Broad-based Decline in Support for Legal Abortion

[Bradley in DC]

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=442

[klamath]

That's moving in the right direction but it is still angering that a majority still support it. Exactly like reading the support for the afganistan war is down but the majority is still for it or for fighting Iran.

[pcosmar]

Keep educating any that are willing to listen.
I would love to see all the clinics close due to lack of business.

[Working Poor]

I sure hope abortion is not a leading political issue because it distracts the sheeple...

[klamath]

I sure hope abortion is not a leading political issue because it distracts the sheeple...

I sure hope preemptive war is not a leading political issue because it distracts the sheeple...

[pcosmar]

I sure hope preemptive war is not a leading political issue because it distracts the sheeple...

I thought abortion was a preemptive war.


"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.



"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

[Dionysus]

I always knew that killing your baby was just a fad. It requires a certain magnitude of shrill, agitating 60s feminists to keep it seeming moral in the eyes of the public. Luckily, those women don't reproduce.

[klamath]

I thought abortion was a preemptive war.

The most preemptive you can get.

[tmosley]

A person owns their own body, and has full rights to decide what their blood is used for.

You can keep your jack-booted thugs. I'll not have them stopping anyone from exercising sovereignty over their own body. When you make a law, understand that you are putting a gun to the head of every raped woman, every 12 year old victim of incest, and every person who may die due to complications from a pregnancy gone wrong. Never mind that you are putting one to the head of every 17 year old who doesn't want a baby yet, or every crack-addicted prostitute.

You are advocating the use of force on someone, forcing them to undergo an assault that they want no part of. For nine months. Shame on every one who thinks that way. Especially while calling themselves a libertarian.

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

Read the section on "Sex".

Understand that one person can not be forced to provide for the life of another. If force is applied in order to affect that end, it is the same as slavery. It doesn't matter what form that support takes, whether monetary, by blood, or by pain.

[LibertyEagle]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8)

[Nirvikalpa]

Oh this thread is making me sick. :mad::rolleyes:


Shame on every one who thinks that way. Especially while calling themselves a libertarian.

:rolleyes:

[Original_Intent]

A person owns their own body, and has full rights to decide what their blood is used for.

You can keep your jack-booted thugs. I'll not have them stopping anyone from exercising sovereignty over their own body. When you make a law, understand that you are putting a gun to the head of every raped woman, every 12 year old victim of incest, and every person who may die due to complications from a pregnancy gone wrong. Never mind that you are putting one to the head of every 17 year old who doesn't want a baby yet, or every crack-addicted prostitute.

You are advocating the use of force on someone, forcing them to undergo an assault that they want no part of. For nine months. Shame on every one who thinks that way. Especially while calling themselves a libertarian.

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

Read the section on "Sex".

Understand that one person can not be forced to provide for the life of another. If force is applied in order to affect that end, it is the same as slavery. It doesn't matter what form that support takes, whether monetary, by blood, or by pain.

If someone drives a car thru my fence, do they have the right to just drive away?

In case you miss the point, when a person has consensual sex, by their actions they have involved a third party (the baby). Where it was rape or where the mothers life is in jeopardy, there is definitely room for discussion, at least in my book. But this bullshit about control of their own body is complete horse shit and intellectually dishonest. The kid did not just magically appear there. And even if protection is used (and fails) again tough shit everyone knows it is not 100%.

You've created a third person who is now involved. Just because they cannot protect themselves does not mean they have no rights. All this talk about putting a gun to peoples head - a) that is not what is happening and b) it's the Right to Choosers that are LITERALLY killing people, how fucked up must your thinking be that you accuse those who are speaking up to protect innocent lives of the VERY thing you in fact support - murder.

Freaking psychopath.

[YumYum]

Oh this thread is making me sick. :mad::rolleyes:



:rolleyes:

Morning sickness maybe??

[Bman]

I will never support making people who get abortions into criminals. It's just not the right answer. Anyone who wants to use government in this manner has a serious inability to understand why government gets too big.

[YumYum]

If someone drives a car thru my fence, do they have the right to just drive away?

In case you miss the point, when a person has consensual sex, by their actions they have involved a third party (the baby). Where it was rape or where the mothers life is in jeopardy, there is definitely room for discussion, at least in my book. But this bullshit about control of their own body is complete horse shit and intellectually dishonest. The kid did not just magically appear there. And even if protection is used (and fails) again tough shit everyone knows it is not 100%.

You've created a third person who is now involved. Just because they cannot protect themselves does not mean they have no rights. All this talk about putting a gun to peoples head - a) that is not what is happening and b) it's the Right to Choosers that are LITERALLY killing people, how fucked up must your thinking be that you accuse those who are speaking up to protect innocent lives of the VERY thing you in fact support - murder.

Freaking psychopath.

Legal or not, abortion is here to stay. You can whine all you want but it will change nothing. Do you remember the bombing of the abortion clinics? We still have abortions. So an immoral slut can either go to a clinic, and have the embryo removed by a professional doctor in a clean environment, or she can shove a coat hanger up inside her and bleed to death. I have a solution that will put an end to abortions. For every abortion performed, the man who fertilized the slut will have his testicles sliced off and put in a jar to take home. You pass this law in your new government and you can say goodbye to abortions.

[Bman]

You pass this law in your new government and you can say goodbye to abortions.

yeah but say hello to, and get use to seeing...


http://bitterqueen.typepad.com/history_of_gay_bars_in_ne/images/2008/08/17/buddiesposter_3.jpg

[Liberty Star]

In times of increased bloodshed and violence from wars, people historically move away from aborting lives and towards birthing more children. It could be fear of God or instinctive urge to survive in times of higher insecurity - or both.

[klamath]

A person owns their own body, and has full rights to decide what their blood is used for.

You can keep your jack-booted thugs. I'll not have them stopping anyone from exercising sovereignty over their own body. When you make a law, understand that you are putting a gun to the head of every raped woman, every 12 year old victim of incest, and every person who may die due to complications from a pregnancy gone wrong. Never mind that you are putting one to the head of every 17 year old who doesn't want a baby yet, or every crack-addicted prostitute.

You are advocating the use of force on someone, forcing them to undergo an assault that they want no part of. For nine months. Shame on every one who thinks that way. Especially while calling themselves a libertarian.

http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

Read the section on "Sex".

Understand that one person can not be forced to provide for the life of another. If force is applied in order to affect that end, it is the same as slavery. It doesn't matter what form that support takes, whether monetary, by blood, or by pain.

And this is why I am not a Libertarian. As much as they like to preach about nonviolence they have just as much evil in their souls as any banker, neocon creep that walks the earth. At least a neocon never goes after the completely innocent.
And this is why RP is a Republican.

[klamath]

Legal or not, abortion is here to stay. You can whine all you want but it will change nothing. Do you remember the bombing of the abortion clinics? We still have abortions. So an immoral slut can either go to a clinic, and have the embryo removed by a professional doctor in a clean environment, or she can shove a coat hanger up inside her and bleed to death. I have a solution that will put an end to abortions. For every abortion performed, the man who fertilized the slut will have his testicles sliced off and put in a jar to take home. You pass this law in your new government and you can say goodbye to abortions.

