present: A "partial birth abortion" claim and "harvesting body parts". What do you make of this?

[pecenipicek]

wait, i just realised something, does this involve what might be termed "late-term" abortions? as in beyond the first 3 months of pregnancy? arent these ridiculously unsafe for the mothers-to-be?

* pecenipicek goes off to research...

okay, so, partial-birth abortion is 15-26 weeks of pregnancy.

[666maslo666]

wait, i just realised something, does this involve what might be termed "late-term" abortions? as in beyond the first 3 months of pregnancy? arent these ridiculously unsafe for the mothers-to-be?

* pecenipicek goes off to research...

okay, so, partial-birth abortion is 15-26 weeks of pregnancy.

I wondered about that, too. Doesnt partial-birth just mean that part of the fetus is sticking out?

If this is about late term abortions, meaning roughly sixth month and later, then that may change my opinion on the entire thing. I think such abortions should be either banned, or conducted with as much care as an euthanasia. Cause the foetus could already be sentient.

[Turambar]

Two interesting things: First, it establishes the the idea that this whole scandal is purely based on the disgust of those who consider abortion a monstruous thing. As I said before, anyone who thinks this will be utterly regurgitating when reading or listening others so casually discussing the remaining organs of the unborn. Not only the author is disgusted at abortion, he even thinks it is a sign of our bad times that we even consider partial birth abortion a crime only to be punished by 2 years tops.

It's incredibly obvious from Sandwich's title also, where he claims parts of babies are being sold, rather than parts of fetuses.

[Bobboau]

and the trick is to not react in the way he expects.

[Mongoose]

Which way?  I can't stand these pro-life asstards who can't appreciate that we're going to run out of room on this planet.

Pretty much every reputable demographics study I've seen predicts a rapid leveling-off of global population growth over the course of the next four or five decades.  Beyond that, almost every first-world country is currently or will shortly be experiencing a significant demographics crisis, with Japan as the most egregious example.  For a lot of us, the real problem is that we're not having enough hot, steamy, baby-making sex.

I always remembered GenDisc as horribly liberally (reality) biased, which i like.  Conservatives trot out their crap arguments and Karajorma destroys them.  After that happens a few times, they stop posting about that stuff in gendisc.

This is a really ****ty way for people to challenge and reinforce/reconsider their own perceptions, isn't it?  I know I've drifted much more "leftwards" on most topics over the past decade of my life (somewhat ironically, abortion is one of the few where I have not and will not do so), and I think it was largely due to getting exposure to the wide variety of viewpoints being expressed here.  If I had just tuned it all out from the get-go, I think I'd be a lot worse off than I am.  So much of the trouble with political discourse today seems to be that almost everyone on all sides just wants to surround themselves with opinions they already hold.  The problem with locking yourself into an echo chamber is that you never hear the person outside of it telling you why you're wrong.

[Dragon]

Which way?  I can't stand these pro-life asstards who can't appreciate that we're going to run out of room on this planet.

Pretty much every reputable demographics study I've seen predicts a rapid leveling-off of global population growth over the course of the next four or five decades.  Beyond that, almost every first-world country is currently or will shortly be experiencing a significant demographics crisis, with Japan as the most egregious example.  For a lot of us, the real problem is that we're not having enough hot, steamy, baby-making sex.

Indeed, this is one argument for anti-abortion (and anti-contraception, by the way) crowd that makes sense. Also, the one I've hardly ever seen used by them. Go figure. Japan is a good example of how lengthening life and making it possible to have sex without babies (two things people are heavily working on) can end up screwing people (especially retirees) over. Population growth is actually negative in a quite a few countries (mostly around Central Europe) and about half of the world's population lives in countries with sub-replacement fertility rate, meaning that any population growth in those is purely courtesy of immigration. The US is a notable exception, but it's still at risk of that happening.

Whatever your views on abortion, this is not a good thing. The only reason we're not going to find ourselves living in countries with more retirees than workforce is that things will go crashing down long before that happens. While I support the woman's right to have an abortion, I also believe that this right should be exercised with a lot of moderation. If only because population growth is already low enough without yet another way of reducing it. It's a lot bigger problem in Europe than in the US, but the way things are going, the US will eventually find itself in this situation as well. Better to act now, because issues related to population dynamics have enormous inertia (on order of years or even tens of years).

[karajorma]

The number of abortions isn't anywhere near enough to make a difference.

