The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 3, Thread 28.

1. Population control
Fri, Dec 11, 1998 - 1:22 PM/EST
SunBird

Do countries have a right to limit the number of children a family/woman can have? What about the abandonment of female infants in China so the parents can have another shot at having a boy? And what's the huge surplus of males that's coming along in China going to mean for that culture and its concept of ethnic purity a few generations hence?

What about misrepresentation of birth control methods as reversible, when in fact they cause sterility, in India?

Does relying on voluntary methods of birth control mean that the better-educated and better-off have fewer children than those who raise their families without adequate medical care or education?

And -- here's the biggie -- should abortion be available on demand? What about for minors?

2. Worthy topic...
Fri, Dec 11, 1998 - 6:29 PM/EST
Mark

China finds itself in a situation where its oligarchy desperately restricts freedoms so as to preserve order. Procreation control is one of many human rights abuses epidemic in that country, and for me, probably the last one I'd take on because mushrooming population growth is a threat to the survival of our species. You learn in population biology that there is no mammal that continues a growth curve like that of Homo sapiens over the past millennium. Either it levels off to zero growth soon (my guess: decades) or we take a large plummet from mass die-off due to any number of natural causes. Worldwide habitat destruction and global economic injustice combined with unchecked pop. growth and human mobility are a perfect formula for the next supervirus. Any place that we tolerate (e.g) contaminated water could be the incubator of a powerful enemy that we are not united to repel.

We in the U.S. fail to demonstrate leadership on this issue largely due to our bipolar politics. Defining intelligence as "the ability to predict and control our environment," we've conducted our national abortion debate in a stupid manner. The general population seems prepared to preserve the right to choose while taking steps to make abortion as rare as possible, but our "representatives" refuse to pursue policy in that context. The political survival of our most political people supercedes all.

We in the States also have been surrendering more of our personal freedoms to preserve order. The wealthiest of us are largely insulated from this sacrifice, though, so the trend of freedom curtailment will continue until mass voices replace mass dollars in political influence.

3. government is not the answer
Fri, Dec 11, 1998 - 7:29 PM/EST
sully

Mark,
I never thought I would agree with you. As you know I take a liberatarian viewpoint that less government is best. While I personally would like abortion to be rare I believe in the right of the individual to live their life in any manner they choose as long as it does not hurt others. That puts great responsibility on people and includes the right to choose abortion, adaptation, or keep. Government should not either help or hinder these very personal decisions.

7. Another question among lots of good ones...
Mon, Dec 14, 1998 - /EST
baggins

If "I" had sex with a woman and she were to become pregnant and did not want to have the baby, who do you believe should have the say over what then happens?

Obviously the woman should have a say over how her body is involved in anything...but if her decision is to terminate the foetus what of the genetic contribution I made to that new life?

Should the man be allowed to have some input into how the matter is dealt with?

I am unsure about these issues myself but it seems wrong that I would have no say about a life I have contributed to bringing into existence

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Baggins

8. Man's responsibility
Mon, Dec 14, 1998 - 11:01 AM/EST
Marlyn

To Baggins -

I can see where you would like to see more involvement of the men in the decision to abort or adopt out or keep. Personally, I think the decision to abort is one best made between the woman, father of the child and the physician; rather than by just one side of the procreation "team". So I would applaud your desire to not be "left out".

However, I would assume for the sake of argument that this would mean that men who *wouldn't* want the woman to abort the fetus would be equally willing to be emotionally and financially supportive of the woman during the pregnancy and delivery, right? Furthermore, if giving the child up for adoption were NOT to be an option, this would also mean he would be willing to take personal responsibility for the financial and emotional wellbeing of this child during the 20 or so years it takes it to become an adult -- regardless of level of interaction with that child the man may have otherwise?