Like it or not War is here to stay. There has been war since the first two amoebas were formed in the ancient sea. We need to all get over it and embrace war. Up with the warrior class and may we all toast each other in Valhala!

[Krugerrand]

And I thought we made such good progress in our last abortion Hot Topic. Man, we don't even pick up where we leave off ... we just keep starting over again.

[Mini-Me]

And this is why I am not a Libertarian. As much as they like to preach about nonviolence they have just as much evil in their souls as any banker, neocon creep that walks the earth. At least a neocon never goes after the completely innocent.
And this is why RP is a Republican.

Come on now, your comment is totally unfair and paints all libertarians with a very broad brush. You DO know we're pretty evenly divided on the abortion issue, don't you? Not only does your comment lump all libertarians into a category that half do NOT belong in, but the language you use practically demonizes us. That's totally lame, and I think you owe a lot of people an apology.

Personally, I completely disagree with tmosley for the reasons Original_Intent provided, and I'm definitely a libertarian. From a libertarian point of view, the most important question is, "Is the unborn baby a person? When does personhood begin, anyway?" Hardcore pro-lifers say personhood begins at conception. Hardcore pro-choicers say personhood begins once the baby is wholly out of the mother, so as long as the head isn't totally out, jamming scissors into the back of its skull and sucking out its brain is a-okay. I think both views are incorrect, and that personhood probably begins with brain waves and a heartbeat...but as much as I think the hardcore pro-life view on personhood is incorrect, I think the hardcore pro-choice view is batshit insane and completely arbitrary.

Although the beginning of personhood is in fact a matter of debate, let's look beyond that for a second and consider the implications of each possibility. If an unborn baby is NOT a person, then the mother's body is wholly her own and does not house someone else's. In that case, it's the mother's decision to do whatever she wants. However, if the unborn baby IS a person, then based on libertarian self-ownership and each person's right to life, the mother CANNOT morally kill her baby. Sure, she can remove her baby from her body, but that's totally different from killing.

tmosley might say, "Wait, but it's in HER body!" Think about this for a second. If an unwelcome guest is in your home - which is YOURS ALONE, and which you have all rights over - what may you legally and morally do to get rid of the guest? You have every right to tell your unwelcome guest to GTFO, and if they refuse to do so themselves, you may remove them by force, right? However, you must still only use a proportional amount of force to get them out. You don't have the right to shoot an unwelcome guest in the head the moment you get sick of them, nor may you throw them into a woodchipper or a giant blender in the back yard. You may not douse them in a chemical solution to burn them to death right before kicking them to the curb. You may REMOVE them from your home, but you may not KILL them first. There's a difference. Just as you may not suddenly murder an unwelcome guest in your home, it is similarly immoral to kill an unwelcome baby in your womb (and this applies even moreso due to the baby's innocence...and the fact that the vast majority of the time, YOU are responsible for putting the baby there). Just as you may evict an unwelcome guest from your home, a woman may evict an unwelcome baby from her body...and do you know what that's called? Funny enough, it's called giving birth.

Of course, there are exceptions. What if the mother's life is in danger? This is a special case, analogous to evicting an unwelcome guest from your home who will probably, upon eviction, magically send out laser beams that will undoubtedly kill you. In that case, even if it's not their own fault, they are threatening your life, and killing them first MAY be warranted. However, again, this kind of situation is obviously a special case.

[B]Bottom line from a libertarian point of view: Before the baby's personhood begins, anything goes. Once the baby's personhood begins, the mother may evict her baby from her body (i.e. force birth), but killing her baby first is either murder or manslaughter, depending on her understanding. The only exception is when her own life is being threatened. There's pretty much no other truly libertarian way to look at the issue, and the only remaining debate should revolve around exactly when personhood begins.

[Bradley in DC]

The post is about relative changes in popular opinion--especially the crosstabs--not the merits or demerits of the abortion question itself.

[Krugerrand]

Come on now, your comment is totally unfair and paints all libertarians with a very broad brush. You DO know we're pretty evenly divided on the abortion issue, don't you? Not only does your comment lump all libertarians into a category that half do NOT belong in, but the language you use practically demonizes us. That's totally lame, and I think you owe a lot of people an apology.

Personally, I completely disagree with tmosley for the reasons Original_Intent provided, and I'm definitely a libertarian. From a libertarian point of view, the most important question is, "Is the unborn baby a person? When does personhood begin, anyway?" Hardcore pro-lifers say personhood begins at conception. Hardcore pro-choicers say personhood begins once the baby is wholly out of the mother, so as long as the head isn't totally out, jamming scissors into the back of its skull and sucking out its brain is a-okay. I think both views are incorrect, and that personhood probably begins with brain waves and a heartbeat...but as much as I think the hardcore pro-life view on personhood is incorrect, I think the hardcore pro-choice view is batshit insane and completely arbitrary.

Although the beginning of personhood is in fact a matter of debate, let's look beyond that for a second and consider the implications of each possibility. If an unborn baby is NOT a person, then the mother's body is wholly her own and does not house someone else's. In that case, it's the mother's decision to do whatever she wants. However, if the unborn baby IS a person, then based on libertarian self-ownership and each person's right to life, the mother CANNOT morally kill her baby. Sure, she can remove her baby from her body, but that's totally different from killing.

tmosley might say, "Wait, but it's in HER body!" Think about this for a second. If an unwelcome guest is in your home - which is YOURS ALONE, and which you have all rights over - what may you legally and morally do to get rid of the guest? You have every right to tell your unwelcome guest to GTFO, and if they refuse to do so themselves, you may remove them by force, right? However, you must still only use a proportional amount of force to get them out. You don't have the right to shoot an unwelcome guest in the head the moment you get sick of them, nor may you throw them into a woodchipper or a giant blender in the back yard. You may not douse them in a chemical solution to burn them to death right before kicking them to the curb. You may REMOVE them from your home, but you may not KILL them first. There's a difference. Just as you may not suddenly murder an unwelcome guest in your home, it is similarly immoral to kill an unwelcome baby in your womb (moreso due to the baby's innocence...and the fact that the vast majority of the time, YOU are responsible for putting the baby there). Just as you may evict an unwelcome guest from your home, a woman may evict an unwelcome baby from her body...and do you know what that's called? Funny enough, it's called giving birth.

Of course, there are exceptions. What if the mother's life is in danger? This is a special case, analogous to evicting an unwelcome guest from your home who will probably, upon eviction, magically [but involuntarily] send out laser beams that will undoubtedly kill you. In that case, even if it's not their own fault, they are threatening your life, and killing them first MAY be warranted. However, again, this kind of this is obviously a special case.

Your eviction argument summarizes this pretty well:
Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)
It's a 46 page PDF file that was published in the Appalachian Journal of Law by Walter Block and Roy Whitehead.

Except that Block concedes the human life at fertilization, but gives eviction rights preference.

[Krugerrand]

The post is about relative changes in popular opinion--especially the crosstabs--not the merits or demerits of the abortion question itself.

I predict this popular opinion trend will continue.

