[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Yorick: How do you think the human race survived without abortion for millenia?

In that given case, there was no access to such a pristine resource as experienced individuals...

The grandparents. In "the village" the grandparents took a more active role in raising children, because they were mellower, had more time, and had more wisdom.

You're starting to sound like L. Fletcher Prouty with all this talk of villages and raising kids. Everyone knows parenting is a myth, only the state day care system, schools and TV can raise kids!

[quote]I have a collaborator who was raped at age 12 and became pregnant. She had the child. Her mother helped her raise the child. She is now 24 and has the most beautiful 12 year old daughter. An act of hate was turned around, and a wonderful human has been given love, and brought those around her much joy and happiness.

An exception to a given rule. Besides that, the asshole rapist has WON! He has passed on his seed, and his taking advantage of an innocent 12-year-old girl has made him genetically victorious. If I had a daughter and she was raped, I would want her to get an abortion for that reason and if she were that young I'm not about to have her risk her life to carry his baby to term, and I most certainly wouldn't force a 12-year old girl, someone physically immature, to give birth. The rapist should not win. The psychological power impulses and sexual insecurities and whatnot that drove them to it (they still chose, no matter what you sayk, however) are driven by that genetic drumbeat of passing on our genes. I don't think he should get the prize for playing the genetics game dirty.

You present intellectual hypotheticals, yet the reality is life has so many twists and turns, that, though seemingly negative, can be catalysts for unspeakable joy, if taken on the chin.

That's true, it's much better to be alive than dead. But my child is more important to me than the child of the rapist, and I'd want to abort early to avoid all risk, and if I ever found out who raped her, I'd dismantle him.

The child had love, a close relationship with mother and grandmother, the mother finished schooling and has an incredibly sucessful career as a songwriter and singer.

How often does this happen? I seriously contend that rape victims who keep their children aren't nearly as often success stories as your one story would lead us to believe.

There is always an alternative to killing. Humans killing humans should be an anathaema to humanity. No government killing citizens, no murders, no murders in art, no abortions no euthenasia, no suicide. Make the concept of humans taking human life, so unthinkable, it becomes as rare as say, cannibalism.

Men who are good for lack of knowledge of being bad aren't good, merely ignorant. What's more, free speech and our rights as artists/speakers/expressers takes precedence over an immediate social condition. Security is gained and lost in short term positions, but freedom is timeless, and if you let it go, you might never get it back.

We can't forget the past, World War 2, the Draft Riots of the Civil War, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, these are important moments. Humans are violent creatures. We can't pretend we aren't, and we can't pretend that there are no rewards to violence. Violence does come with serious rewards, just ask Henry Hill.

Also, violence in art isn't a bad thing. Understanding violence and how it can be immoral through art is one of our better accomplishments. Watching Gangs of New York and Goodfellas, two of Martin Scorsese's best films, both which take analytical stances on violence, we can see the good and evil of violence. Different examples of the same point: Violence is yet another tool of man, and its good or evil is dependant upon the intentions and actions of the users of that tool. Violence isn't inherently evil, benevolence isn't inherently good either... You'll have to study real evil to get that one...

Besides that, someone aborting their incomplete fetus to save their own life is something I don't object to. Euthanasia, at its best saves someone needless suffering. My father suffered through cancer for a year and a half until he became immobile for the last 3 weeks of his life. I have to tell you seeing him suffer during that time was the most horrifying thing I ever saw, and I've seen some scary and tragic things in my short time on this Earth. Some of those moments in the 3/4 earlier of it, those moments were very special. He laid some very important truths out to me in that time that I'll never forget, and will always live by. Those last days he couldn't have done anything with. It was over, and his death was far more protracted and painful than it needed to be. He laid on a bed for 3 weeks and died. I ask you, was his protracted suffering (which was inevitably going to lead to death, for the grand duration of the year, his chances were on par with other cancer patients, it was only inevitable that he would die in pain right then and there) over that time justifiable? I think not.