[GCFL-discuss] Life Stats

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

> 
> What Roche pointed out is a simple fact: the lowest rates of abortion are
> in countries that do not impose criminal penalties, but where the
> community takes sufficient responsibility for the child/children that
> women don't feel the same pressure to abort that women in other countries
> -- many of which have criminal penalties -- feel and act upon. What do
> you want? A sharp decrease in the number of abortions? Or to feel smug
> about your own morality and politics while millions of abortions are
> performed every year?
> 
> 
> 
> Siarlys

I did not say anything about abortions being funded by the state. 
That is, indeed, a whole different can of worms that need not be
opened right now.  The origional point as I read it from the first
post was that abortion rates were lowest where there was no criminal
penalty *and* a "strong" welfare system.  That seems to imply that one
without the other pushes towards higher abortion rates.  I cannot
claim to have done the statistics research in order to support either
theory, so Roche's numbers will have to stand unopposed for the
purposes of this discussion.

Here is an interesting piece to throw into the discussion though.  It
has been shown repeately that with todays technology, babies born as
much as 3 months premature have a high survival rate.  Thus, it can
easily be argued that any unborn baby in the third trimester is
capable of continuing life outside the mothers body, albeit with some
difficulty and much help required.  Would not third trimester abortion
have to be defined as murder, without qualification, since the baby
would have a good chance of surviving from that point?

Perhaps a better tactic for reducing the number of abortions would be
to show those considering abortion, and everyone, really, just how
many people out there, both singles and couples, that are waiting 6
months and longer, sometimes over two years, to adopt a child.  Most
people interested in adoption also seem to be interested in adopting
newborn infants rather than older children as well.  It is also not
uncommon for adoption agreements to include the adopting parents
paying for medical expenses of the birth mother and even some living
expenses as well.  It seems to me that the majority of people getting
abortions would likely be able to carry the baby to full term birth
without problem and simply give the baby up for adoption, rather than
murdering the baby.

Another issue:  The pro-abortion group likes to call themselves
pro-choice.  I disagree with that label.  If they were truely
pro-choice, they would advocate making the choice *prior* to the act
of sex, not after the act is already done and a life is created.  I
think the very act of calling it 'pro-choice' desensitises people to
the truth of what is happening;  a human life that was created through
free will (in most cases, rape, incest, and similar cases are indeed
special cases where different handling is likely needed), and that
innocent, helpless human life is being taken.

Finally, if science progresses to the point where they are able to
transfer an unborn baby from a womans uterus into some artificial
uterus inside a man, I will *happily* undergo the proceedure.  I would
sooner undergo some pain and discomfort myself in bearing the baby
than to have a baby killed.  With the financial and scientific
backing, I would honestly devote the time to researching in this
direction myself.  I know there are people that would say that a lot
of guys make that kind of promise knowing it will never happen so they
would never be put to the test.  I sincerely hope that I am able to
demonstrate my resolve on this particular promise.

Have a blessed week!
Matthew