[klamath]

Come on now, your comment is totally unfair and paints all libertarians with a very broad brush. You DO know we're pretty evenly divided on the abortion issue, don't you? Not only does your comment lump all libertarians into a category that half do NOT belong in, but the language you use practically demonizes us. That's totally lame, and I think you owe a lot of people an apology.

Personally, I completely disagree with tmosley for the reasons Original_Intent provided, and I'm definitely a libertarian. From a libertarian point of view, the most important question is, "Is the unborn baby a person? When does personhood begin, anyway?" Hardcore pro-lifers say personhood begins at conception. Hardcore pro-choicers say personhood begins once the baby is wholly out of the mother, so as long as the head isn't totally out, jamming scissors into the back of its skull and sucking out its brain is a-okay. I think both views are incorrect, and that personhood probably begins with brain waves and a heartbeat...but as much as I think the hardcore pro-life view on personhood is incorrect, I think the hardcore pro-choice view is batshit insane and completely arbitrary.




Although the beginning of personhood is in fact a matter of debate, let's look beyond that for a second and consider the implications of each possibility. If an unborn baby is NOT a person, then the mother's body is wholly her own and does not house someone else's. In that case, it's the mother's decision to do whatever she wants. However, if the unborn baby IS a person, then based on libertarian self-ownership and each person's right to life, the mother CANNOT morally kill her baby.

tmosley might say, "Wait, but it's in HER body!" Think about this for a second. If an unwelcome guest is in your home - which is YOURS ALONE, and which you have all rights over - what may you legally and morally do to get rid of the guest? You have every right to tell your unwelcome guest to GTFO, and if they refuse to do so themselves, you may remove them by force, right? However, you must still only use a proportional amount of force to get them out. You don't have the right to shoot an unwelcome guest in the head the moment you get sick of them, nor may you throw them into a woodchipper or a giant blender in the back yard. You may not douse them in a chemical solution to kill them right before kicking them to the curb. You may REMOVE them from your home, but you may not KILL them first. There's a difference. Just as you may not suddenly murder an unwelcome guest in your home, it is similarly immoral to kill an unwelcome baby in your womb (moreso due to the baby's innocence...and the fact that the vast majority of the time, YOU are responsible for putting the baby there). Just as you may evict an unwelcome guest from your home, a woman may evict an unwelcome baby from her body...and do you know what that's called? Funny enough, it's called giving birth.

Of course, there are exceptions. What if the mother's life is in danger? This is a special case, analogous to evicting an unwelcome guest from your home who will probably, upon eviction, magically [but involuntarily] send out laser beams that will undoubtedly kill you. In that case, even if it's not their own fault, they are threatening your life, and killing them first MAY be warranted. However, again, this kind of this is obviously a special case.

I apoligize to the non prochoice libertarians. Sometimes I go off when the assumption is made that all RP supporters a Libertarians and if you deviate from the manifesto you are wrong.
Since I was 17 (a long time ago) I always thought of myself as a libertarian that voted Republican so I would have some influence on the direction of the country but the rabid prochoice stance of some of the libertarians has pushed me away from the libertarian party as much as the neocons have pushed me away from the Republican party.
Your stand on abortion and the points you make are right on. The only thing I would add on the guest thing is that in abortion the guest was invited and then became unwelcome.

And to those that whine about the abortion topic being brought up, what kind of mercy does a fiscal conservative that supports the war get around here?

[Mini-Me]

I apoligize to the non prochoice libertarians. Sometimes I go off when the assumption is made that all RP supporters a Libertarians and if you deviate from the manifesto you are wrong.
Since I was 17 (a long time ago) I always thought of myself as a libertarian that voted Republican so I would have some influence on the direction of the country but the rabid prochoice stance of some of the libertarians has pushed me away from the libertarian party as much as the neocons have pushed me away from the Republican party.
Your stand on abortion and the points you make are right on. The only thing I would add on the guest thing is that in abortion the guest was invited and then became unwelcome.

And to those that whine about the abortion topic being brought up, what kind of mercy does a fiscal conservative that supports the war get around here?

Thanks, and apology accepted. :)

Anyway, on topic for once, I'm glad to see more of the pro-choice people become undecided. I think in the end, more support from them will be necessary if we intend to wrest control of the issue from the feds.

[Working Poor]

hey let me clarify something GW made his campaign on the issue of abortion and I don't want anything like his politics taking over again!!

I would rather have a candidate that is against abortion but I hope he makes the economy and the war the biggest issue. The abortion issue hurts our politics more than it helps jmo I know I am sure a lot of the people who voted against GW was over abortion politics...

[thasre]

I hope we can just all agree that, regardless of our differences on the issue of abortion itself, the fact that more people would like to see reductions in the number of abortions is a good trend. Especially if those reductions can be accomplished in ways that don't violate either the rights of women or the rights of the unborn.

[Bradley in DC]

I predict this popular opinion trend will continue.

Thanks.

I also think the federalization of the issue is a huge detriment to addressing the question. As the poll shows in the crosstabs, there are very different opinions on the subject and how to address it but still a broader concern with the question.

Devolving it back to the states legally (and not diminishing the non-governmental approaches to solutions), would better reflect, I think, both popular opinion in different subsets as well as the general population trend preference.

[tmosley]

Ok, you convinced me. I am now FOR putting a gun to the head of any pregnant 12 year old rape-slut and forcing them to have their non-headed incest baby. And for pulling the fucking trigger if the bitch resists.

Roll your eyes all you want, but that is exactly what the pro-"lifers" in this thread are arguing for. Just kidding about the convincing thing, by the way.

If you are for putting a gun to someone's head for exercising sovereignty over their body, then you are an AUTHORITARIAN. You would MURDER someone for resisting the force of your morality.

And for Mini-Me: That is not a good analogy. Rather than having a person in your house, think of it as a person that crawled inside your body, divested himself of working organs, and hooked into your bloodstream. This person is also sending chemicals into your bloodstream that make you vomit every morning, and that makes you want to eat strange things. This is not even mentioning the damage that the extra weight is doing to you. In such an event, the little guy is clearly some kind of freakish parasitic monster, and needs to be got out by any means necessary. But of course, everyone LOVES babies, so they shouldn't be got out, the mother should be forced at gunpoint to continue feeding her blood to the cute little sack of flesh no matter the circumstances (this is extremes, but one can't always see the nasty seeds of authoritarianism until one goes to extremes).

Every case must be taken to its absolute extreme in order for its merits to be determined. Staying within the realm of "agreeing to disagree" or saying "minimizing abortions is the goal" miss the point. Whoever is "right" is conceding a very important issue to the group that is "wrong". They have created a crack in the front of liberty, and enemies of liberty will seize that crack and widen it, until we have the Obama youth marching up and down the streets to stop starving people from rioting against their children being seized to go die on the front lines. EVERY crack is an insult to freedom, and should not go unresolved.

Ambiguity on this or any other issue creates a weakness that can be exploited. If you allow those who are against freedom to be right on even ONE thing, they will seize on it and use it to justify the theft of all of the freedoms that don't match up with their version of a "perfect world". This is exactly how the left/right antagonism developed, and has led us down the road to ruin.

[Bradley in DC]

Ok, you convinced me.

Again, not on the thread topic, please don't highjack.

If you want to make your points, start your own thread.