You see, being "part of it" when deciding NOT to abort, at that point, should mean accepting the future parental responsibility for a child's life AND the financial burden of providing adequate medical care to the woman during her pregnancy and delivery. As far as is reasonable or fair to me, however, this willingness cannot be evidenced retroactively. At that point, it becomes a weapon to inflict a greater guilt trip in someone probably already suffering from having the abortion to begin with, rather than anything truly meaningful. This is both unnecessary and cruel, suffices as evidence of the man's basic immaturity -- and thus further justifies the woman's taking the responsibility for making the decision on her own, as far as I'm concerned.

Were a man truly concerned enough in what happens to his "seed" to warrant getting input into what happens when that "seed" engenders a new life, it seems hard to understand how he could have managed to remain "out of the loop" for the 3/4s of a year it took to bring that life forth as a living, breathing infant.... That implies 9 mos of absence -- a synonym for which is "abandonment". Abandonment in that sense equals abdication of say-so in the abort/don't abort issue, to me anyway...

The price of input is/should be responsibility and commitment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fair?

Namaste!

Marlyn

9. Short and simple suggestion.
Mon, Dec 14, 1998 - 4:50 PM/EST
j2saret

The time to decide what the outcome and responisibilites of any possible pregnancy will be is before you take off your clothes.
baggins, if you do not discuss these issues before you "donate" your sperm, it seems to me you are making a free gift of your "genetic contribution" for your partner to use or discard as she wishes.

John
(hip, but old fashioned)

11. Same answer to different problem
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 12:48 PM/EST
Chuck

Personal responsibility...If you don't want babies, practice birth control.

Do what you want with your own body??? Just try going down to the doc and saying, "Hey doc, my left arm really bugs me...how about lopping it off for me?. Do what you want with your own body??? Just try selling an organ or two...or just rent out a part or two which the opposite sex would like to use, and see if that's OK.

But assuming you can, as many will, look past these logical examples of why the "your own body" argument isn't very logical, let me point out that the baby is a distinctly SEPARATE body...medical science proves that without question...Completely different genetic makeup from mommy OR daddy.

Interesting, the wonderful way we try to hide our eyes from truth by using words which sound less offensive...fetus sounds so much less human than baby. I guess that makes fetuses much easier to kill. Well, FETUS IS LATIN FOR BABY. You really should find a better dehumanizing word.

Babies, every one I've ever seen, are beautiful, innocent creatures. And I've yet to learn of a pregnant woman giving birth to anything but a human being. A beautiful baby. My God, how can so many people lack compassion for babies and for the gift of life? Who speaks for that poor, inconvenient child?

12. A Modest Proposal (with apologies to Dean Swift)
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 2:53 PM/EST
SunBird

We should soon have reliable contraceptive implants for both females and males of breeding age. Why not eliminate the many problems created by and for the unfortunately undesired children of this nation by equipping all persons with such an implant at the age of, say, 12, and forbidding it to be removed until they have obtained an education commensurate with their abilities, undergone marriage, passed extensive training in parenting and family life, demonstrated financial responsibility and stability ... and oh, yes, had their DNA evaluated to ascertain whether it is suitable for the gene pool of the Master Race -- I mean, America.

Peace.

13. Sunbird
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 8:17 PM/EST
Chuck

You started this thread with a lot of interesting questions, some better than others. A number of folks tried to give thoughtful responses. Your last message, laced with sarcasm is puzzling.

I will only comment on one thing you said. It is troubling to have the Nazi concept of the Master Race somehow equated with America. This country, troubled though it may be, is a wonderful place. I don't know one person who deserves that terrible slander, let alone the entire country. I suggest you don't really know how lucky you are to live in a country where you can say such things without fear of reprisal. Thank you, founding fathers for the first amendment, and God Bless America.

14. Chuck, SunBird's not unappreciative, she's using irony to make a strong and succinct point...
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 11:26 PM/EST
Mark

We're rapidly approaching a time when our DNA profile will be as sought-after by part of corporate America as our all-important spending habits already are.

