Well, sure, I'll bite...

A mom hires a hitman to kill her four children, ages six-months, two, three, and five years. What should the penalty be for the hitman and what should the penalty be for the mom.

I vote capital crimes for both.

Rewind, mom never had the children she had them aborted, what should be the penalty for the Doctor who performed the abortion and what should be the penalty for the mom.

Well that depends. Let's assume all kids were late term, 30 weeks along, reasonably healthy, mom is healthy but decides she doesn't want kids and has them aborted. Don't give me that nobody-does-that-all-abortions-are-early-term-almost-nobody-uses-abortion-as-birth-control argument. We're playing hypothetical here. What should the penalty be. The main difference between a newborn and a full-term fetus is the fact that it's still attached to mom. It's likely able to survive on its own just fine, and I don't think you should be able to kill it at will. Do you? Given the above assumptions, I'd make these abortions capital crimes.

There could be mitigating circumstances. Maybe the mother has some medical condition such that delivery risks her life; if the only choice is to kill the mom or the baby then I'd say that mom gets to choose.

Well that's it, flame on.

Here's one for you: Suppose a mom does herself with a coathanger and kills her late term baby. Any penalty? Suppose a mom delivers her baby into a toilet and (in a fit of despair caused by conservatives' uncaring) leaves it to drown. What's the difference?

Is she sure it will drown? Okay reckless abandonment, if she just leaves it not caring and it dies or not some kind of manslaughter. The difference is one is born the other hasn't been yet. I take your point however. So how about early term abortions are they also capital crimes where there are no compelling mitgating circumstances are they capital crimes too? Where do you draw the line?

Sources of information for the cut and paste below are Planned Parenthood and Wikipedia (and yes, I am aware that Wikipedia is not always 100% correct, but from what I read on other sites, what they had on their site did not contradict and the information is summarized and doesn't go on and on with page after page of state law, etc)

The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small

The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003). Less than one-half-of-one percent occur after 24 weeks. ...

Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion services (Gold, 2003).

In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When the court ruled in 1973, the current medical technology suggested the viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the woman's womb. These scientific achievements, while life saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated.

In deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the woman was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy. In its opinion it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found that right implied by the Constitution. The court held that a first-trimester embryo or fetus was not a person under the Constitution, and that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court further ruled that the state could intervene to restrict abortion in the second trimester of development and could outlaw it altogether in the third trimester (about 4/5 of U.S. states forbid third-trimester abortion except as necessary for the woman's health).

The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned Roe's strict trimester formula, and emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, rather than a generalized right to privacy. Advancements in medical technology, expected to continue, meant that a fetus might be considered viable, and thus have some basis of a right to life, at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 that was more common at the time Roe was decided. For this reason, the old trimester formula was ruled obsolete, with a new focus on viability of the fetus.

In the United States the issue has become deeply politicized: in 2002, 84% of state Democratic platforms supported abortion while 88% of state Republican platforms opposed it. This divergence also led to Christian Right organizations like Christian Voice, Christian Coalition and Moral Majority having an increasingly strong role in the Republican Party. This opposition has been extended under the Foreign Assistance Act: in 1973 Jesse Helms introduced an amendment banning the use of aid money to promote abortion overseas, and in 1984 the so-called Mexico City Policy prohibited financial support to any overseas organization that performed or promoted abortions. The "Mexico City Policy" was revoked by President Bill Clinton and subsequently reinstated by President George W. Bush. Several items of legislation impacting on abortion, including the Child Custody Protection Bill, are awaiting Congressional debate (February 2003).

Financial In 1997, the average cost of a first-trimester, non-hospital abortion with local anesthesia was $319. In 2000 this cost was $372. For low-income and younger women, gathering the necessary funds for the procedure often causes delays. Compounding the problem is the fact that the cost of abortion rises with gestational age: in 2001, non-hospital facilities charged $774 for abortion at 16 weeks gestation and $1,179 at 20 weeks.

As a conscientious male and a supporter of feminist ideas, I have to say that this question should be left to women. We should have a national referendum, although the Constitution doesn't allow for this yet, in which only women are allowed to vote. The choices on the ballot, devised by women, would probably be like this: 1. ban all abortions 2. ban all but late-term abortions 3. ban all abortions but when the life of the mother is involved 4. etc... Since the woman's body is involved in this and not the man's, I don't think that our predominantly male government should be deciding this matter. Women are smart enough to come to their own conclusions. And we should trust them to make the right decision. This is a matter of ownership, ownership of one's own body. I think that when the man lets go of his sperm, he relinquishes ownership of it. He gives it to the woman to take care of. Plain and simple. This is not a difficult matter to get at the heart of if we think rationally.
Lastly, I don't think that any woman takes the consideration of an abortion lightly. It is probably the hardest thing that any woman could consider doing to her body. And the psychological effects afterwords are horrendous. Men, leave this decision to the women. They have shown throughout history to be good stewards of our sperm and we should trust them on this one.

destroy a newly conceived child at the convenience of those who are responsible for raising their children?

whatever justification posited for abortion will never remove the responsibility of the two parents. justice is a burden for those responsible to bear.

