As noted previously, abortions serve only two logical purposes, both that pro-abortionists do not accept as being reasons for abortion. One of those reasons being that abortion is acceptable as a substitute for contraceptives. This can be only seen as a fact because how could a woman get pregnant if a contraceptive was being used at the time or if used, that contraceptive failed?
The only other logical reason for the acceptance of abortion is for the reason of population control. This is also a fact because it is the result of abortions. Regardless of how the argument is stated none of them can eliminate these two reasons from the debate thus only serve to mislead not clarify the issue. As long as people are willing to ignore these facts, the issue will always be a problem in this society.
There are those who use the concept of inevitability to declare that the states should not enact laws on this issue but even this reason is illogical. Every law we have was enacted because of the inevitability of something occurring that would not occur in a perfect existence.
Laws are written and enacted not because something occurs but because of the abuse of that occurrence. No one, if they are honest within themselves, can declare that the use of the right to perform abortions has not been abused since the decision of the Roe Vs Wade case. There are two reasons for this.
Performing abortions is a very lucrative business and to those persons who specialize in the performance this operation, it is a very profitable one. The illogical willingness of acceptance of this practice by society is the other reason. Even pro-abortionists declare their abhorrence to the practice by their unwillingness to accept the label of being a pro-abortionist.
These are but the thoughts of this man on an issue that, if looked at logically, would not be an issue that divides a nation as it does. It is an issue that can only be declared as emotionally driven. Laws, by the nature of their existence, should be based on logic rather than based upon emotions. We chose, as a nation, the concept of being ruled by laws rather than by men. It can only be declared the reason for this is to eliminate the possibility of allowing the emotions of men to be the ruler of a nation. We, as human beings, do not have any “Spocks” among us that would rule only by the use of logic
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Abortion used as a substitute for birth control is dispicable but I know it happens more often than any of us would like to believe. I also think using abortion as a method of population control is vile. Wars take care of that, don't they? Even if we don't like war, as long as there are men there will be wars, like them or not, so I guess we might as well look on the bright side.
We need some Spocks!
Yeah, these "population control" advocates don't ever volunteer to off THEMSELVES-- just others. Especially those whom we can't see without modern technology...
Provision of abortions is hardly lucrative. abortion
cost is a fraction of birth
cost. This does not, of course, bear on the ethics of the issue
(hopefully) but should put to lie the oft-told tale of OB-GYNs doing it for the easy money. That tale is one of the 'emotional issues' of which you note...
not lucrative, BB? the average cost of an abortion is $372. the number of abortions are around a a million a year. that comes out to around 372 million dollars a year spent on abortions. that sounds pretty lucrative to me.
that is for an operation that takes a doctor around 10 minutes to perform for most abortions.
and yes, a birth cost is greater in its totality at a average of around $8000 but when you consider the extra care and added time for delivery and compare it to the cost of an abortion, a birth cost is actually lower.
now, the only question might be is "which requires the greater skill and where is the greater risk?"
then you need to take into consideration the possible complications. which is the more preferable of the two for a woman to suffer from any complication that might occur?
would a woman prefer suffering from any complication that resulted from giving birth or from having an abortion?
darn it, i can't get my links to publish right.
http://www.drspock.com/faq/0,1511,8285,00.html
http://www.meadowbrookclinic.com/faq.htm
Last year there were over 4 million births in the US, which, on average, involved a little over
$33 billion. That seems lucrative, in comparison, say income wise. Not my field, but
it appears OB-GYN physicians can provide either service. Whether their sole motivation is $$, or their patient's best interests, is of course, hard to judge.
"...sole motivation is $$, or their patient's best interests, is of course, hard to judge."
that is true. we'd need to ask each doctor of their motivation and even then we'd have to be skeptical of the answer we got.
but given that an abortion is an operation of choice and giving birth is not one of choice but an act of nature we can ascertain that the motivation would be more relavent to one over the other, can't we?
we can also apply that reason to abortion in cases where it is not performed for the medical welfare of the woman and i believe that we can both agree that there are abortions of these type. just the number of abortions performed would tell us that.
i don't deny that the field of ob-gyn is a lucrative field of business. and i will take it as a given that a person entering this field does so because they want to help people.
but i also know that doctors will perform operations that are not necessary and usually should not be done because it does not contribute much to the welfare of the patient. and this applies to all fields of the medical profession. but given the nature and purpose of abortion, i would believe this is especially true in the case of abortions now days.