[SwordOfShannarah]

In my mind the simple fact is that this issue is a moral issue only and cannot be decided with the law. It just won't work. If you make it illegal you get the worst of it. If it's illegal for doctors to perform an abortion girls will go to people who don't know what they are doing. If you make it illegal for women to have one they'll find doctors who won't tell. If you make it illegal for doctors to perform it and women to have it you'll get a little of both the previous drawbacks and then throw in lots of attempts of women conducting abortions on themselves.

The only way to get rid of abortion is to teach the value of human life. If you value life you love life. Nothing else will ever come close to the effect of that.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[YumYum]

In my mind the simple fact is that this issue is a moral issue only and cannot be decided with the law. It just won't work. If you make it illegal you get the worst of it. If it's illegal for doctors to perform an abortion girls will go to people who don't know what they are doing. If you make it illegal for women to have one they'll find doctors who won't tell. If you make it illegal for doctors to perform it and women to have it you'll get a little of both the previous drawbacks and then throw in lots of attempts of women conducting abortions on themselves.

The only way to get rid of abortion is to teach the value of human life. If you value life you love life. Nothing else will ever come close to the effect of that.

I agree. Education is critical. Teaching birth control and safe sex. What guy is going to care about the economics of adoption when he is aroused. Men should be just as guilty for the abortion as women. If men went to prison for life for impregnating the woman who aborted their fetus, abortion would disappear.

[romeno182]

thank god im living in atheist europe

[SwordOfShannarah]

I agree. Education is critical. Teaching birth control and safe sex. What guy is going to care about the economics of adoption when he is aroused. Men should be just as guilty for the abortion as women. If men went to prison for life for impregnating the woman who aborted their fetus, abortion would disappear.

People will absolutely disagree on the methods we use to reduce unwanted pregnancy, but as long as you're using charities (or other free market solutions) to issue your preferred remedies then everyone wins. We end up with many competitive ideas and solutions to the problem and we ultimately find the best ways to deal with the issue.

Again, going to the law and saying fathers should be responsible won't work. Perhaps it would increase sex with prostitutes and/or rape as men would would be afraid of having sex with a girl who knew their identity.

If you stay away from using force to deal with the issue you get the scenario of paragraph one, if you use the force to deal with the issue you get the scenario of unintended consequences.

[erowe1]

thank god im living in atheist europe

Most of Europe's abortion laws are more strict than ours.

[LibForestPaul]

Thread hijack...these programmed adverts are awesome. Whomever developed them is really on the ball!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[YumYum]

People will absolutely disagree on the methods we use to reduce unwanted pregnancy, but as long as you're using charities (or other free market solutions) to issue your preferred remedies then everyone wins. We end up with many competitive ideas and solutions to the problem and we ultimately find the best ways to deal with the issue.

Again, going to the law and saying fathers should be responsible won't work. Perhaps it would increase sex with prostitutes and/or rape as men would would be afraid of having sex with a girl who knew their identity.

If you stay away from using force to deal with the issue you get the scenario of paragraph one, if you use the force to deal with the issue you get the scenario of unintended consequences.

Most of the members on this forum advocate a court to decide whether a woman can have an abortion or not. If she has it willingly, without the court's permission, or in a non-emgergency situation, she would be accused of committing murder and punished. It takes two to tango, and the man who immpregnated the woman should be just as responsible for the abortion, unless he agrees to raise the child. Men have to be accountable where they deposit their sperm, just as I have to be careful where I shoot my .378 Weatherby Mag rifle. And there is nothing wrong with prostitution; whatever takes place between two adults is their business. But if abortion is illegal, the only way to enforce this law would be with force, and both man and woman should be punished.

[Pepsi]

Those women who dont want thier babys can put them up for adoption.

[YumYum]

Those women who dont want thier babys can put them up for adoption.

We could start by having the biological father take care of them.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I wonder why abortion is a federal issue? It's not in article one section 8..shouldn't the states and the people be able to decide?

Tones

[YumYum]

I wonder why abortion is a federal issue? It's not in article one section 8..shouldn't the states and the people be able to decide?

Tones

When I supported and campaigned for Ron Paul, this was his position. While I knew that he hated abortions, I always believed that part of his message was that a woman, her boyfriend/husband, doctor and minister should make the decision, not government. Whether it is federal or at state level, it is government intervention, which Libertarians are against. Does Ron Paul support the idea of an abortion court? If he doesn't, then some pro-life members on this forum are going against his position, and giving us open-minded lovers of freedom the wrong impression.

[SwordOfShannarah]

If she has it willingly, without the court's permission, or in a non-emgergency situation, she would be accused of committing murder and punished.

Of course. I'm talking about increases in what people do, not what the law is. All of the situations above have a legal consequence if abortion is illegal. The point is making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it only gives you the worst of it. Changing the way people think about sex and the value of life is the only real and lasting way to really reduce abortions. And there are ways to do that without using the force of law.



It takes two to tango, and the man who immpregnated the woman should be just as responsible for the abortion, unless he agrees to raise the child. Men have to be accountable where they deposit their sperm, just as I have to be careful where I shoot my .378 Weatherby Mag rifle.

Exactly how much control of the situation do you think the man has once the girl becomes pregnant? It really doesn't matter what he says because in the end the girl can do what she wants. So you really can't hold the men accountable for an action they have no control of. If a man forces a girl to have an abortion then he goes to jail.




And there is nothing wrong with prostitution; whatever takes place between two adults is their business.

I never said I was against prostitution in the legal sense but if you're going to argue that an increase in prostitution is good for a society I disagree.

[pcosmar]

We could start by having the biological father take care of them.

There are many that would, if it were allowed.

I am one. :(

[Eric Arthur Blair]

40 MILLION dead Americans later and people are still debating it.

[erowe1]

I wonder why abortion is a federal issue? It's not in article one section 8..shouldn't the states and the people be able to decide?

Tones

14th amendment.

[Vessol]

I must be the only person here who isn't completely against abortion.

If it's very early and especially for medical reasons, I see little problem.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I must be the only person here who isn't completely against abortion.

If it's very early and especially for medical reasons, I see little problem.

I agree, but that's not what's happening in America.

[Vessol]

I agree, but that's not what's happening in America.

I agree with you partially.

I think the numbers have been exadurated by pro-lifers.

All women I know whom have had abortions, have had it because of medical reasons. My girlfriend being one of them. She can't bear a child because of issues with her overies that could deform or kill the child as well as her own fears that her bipolar which she has successfully battled for many years, might be inheritated by the child, and that is the last thing she wants to give a child as it's caused her so many issues. Unfortunately her grandparents whom are die-hard pro-lifers found out and disinheritated her, told her that she is the scum on the Earth, spit in her face, and called me the Anti-Christ for impregnating her out of wedlock and letting her have an abortion.
Sorry, I don't mean to lash out at pro-lifers. Just kind of ranting. I know most pro-lifers are NOT like this.

Late term abortions and teenies not wanting to get preggers I think are not the majority.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I agree with you partially.

I think the numbers have been exadurated by pro-lifers.