Contraception is probably a different issue but replacing the problems of ageing nations with the problems of unwanted children is an idiotic notion.

[Mongoose]

The number of abortions isn't anywhere near enough to make a difference.

Actually the fact is that the abortion rate in the US is high enough for it to actually make an appreciable difference.  From 2010, the most recent year where I was able to find verifiable data, there were just under 4 million births in the US, compared with over 760,000 abortions: adding those together, abortions make up 16% of all of those pregnancy events.  That's certainly enough to swing a birthrate across the replacement rate either way.  But I think you are right in saying that it's certainly not the primary factor behind first-world demographics crises, though it certainly doesn't help them.

[Dragon]

I wonder how many of those were for medical reasons, where the child wouldn't have survived anyway, or where giving birth would've killed the mother (or both, for that matter). Still, with a percentage like that, it's likely that even discounting such cases, the impact would not be insignificant. Also, since abortion is still illegal in some places (and certainly was in 2010), there are probably some abortions which were not accounted for. All in all, it's a pretty big difference. Certainly not the primary factor behind demographic problems (widespread contraception, economic concerns and rising life expectancy contribute much more), but not insignificant, either.

Certainly, unwanted children are not a solution to aging nations, wanted children are. However, abortions make it easy for the mother to change her mind halfway through. With abortion fully legal and not stigmatized as much (will happen if issue is definitely decided on and controversy is sidelined), the number could be expected to rise. And it certainly wouldn't do neither the future pensioners nor the treasury any good. While I do support the right to abortion on principle, I have an uneasy feeling about it being exercised irresponsibly.

[karajorma]

Yeah, you're right Mongoose, it does make a difference after all.

But I still don't think it's a great solution to the problem of an ageing population. It would cause far more problems than it would ever solve. Hell, purely from a pragmatic point of view, how does it help anyone to have a younger population if a large part of that population is unable to support itself and must depend on aid from the state?

While I do support the right to abortion on principle, I have an uneasy feeling about it being exercised irresponsibly.

I always love this particular worry. 'Irresponsible' abortions are largely the fault bad sex ed. Which is pretty much the fault of the same people who then complain about it.

[Flipside]

In many cases, the pinch in the hourglass is financial, not moral. People who use Abortion as a form of Contraception are playing roulette with their long term health, that much is certain, but I suspect a lot of abortions are simply because a lot of prospective parents in developed countries figure out that raising a kid in that environment is incredibly expensive.

It's easy post facto to say 'Well, they shouldn't have got pregnant then', which always reminds me of an old comedy sketch; a man in a hospital says 'Doctor, it hurts when I lift my arm' and the Doctor replies 'Well, don't lift your arm.'. It's an answer that is logically effective in every way and yet of no tangible help whatsoever to the person in need because it's totally divorced from reality.

And really, at the end of the day, if you could replace the concept of abortions with 100% contraceptive knowledge among people, the birth rate wouldn't rise, it would plummet, far more people choose to keep an accidental pregnancy than choose to terminate it, so the idea that they 'shouldn't have got pregnant' is actually a self-destructive one.

[666maslo666]

In many cases, the pinch in the hourglass is financial, not moral. People who use Abortion as a form of Contraception are playing roulette with their long term health, that much is certain, but I suspect a lot of abortions are simply because a lot of prospective parents in developed countries figure out that raising a kid in that environment is incredibly expensive.

Fertility rate correlates negatively with wealth, so I dont think it is financial. However, financial and other incentives for having kids could still help. Ultimately, I think it is cultural - people prioritize studies, career or having fun over having children.

[Flipside]

It correlates with wealth on a Global basis, certainly, but when you snip out just the developed world, even the 'poorer' echelons of society in a developed culture are (for the main part) having far fewer children than their third-would counterparts, partly because of survival rates, and partly because of better comparative education. It's that education that drives people to want to spend more time on other pursuits.

[zookeeper]

It'd certainly make more sense to fix demographics by enabling and incentivizing people to adopt more of the already existing kids instead of making new ones, anyway. When you have too few kids in one place and too many in another, the solution ought to be obvious.

[Bobboau]

and also having kids makes you more poor. it's not a one directional cause.

[Phantom Hoover]

this reminds me of that ****ty episode of bsg where roslin makes abortion illegal

[Luis Dias]

Having children is not easy and in modern ages, it's a huge responsibility. I do not judge anyone who sits by the sidelines without kids.