besides, it would appear to me that the deliberate taking of a life goes against everything that being a doctor means.
we must also consider the idea of what happens to a person when they do something enough times. it will affect that person both psychologically and can affect their sense of morality. i use my own experience to say this and i believe you could too. we have already heard tales where babies were denied the opportunity of life after they were born by doctors.
i'll grant that the number of tales that i am referring to cannot be declared as significant yet but it does indicate this possibility, maybe even the probability of it.
i would also hypothesize that, we, as a society, have lowered the value of the meaning of life since abortions were declared a legal option for a doctor. if this could be ascertained as true in an unbiased manner then, that in itself, would be grounds for rethinking our position on this issue.
Interestingly, "but given that an abortion is an operation of choice and giving birth is not one of choice but an act of nature.." the nature thing seems shrinking. Somthing like 27% of'natural births' are caesarian theses days.
(has to do with litigation mainly)
As for 'operation of choice', who would argue that. But, we should note, there are several (even primitive) chemical abortants wherein no operation is involved.
No doubt this is only a tiny part
of what, as you note, is a complex logical and ethical argument. My only point was that IMO abortion is not particularly lucrative as some are wont to submit as argument...eg, the provider is not the driver.
ok, BB, i'll go along with the idea that some will exaggerate in order to try to convince.
exaggeration seems to be a tactic used by the minority to gain a majority. from what i have read about the issue exaggeration was a tactic used by the pro-abortionist at the time of debate prior to the decision to legalize it.
we see it used often in debate, especially political debate, not only on this issue but others also.
so, we are in agreement again. :)
have to say that yesterday was one of a rare but enjoyable experience. i was in agreement with two of my favorite readers who are usually opposed to what i say at the same time. :)
Off topic:
drspock.com
If you want to know how it's done, send me an e-mail. I like to be helpful. :)
Griper I see where you are coming from but its stil a touchy subject many of us are heartened to hear or talk about. I have heard about sharp/dull knives being used and then not getting all the baby out and being born with something missing and it just wants me to think why didnt they just go through with the whole pregnancy then and have the child. then decide what to do with it afterwards. Instead of being a limb short or something???? I guess I have made my voice clear on this subject but thanks for clearing your opinions up my friend.
Griper, am referring you to an extraordinary abortion/ethics case at Karen's place ..confusing.
he nods. and more confusing than you might think, BB. reason;
from my understanding of Catholic Church law, the declaration of excommunication is not meant to be used as a punishment for committing a sin. shucks, if it was meant to be used as punishment for committing a sin the Catholic Church would not exist. and that is what it appears like the bishop was doing,in my humble opinion, based on how the story was told. did you get that impression in reading the story?
in fact, based on my knowledge of Church law and reading the explanation of the doctors for the abortion only the timing of the abortion would be in question, not the abortion itself.
Apparently, a Bishop (ordinary) may excommunicate for:
(2) "Those who efficaciously procure abortion." The fruitless attempt is not punished with excommunication; authors do not agree as to whether the woman guilty of self-abortion is excommunicated. Catholic Encylcopedia- law, particularly church law is outside my expertise, so I cannot opine in its context. But, I did read the entire definition
of the use and meaning of excommunication...attempting to
determine why rapists, pedophiles and the like remain exempt from the practice (which strikes me as
odd). My guess is that these are
considered 'secular' crimes and are dealt with by the secular portion of society. (and perhaps the ugly stepfather was not catholic) bizarre, IMO....
from my understanding of Church law, abortion is valid in the case where the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy which, according to what was reported was the case here. but the kicker is that it must be an imminent situation before it is allowed.
and i could never understand how the Church expects a doctor to know when a situation like that exists. its like the Church is expecting that doctor to have the wisdom and knowledge of God.
from how i read the story it sounds as if the doctor and mother believed they were in accordance to Church teachings. but then again we do not know all the particulars of the story either. we only know what that reporter chose to report.
It appears once again..we are in agreement. :)
he laughs, getting to be a downright nasty habit isn't it? lol
It's such a no-brainer, I don't see how anyone could think that abortion is ever the right thing to do. I'll never understand that kind of thinking.
I don't either PCC but I have never been faced with having to make that decision.
Post a Comment