All women I know whom have had abortions, have had it because of medical reasons. My girlfriend being one of them. She can't bear a child because of issues with her overies that could deform or kill the child as well as her own fears that her bipolar which she has successfully battled for many years, might be inheritated by the child, and that is the last thing she wants to give a child as it's caused her so many issues.

Late term abortions and teenies not wanting to get preggers I think are not the majority.

your girlfriend has nothing to feel guilty about, under those circumstances she did the right thing. Abortion is a vital necessity in certain cases, but Abortion as contraception killing 4000 babies a day is deeply immoral and essentially murdering not just the baby but also America.

[Vessol]

your girlfriend has nothing to feel guilty about, under those circumstances she did the right thing. Abortion is a vital necessity in certain cases, but Abortion as contraception killing 4000 babies a day is deeply immoral and essentially murdering not just the baby but also America.

Abortion as a contraception I agree is both irresponsible and immoral, I agree.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Abortion as a contraception I agree is both irresponsible and immoral, I agree.

That is what the vast majority of abortions are though. They use the hard cases that most reasonable people would agree with to sell on a mass scale abortion as simply a lifestyle choice. The real reason abortion is declining not just in America but Europe also is because of buyer's remorse. Many women who had abortions for non essential reasons regret it later or worse they end up physically or mentally damaged.

In Britain the abortionists are trying to get the law changed to allow nurses to carry out the operation as the number of graduate doctors willing to work in the industry has greatly declined.

Mass industrial abortion took a certain amount of shrill hectoring 60's style feminism to uphold, its decline was inevitable.

[JK/SEA]

Maybe we can make abortion a top issue while Rome burns.

damn. and shit.

[Agnapostate]

There's little basis for prohibitionist policy when it comes to abortion, as that's not correlated with actual reduction of the number performed. For example, we could refer to Benegiano and Pera's Decreasing the need for abortion: challenges and constraints (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10884532):


Voluntary abortion is the most controversial act in the entire field of medical practice, although today, it is a practice that, under different conditions, has been legalized in more than 100 countries, mostly in the developed world. The United Nations has agreed that in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning and, therefore, it should be utilized only when contraception has failed. Overall, 61% of humanity lives in countries where abortion is legal and widely available; 14% in countries where termination is allowed to protect a woman's health; physical, mental, or both; 21% in countries where it can be performed only to save the mother's life and 4% in countries where abortion is not permitted at all. Restrictive legislation, per se, does not represent a valid deterrent to prevent abortion, while it may contribute to an increase in morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy. In addition, because abortion is outlawed, nothing is done to actively reduce the reasons leading to it. Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where, on the one hand, pregnancy termination is legal and, on the other, sex education and contraceptive knowledge are widely spread.

Existing evidence indicates that abortion prohibition is not related to a substantial reduction of the number of abortions performed, likely since such policy inevitably places decreased focus on initial prevention of unwanted pregnancy. However, such prohibition or similarly restrictive policy does appear to be related to an increase in the prevalence of mortality and morbidity rates.

[YumYum]

That is what the vast majority of abortions are though. They use the hard cases that most reasonable people would agree with to sell on a mass scale abortion as simply a lifestyle choice. The real reason abortion is declining not just in America but Europe also is because of buyer's remorse.

: "Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where, on the one hand, pregnancy termination is legal and, on the other, sex education and contraceptive knowledge are widely spread."

What you are saying is that the women of the sixties had no remorse whereas the women of today do? Are women becoming better people?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

: "Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those where, on the one hand, pregnancy termination is legal and, on the other, sex education and contraceptive knowledge are widely spread."

What you are saying is that the women of the sixties had no remorse whereas the women of today do? Are women becoming better people?

sex education encourages abortions. Teenagers shouldn't even know sex exists let alone how to do it. Women are realising that the feminist propaganda of the 60s is dangerous.

They don't get to be Carrie Bradshaw. Just some sad unmarried, childless, alcoholic loser in her 40's working in a drab office for 30k a year. That's the true face of feminism. Anti feminism is a stay at home mum with four children and a husband. Happy and fullfield. Abortion/feminism has nothing to do with the genuine interests of women.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Maybe we can make abortion a top issue while Rome burns.

damn. and shit.

100% correct. Abortion is important in the wider scheme of things but right now it's irrelevant and only feeds the left/right paradigm.

[YumYum]

sex education encourages abortions. Teenagers shouldn't even know sex exists let alone how to do it. Women are realising that the feminist propaganda of the 60s is dangerous.

They don't get to be Carrie Bradshaw. Just some sad unmarried, childless, alcoholic loser in her 40's working in a drab office for 30k a year. That's the true face of feminism. Anti feminism is a stay at home mum with four children and a husband. Happy and fullfield. Abortion/feminism has nothing to do with the genuine interests of women.

With all do respect, and I am being sincere, did you come to these conclusions through the Libertarian Party, your religious belief system, or on your own? The reason I ask, is that women were treated as second class citizens in this country. I do not care for certain feminists, but I do believe that the feminist movement was a backlash because of the way they were treated. Women wanted equal treatment as men. Can you blame them?

[specsaregood]

Teenagers shouldn't even know sex exists let alone how to do it.

Please point out when time period in the history of mankind where teenagers didn't know that sex exists or how to do it? I seem to recall women used to be married and spitting kids out by the age of 16 at the latest.




Anti feminism is a stay at home mum with four children and a husband. Happy and fullfield.
I take it you speak from experience? You are a happy and fulfilled stay at home mom?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

With all do respect, and I am being sincere, did you come to these conclusions through the Libertarian Party, your religious belief system, or on your own? The reason I ask, is that women were treated as second class citizens in this country. I do not care for certain feminists, but I do believe that the feminist movement was a backlash because of the way they were treated. Women wanted equal treatment as men. Can you blame them?

It began that way, but was corrupted later on. The original feminists were against Abortion and they correctly predicted it would led to the exploitation of women. Feminism today guarantees a women the right to a dangerous operation that might make her infertile or dead if some man rapes her. The man won't even face a trial in the vast majority of cases because well fucking around is another big part of modern feminism and we wouldn't want to scare men.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

double post

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Please point out when time period in the history of mankind where teenagers didn't know that sex exists or how to do it? I seem to recall women used to be married and spitting kids out by the age of 16 at the latest.



I take it you speak from experience? You are a happy and fulfilled stay at home mom?

Most women married in their late teens and early 20's. They didn't know what a penis was until their wedding night.

I know many women and the only women who are remotely happy are all mothers. Childlessness hurts women profoundly, far more so than men.

[specsaregood]

I know many women and the only women who are remotely happy are all mothers.

Just mothers? Or are they limited to "stay at home moms" only?

[Agnapostate]

Most women married in their late teens and early 20's.

Actually, no, marriage often occurred shortly after biological adulthood.

[specsaregood]

Most women married in their late teens and early 20's. They didn't know what a penis was until their wedding night.


You said that "teenagers shouldn't even know sex exists", so what were they doing on their wedding nights? Sitting back and reading books together?

[James Madison]

Actually, no, marriage often occurred shortly after biological adulthood.

When the life-expectancy was 35.

[James Madison]

You said that "teenagers shouldn't even know sex exists", so what were they doing on their wedding nights? Sitting back and reading books together?