Privacy and individual freedom in America and most other nations is waning for all but a wealthy few. Master Race idiocy has reared its head innumerable times 'neath the banner of Old Glory -- which, by the way, should not be sacrosanct. We have to be good enough to stand up to the harshest criticisms without proscribing means of protest. If you don't like somebody burning the flag then you can always wave one -- and in no way do I say this in disrespect of your feelings.

15. population control, etc.
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 11:57 PM/EST
Lynne

Lots of topics here...where do I start? Over-population IS a problem and we should be doing more about it, although government coercion is not the answer.

Better information on and access to birth control would be a good start. I also think that with minors, in addition to birth control an attempt should be made to point out the advantages of waiting until the age of majority when hopefully they'll be better able to handle the situation if b.c. fails. (Not waiting until marriage, mind you, many teenagers don't think they will ever get married and many people don't marry until they are in their late 20's or even their 40's.) This won't work for everyone of course, so as I said birth control access should still be there..

Abortion should be legal for the first and second trimesters and I think this because I've read the capacity for thought does not occur until the end of the second trimester. It makes no sense to call a fetus a person if it can't even think. Of course, if birth control were more widely used this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

As for whether a man who helped get a woman pregnant should have a "say" in whether or not the pregnancy should come to term, many women do ask for the man's opinion on the matter BUT he should NEVER be allowed veto power over her decision. It's her body. How do you make a democratic decision when the votes are evenly split? You can't. Somebody has to lose. In my experience, most men who want a "say" in the decision really want veto power over the woman's decision if it happens to disagree with his and that's wrong. Also, although Baggins suggested that a man might want to try to stop an abortion most men I know (except my husband who loves kids) are more interested in forcing a woman to have an abortion she doesn't want in order to avoid responsibility. *shudders* Sorry if this sounds cynical but if you let a man tell a woman she can't have an abortion, next thing you know there will be many more trying to force women to have abortions.

16. Keep thinking people alive!
Thu, Dec 17, 1998 - /EST
Chuck

"Abortion should be legal for the first and second trimesters and I think this because I've read the capacity for thought does not occur until the end of the second trimester. It makes no sense to call a fetus a person if it can't even think."

Lynne. I don't believe someone as obviously thoughtful as you could have written this. Suppose someone comes along with these ideas...maybe we could gradually extend your idea. There are a few people roaming around who lack the capacity for (reasoned) thought. Of course, getting rid of anyone in a coma would be no biggie at all. What about the retarded...a lot of them don't have a clue...and boy are they a pain in the a** to clean up after.

Of course you aren't saying that...but sarcasm and teasing aside, There is a baby in there! By the time most women know they are pregnant, the baby feels pain and responds to stimuli. If you could literally see what happens to that child during an abortion, and understand how it suffers, I don't think you would be saying these things. I don't think many people could support abortion if it weren't such an abstraction. You're a mom...can you imagine what joy you would have missed had you chosen not to bear and nurture your child?

18. Pro-lifers "de-abstracting" abortion issue has been worthwhile.
Thu, Dec 17, 1998 - 4:37 PM/EST
Mark

Abortion needs to be viewed as Chuck notes, with a precise understanding of the life being taken. Semantics loom large here, and for me there's a difference between a life and a person, and that line has been, & remains, mobile. My approach has taken me to considering the 240 potential lives (ovulations) the average fertile woman can produce; mom-to-be needs to be prepared to love & capable of nurturing her kid; unwanted kids introduce chaos and even a degree of death into society. (Note backgrounds of death-row populations.)

We'd be ahead of the game if we -- through ethicists, scholars, and clergy, e.g. -- would take the abortion debate away from politicians and their overheated special-interest groups. I just read a fascinating account of how Congress took the swine flu study out of the hands of science and the CDC and turned it into the expensive and even deadly fiasco it became in Prez Ford's nat'l vaccination program in '76. Partisan and self-interested posturing needs to be thwarted: the swine flu boner has much resonance with the present phony constitutional crisis. Our congressional clods should only do the legislative grammar after an intelligent content is placed in their pork-stained laps.