I'm pretty sure that when he says "teenagers" he means 13 or 14 year olds. I for one don't normally consider people 18 or 19 years of age to be "teenagers" even though they technically are.

[specsaregood]

When the life-expectancy was 35.

True enough. But this line of questioning stems from EAB saying:

Teenagers shouldn't even know sex exists let alone how to do it.


And there has NEVER been any time in the history of mankind when that was the case. If there has, I am happy to be corrected.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Just mothers? Or are they limited to "stay at home moms" only?

stay at home, working women are destroyed like childless women, more so in fact. The pressure on working mothers is barbaric. But they well get some pay off later on. Their children will be there for them after they retire and a part of that women will live on after she dies. No one will care in a 100 years how well you processed the IRA's, you live on by reproducing. Feminism does everything to deny women that basic human right.

[Agnapostate]

When the life-expectancy was 35.

So if medical and scientific advancements extend the average human lifespan to 150, should adulthood "occur" at age 30 or 35 and marriage at age 40?

[James Madison]

So if medical and scientific advancements extend the average human lifespan to 150, should adulthood "occur" at age 30 or 35 and marriage at age 40?

What does that have to do with anything? People got married and had children in their early teenage years because they weren't likely live past 35 even though having a child that young is extremely risky for both the child and the mother. The ideal, if you could call it that, biological age for women to reproduce is late teens to early 30s. But like I said, people often didn't make it that long so early pregnancies were necessary to ensure that population levels did not decline.

[Agnapostate]

What does that have to do with anything? People got married and had children in their early teenage years because they weren't likely live past 35 even though having a child that young is extremely risky for both the child and the mother. The ideal, if you could call it that, biological age for women to reproduce is late teens to early 30s. But like I said, people often didn't make it that long so early pregnancies were necessary to ensure that population levels did not decline.

There are several problems of note here. Firstly, the premise of inherent risk in early childbearing is likely overstated, as evidenced by a source such as Cunnington's What's so bad about teenage pregnancy? (http://www.popline.org/docs/1358/154803.html)


A systematic literature review identified the most frequently cited medical consequences of teenage pregnancy as anemia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, low birth weight, prematurity, intra-uterine growth retardation and neonatal mortality. Critical appraisal suggested that increased risks of these outcomes were predominantly caused by the social, economic, and behavioral factors that predispose some young women to pregnancy. Maternal age of <16 years was associated with a modest (1.2-2.7 fold) increase in prematurity, low birth weight and neonatal death.

Next, there are two additional facts to note about the social consequences of teenage childbearing. The first is that it may presently be a beneficial reproductive strategy for minority and lower-income youth because later childbearing will occur during a period of diminished family support and will be more disruptive to labor market activity. The second is that the alleged immaturity of youth and their consequent inability to responsible rear and raise children is probably a result of the expansion of adolescence in the late eighteenth century and the infantilization of younger people that is solidified by the expansion of formal age restrictions that were previously nonexistent.

[James Madison]

There are several problems of note here. Firstly, the premise of inherent risk in early childbearing is likely overstated, as evidenced by a source such as Cunnington's What's so bad about teenage pregnancy? (http://www.popline.org/docs/1358/154803.html)



Next, there are two additional facts to note about the social consequences of teenage childbearing. The first is that it may presently be a beneficial reproductive strategy for minority and lower-income youth because later childbearing will occur during a period of diminished family support and will be more disruptive to labor market activity. The second is that the alleged immaturity of youth and their consequent inability to responsible rear and raise children is probably a result of the expansion of adolescence in the late eighteenth century and the infantilization of younger people that is solidified by the expansion of formal age restrictions that were previously nonexistent.

Once again you're missing the point. Early motherhood came into being not out of preference but out of necessity. Now, the problem with your source is that it takes into account modern technology that didn't exist when having children at 13-14 was common. A premature birth would at minimum cause life-long problems for the child and could very likely result in the child's death. Also keep in mind it wasn't uncommon for up to half of one's children to die in the first few years of life (due partially to the reasons I just stated as well as disease, etc.). But I think the biggest point to be made here is that young teenagers are not mentally mature enough for the hardships of pregnancy and raising a child. Now, can it be done? Sure, but it isn't something that I would recommend you try out for fun either. To your second point, the youth are not "infantized" anymore today than they were 1,000 years ago. The difference, however, is that children in those days were forced to assume the role of an adult at such a young age, once again, because of low life expectancy. But as life expectancy increased society quickly realized that teenagers simply do not have the maturity level to (generally) be independent and certainly are not ready for parenthood. Why is this? Because the human brain does not finish maturing till the age of 20-22 for women and 25 for men. This part of the brain, the frontal lobe, controlls desicion making and judgement which are two extremely important tools for raising a child. Evolution has designed us this way so whether you like it or not it's not going anywhere.

[Agnapostate]

Once again you're missing the point. Early motherhood came into being not out of preference but out of necessity. Now, the problem with your source is that it takes into account modern technology that didn't exist when having children at 13-14 was common. A premature birth would at minimum cause life-long problems for the child and could very likely result in the child's death. Also keep in mind it wasn't uncommon for up to half of one's children to die in the first few years of life (due partially to the reasons I just stated as well as disease, etc.).

This absence of modern technology also affected the childbearing patterns of older women, nor did their increased age offer their children some immunity to early death. But more relevantly, at present, there's no sound objection to early childbearing on the basis that there's some increased risk because of the underdeveloped bodies of younger people.


But I think the biggest point to be made here is that young teenagers are not mentally mature enough for the hardships of pregnancy and raising a child. Now, can it be done? Sure, but it isn't something that I would recommend you try out for fun either.

I don't believe there's evidence of any substantial inherent difference in the mental maturity of teenagers and older adults, but I've directed my points on that on your later comments. However, more importantly, we see demonstrable benefits for some lower-income youth that have children at an early age because of the compatibility of that approach with labor market options, as I mentioned. For example, consider Hotz et al.'s Teenage childbearing and its life cycle consequences: exploiting a natural experiment (http://jhr.uwpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/XL/3/683):


We exploit a "natural experiment" associated with human reproduction to identify the causal effect of teen childbearing on the socioeconomic attainment of teen mothers. We exploit the fact that some women who become pregnant experience a miscarriage and do not have a live birth. Using miscarriages an instrumental variable, we estimate the effect of teen mothers not delaying their childbearing on their subsequent attainment. We find that many of the negative consequences of teenage childbearing are much smaller than those found in previous studies. For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. Finally, for annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing.

That's of course a socially unpopular conclusion, but the need to consider empirical research objectively and without bias isn't diminished as a result.


To your second point, the youth are not "infantized" anymore today than they were 1,000 years ago. The difference, however, is that children in those days were forced to assume the role of an adult at such a young age, once again, because of low life expectancy.

That's not the case. For example, the modern Western institution of adolescence is an example of an artificial extension of childhood that has only existed since the period of the Industrial Revolution or so. The point is driven home by Frank Fussell and Elizabeth Furstenberg in The Transition to Adulthood During the Twentieth Century: Race, Nativity, and Gender (http://www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/restricted/frontier/ch2-fussell%20and%20furstenberg(05-03).htm).


The lives of 16-year olds in 1900 and 2000 could hardly be more different. In 1900 the term "adolescent" had barely been coined, much less popularized (Chudacoff 1989)...The status combination of attending school, living in the parental home, and remaining single and childless characterized only 40% of white 16-year olds in 1900 but grew to over 70% of this group by 1940, finally reaching about 90% by 2000.

Moreover, we can directly observe that the establishment of adolescence over the past century and a half involved the establishment of new age restrictions on adolescents that had not previously existed in American society:

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr311/Agnapostate/1223088930.jpg

I'd contend that that certainly constitutes "infantilization."


But as life expectancy increased society quickly realized that teenagers simply do not have the maturity level to (generally) be independent and certainly are not ready for parenthood. Why is this? Because the human brain does not finish maturing till the age of 20-22 for women and 25 for men. This part of the brain, the frontal lobe, controlls desicion making and judgement which are two extremely important tools for raising a child. Evolution has designed us this way so whether you like it or not it's not going anywhere.

The human brain does not cease physical development at any stage of life, and it's an even greater reality that the mind effectively never ceases development. It certainly isn't the case that the brain develops into perfection in the mid-20's, as is commonly fallaciously asserted. For example, even if you want to only consider physical brain development, consider Susan Vorenberg's article, Brain fine-tunes with age. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060927/news_lz1n27brain.html):


[W]hite matter – the connective fiber between the lobes that allows parts of the brain to interact with each other – continues to grow until about age 45, according to the study by UNM's Health Sciences Center and New Mexico VA Health Care Systems.

That said, I wouldn't personally deny that MRI and fMRI scans provide us with intriguing observations of physical brain development, but we must be cautious about extrapolating data from these scans in an attempt to form broad policy approaches, as Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have been far too quick to do, in my opinion. The chief opponent of this approach thus far has been the psychologist Robert Epstein (former editor of Psychology Today), who writes this in The Myth of the Teen Brain (http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf), published in Scientific American Mind:


This work seems to support the idea of the teen brain we see in the headlines until we realize two things. First, most of the brain changes that are observed during the teen years lie on a continuum of changes that take place over much of our lives. For example, a 1993 study by Jésus Pujol and his colleagues at the Autonomous University of Barcelona looked at changes in the corpus callosum—a massive structure that connects the two sides of the brain—over a two-year period with individuals between 11 and 61 years old. They found that although the rate of growth declined as people aged, this structure still grew by about 4 percent each year in people in their 40s (compared with a growth rate of 29 percent in their youngest subjects). Other studies, conducted by researchers such as Elizabeth Sowell of the University of California, Los Angeles, show that gray matter in the brain continues to disappear from childhood well into adulthood. Second, I have not been able to find even a single study that establishes a causal relation between the properties of the brain being examined and the problems we see in teens. By their very nature, imaging studies are correlational, showing simply that activity in the brain is associated with certain behavior or emotion. As we learn in elementary statistics courses, correlation does not even imply causation. In that sense, no imaging study could possibly identify the brain as a causal agent, no matter what areas of the brain were being observed.

Similar analysis is typically regarded to come from sociologist Mike Males, The "Teen Brain" Craze: New Science, or Ancient Politics? (http://www.youthfacts.org/brain.html), though his approach primarily centers around evaluating the apparent lack of a connection between physical brain development and the actual behaviors of adolescents and similar age youth, since it would seem that a faulty or underdeveloped brain would make one inclined to greater risk-taking and similar behaviors. He writes this:


1. Adolescents, immature brains and all, are doing far better today than the supposedly cerebrally-developed midlifers complaining about them.

2. Scientists always seem to find biological flaws in the brains of populations that politicians and the public find fearsome or blameworthy for social problems.

3. The preponderance of laboratory research does not find significant differences between adult and teenage cognitive ability.

4. Scientists have not compared teenage and adult risk taking on a level playing field.

...

Conclusion: The supposedly immature brain development that renders teenagers naturally risk-prone mysteriously fails to affect teenagers from more affluent backgrounds, or from Europe or Japan (where youth poverty rates and dangers are low), who routinely display risks lower than adults do. Rather, “science’s discovery” of the problematic “teenage brain” is just the latest in a long, disgraceful history of alliances between officials, interest groups, sensational media, and a small number of scientists who serve their needs. The ability of authorities to scapegoat unpopular, powerless groups in society instead of facing difficult social problems—in this case, rising middle-aged drug and crime epidemics and the effects of poverty on youth risk—endangers Americans by preventing realistic solutions to serious crises.

Of far greater interest to me personally is the literature on the actual mental abilities and competence of adolescents and other youth to make rational and informed decisions, not snapshots of physical brain development that may necessarily diverge from analyses of actual mental functioning: effectively another necessary distinction between "the brain" and "the mind."

1. The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decision (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1130087):


This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

2. Grisso and Vierling's Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11662545):


[E]xisting evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.

3. Ambuel and Rappaport's study intended to specifically focus on the topic of minors' competence to provide informed consent to abortion (though it obviously applies more broadly), entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ut79373503167618/):


We examine an underlying presumption that minors are not competent to consent to abortion. Participants (N=75 age 13–21, seeking a pregnancy test at a women's medical clinic) completed an interview that was audiotaped and scored on four cognitive and volitional criteria of legal competence. Competence was compared in three age groups (15; 16–17; 18–21) for participants who considered abortion and for those who did not. Adolescents age 16–17 and adolescents 15, who considered abortion, appeared as competent as legal adults; only 15-year-old adolescents who did not consider abortion appeared less competent. Regression analysis was used to identify psychosocial predictors of competence. Results challenge the presumption that minors are not competent. An alternate policy based upon informed consent and empowerment of minors as decision makers is proposed.

4. Children And Adolescents’ Capacity To Provide Informed Consent For Participation In Research (https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2635):


[T]he literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents.

There is a substantial empirical literature on these matters, as described.

[specsaregood]

Evolution has designed us this way so whether you like it or not it's not going anywhere.

I don't think that comment matches up with the rest of what you said. You spoke about how for all through history situations have forced early childbirth. Then you close your comment off about how evolution has designed us so that the very situation you described is not optimal?

That doesn't make sense. If anything the opposite would be true: if situations forced younger childbirths, then evolutionary theory would expect that mankind would evolve so that teenagers were ready and optimal at birthing and raising children.

[James Madison]

I don't think that comment matches up with the rest of what you said. You spoke about how for all through history situations have forced early childbirth. Then you close your comment off about how evolution has designed us so that the very situation you described is not optimal?

That doesn't make sense. If anything the opposite would be true: if situations forced younger childbirths, then evolutionary theory would expect that mankind would evolve so that teenagers were ready and optimal at birthing and raising children.

It makes sense. It's just that evolution also designed us to survive. You're right; having children that young is not optimal, but it was done out of necessity.

[cheapseats]

Have a care that the Moovement doesn't squander ANOTHER election paying lip service to Sanctity of Life, while y'all timidly fund perpetual war. It makes you look stoopid as well as hypocritical.

[James Madison]

This absence of modern technology also affected the childbearing patterns of older women, nor did their increased age offer their children some immunity to early death. But more relevantly, at present, there's no sound objection to early childbearing on the basis that there's some increased risk because of the underdeveloped bodies of younger people.



I don't believe there's evidence of any substantial inherent difference in the mental maturity of teenagers and older adults, but I've directed my points on that on your later comments. However, more importantly, we see demonstrable benefits for some lower-income youth that have children at an early age because of the compatibility of that approach with labor market options, as I mentioned. For example, consider Hotz et al.'s Teenage childbearing and its life cycle consequences: exploiting a natural experiment (http://jhr.uwpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/XL/3/683):



That's of course a socially unpopular conclusion, but the need to consider empirical research objectively and without bias isn't diminished as a result.



That's not the case. For example, the modern Western institution of adolescence is an example of an artificial extension of childhood that has only existed since the period of the Industrial Revolution or so. The point is driven home by Frank Fussell and Elizabeth Furstenberg in The Transition to Adulthood During the Twentieth Century: Race, Nativity, and Gender (http://www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/restricted/frontier/ch2-fussell%20and%20furstenberg(05-03).htm).



Moreover, we can directly observe that the establishment of adolescence over the past century and a half involved the establishment of new age restrictions on adolescents that had not previously existed in American society:

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr311/Agnapostate/1223088930.jpg

I'd contend that that certainly constitutes "infantilization."



The human brain does not cease physical development at any stage of life, and it's an even greater reality that the mind effectively never ceases development. It certainly isn't the case that the brain develops into perfection in the mid-20's, as is commonly fallaciously asserted. For example, even if you want to only consider physical brain development, consider Susan Vorenberg's article, Brain fine-tunes with age. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060927/news_lz1n27brain.html):



That said, I wouldn't personally deny that MRI and fMRI scans provide us with intriguing observations of physical brain development, but we must be cautious about extrapolating data from these scans in an attempt to form broad policy approaches, as Jay Giedd, Laurence Steinberg, and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd have been far too quick to do, in my opinion. The chief opponent of this approach thus far has been the psychologist Robert Epstein (former editor of Psychology Today), who writes this in The Myth of the Teen Brain (http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf), published in Scientific American Mind:



Similar analysis is typically regarded to come from sociologist Mike Males, The "Teen Brain" Craze: New Science, or Ancient Politics? (http://www.youthfacts.org/brain.html), though his approach primarily centers around evaluating the apparent lack of a connection between physical brain development and the actual behaviors of adolescents and similar age youth, since it would seem that a faulty or underdeveloped brain would make one inclined to greater risk-taking and similar behaviors. He writes this:



Of far greater interest to me personally is the literature on the actual mental abilities and competence of adolescents and other youth to make rational and informed decisions, not snapshots of physical brain development that may necessarily diverge from analyses of actual mental functioning: effectively another necessary distinction between "the brain" and "the mind."

1. The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decision (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1130087):



2. Grisso and Vierling's Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11662545):



3. Ambuel and Rappaport's study intended to specifically focus on the topic of minors' competence to provide informed consent to abortion (though it obviously applies more broadly), entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ut79373503167618/):



4. Children And Adolescents’ Capacity To Provide Informed Consent For Participation In Research (https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2635):



There is a substantial empirical literature on these matters, as described.

Clearly you don't spend enough time around teenagers; there's a reason why they aren't allowed to vote. But anyways children have always been viewed as "children" and are expected to defer to those of age. Many laws restricting youth behavior were not enacted necessarily because they are young. Rather, misinformed but well-meaning idiots trying to give their offspring a better chance to reach adulthood without influence from the "evils" of smoking, drinking, etc.
Secondly, you twist what I'm saying completely. I never say teenagers aren't capable of doing mindless tasks, They're competent, yes. But are they mature? No. Any brain-dead moron can read a list of directions and follow them so of course 15 years can follow directions. I don't need a study to tell me that. But 15 year olds (particularly males) are probably the most immature people you'll find. Hell, I know I was. And once again, I never say the brain stops developing in the early 20s. The frontal lobe develops long after most of the brain does, but you're right the brain never truly stops developing. Of course, I never said that so only thing that's fellacous is implying that I did. And to be perfectly honest, I don't care what a bunch of "academics" have to say about child and brain development. They have their own agendas to push and do so quite successfully because the general public often defers to them because they're "specialists" even though they merit little respect.

[NYgs23]

Clearly you don't spend enough time around teenagers; there's a reason why they aren't allowed to vote....They're competent, yes. But are they mature?

I think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in many ways. In many ways, our society infantilizes both children and adolescents. Most importantly, you have compulsory state schooling: a fourteen year (pre-K through 12) part-time prison sentence, in which the young are segregated into age ghettos, herded like cattle timed by bells, forced to do mindless, disconnected busywork, with no pay and no ability to quit. And at the same time, thanks to child labor laws, they're banned from engaging in actual, productive labor, even as they labor in the state's indoctrination centers. Then they have spend yet another four years in "higher education," also massively subsidized and promoted by the state, pushing their entry into the productive sector forward even more. Then you have curfews and a slew of other age-based restrictions on when they can drive, smoke, drink, gamble, marry, consent to sex, sign contracts, open bank accounts, manage their own property, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes they're forcibly medicated, forced into behavior modification institutions, subjected to unwarranted searches (lockers, backpacks at schools) and so on. Needless to say, when society treats you as though you're dependent, dependent you become. Thus, in the old days, women could seem helpless without men to take care of them. But now, there are many more independent women than there were then. I don't think this is so different.

In a free society, each person would be judged individually. If a person is mentally incapable of exercising their own rights, then I think they need a legal proxy. But age shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all determining factor. Individual reasoning capacity should be.

[James Madison]

I think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in many ways. In many ways, our society infantilizes both children and adolescents. Most importantly, you have compulsory state schooling: a fourteen year (pre-K through 12) part-time prison sentence, in which the young are segregated into age ghettos, herded like cattle timed by bells, forced to do mindless, disconnected busywork, with no pay and no ability to quit. And at the same time, thanks to child labor laws, they're banned from engaging in actual, productive labor, even as they labor in the state's indoctrination centers. Then they have spend yet another four years in "higher education," also massively subsidized and promoted by the state, pushing their entry into the productive sector forward even more. Then you have curfews and a slew of other age-based restrictions on when they can drive, smoke, drink, gamble, marry, consent to sex, sign contracts, open bank accounts, manage their own property, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes they're forcibly medicated, forced into behavior modification institutions, subjected to unwarranted searches (lockers, backpacks at schools) and so on. Needless to say, when society treats you as though you're dependent, dependent you become. Thus, in the old days, women could seem helpless without men to take care of them. But now, there are many more independent women than there were then. I don't think this is so different.

In a free society, each person would be judged individually. If a person is mentally incapable of exercising their own rights, then I think they need a legal proxy. But age shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all determining factor. Individual reasoning capacity should be.

I agree with 99% of what you're saying. The only point that I'm not sure about whether the immaturity of teenagers is due exclusively to infantization. Without a doubt, children today are babied to levels never before recorded in history, but I also believe there is an inherant difference between the maturity of a 15 and 25 year old. It's not a knock on young people; it's just the way it is.