"Where do you draw the line?" As my ol' pal ChrisJ ably stated in a past discussion, at some point you have to draw an arbitrary legal line. For instance, a 17 year 10 month old youth doesn't get to vote, but an 18 year old does. Why? There's no discernable difference between two, but at some point you just have to draw a line.

For abortion I'd draw the line at 20 weeks. I'm acquainted with a beautiful, perfectly normal 5-year old girl who was born at 20 weeks. She is very fortunate. According to her parents, only 5% of babies born that early escape long-term complications. So I would favor a ban on abortions (with the usual exceptions) after 20 weeks.

JoAnn's data was helpful, but I don't think it's a very good argument to dismiss late term abortions only because they're rare. If 0.001% of the people who die were murdered, we'd still want to make murder illegal and not dismiss it out of hand as a rare occurance.

Norm asked me about early term abortions. I don't know. I can't make a reasoned argument for banning abortion altogether that without relying on my faith so I won't try, but how about this. 0-8 weeks, no penalty for blastulacide. 9-16 weeks, citation and fine for zygotacide. 17-20 weeks, jail time.

'otherside' said: "when the man lets go of his sperm, he relinquishes ownership of it." I wish that were so! Men's reproductive rights are tangential to this but really interest me. If a woman decides to keep her baby, the man is obligated to pay for it. He has no 'choice' at all, and that sucks.

I've heard Matthews ask this question to Tooney. There are indeed laws without penalties. Suicide laws are a prime example. It makes little sense to punish people for committing suicide because they don't respond well to sanctions. Aside from that, the imperative to help the extremely distressed and mentally ill outweighs the need to see every violation of right punished. But that doesn't mean that it's senseless to make it illegal. People who committ suicide are still violating a human right, even if it is true that in most cases we should worry about our duties to potential suicides rather than their duties to themselves (which for many reasons, they are not in a good position to fulill). If suicide is completely legal in all cases, why in the world should we marshall the resorces of government (bringing out the fire, police dept, etc.) when someone tries to do it? Why are we justified in trying to stop someone from taking themselves out of the world? And, more importantly, how could we be justified in punishing anyone who actively tries to encourage a suicide? (which has, indeed, happened in the case of people jumping off high places)

Abortion is a similar situation, I think. It's not very fair that pregnant women should have to bear most of the inconvenience of having an unwanted child when they're only 50% responsible for causing it to be (sometimes even less than that). Besides that, many women who have abortions are in positions of serious distress to the point that they'll have an unsafe abortion anyway. So we should be more worried about both mother and child losing their lives than we are about exacting punishment. But that doesn't change the fact that in many abortions at least some kind of right is violated. Viable fetuses are aborted all the time (some even survive, which reveals the patent absurdity of it all).

The situation which we have right now, where Democrats, and many Americans generally, are in favor both of abortion rights, as well as public spending to reduce the number of abortions (indeed, reduce the incidence of people excercising their constitutional rights), is a lot more of a contradiction than the law in Germany, where abortion is illegal but abortion clinics exist and abortions are commonly performed. It's absurd for the government to spend any resouces at all to reduce something it has no way of declaring a wrong or even a general social ill.

Listen, it isn't a difficult concept, it's super simple. Women have COMPLETE control over their body. If they do not wish to have a baby, there are many options.

a: Surgery (tubes tied for women, or snip for the males)

b: use birth control pills, implants, and condoms, and accept the risk that it is not 100%, you are gambling, and be prepared to accept the consequences of losing that gamble.

c: don't have intercourse. (duh).

Those are the honorable, ethical, logical, reasonable, CORRECT ways to NOT have a baby. Let me stress this, becuase this is what our country was founded on, this is the spirit of our constitution and the whole of our nation's founders beliefs, "Honorable, ethical, logical, reasonable, correct."

The fourth option that women have is none of those things, it is not honorable, ethical, logical, reasonable, or correct, it is -

D: - Lack preparation, thought, and maturity, and then just kill a defenseless human being when such behaivior backfires on you, with the excuse that "Hey, it's MY body, it's MY choice."

Well, it WAS your body, and it WAS your choice, you chose to gamble and you lost, and NOW it IS NOT JUST your body anymore, it is your body, and the body of an unborn human being.

The Baby in your body isn't YOURS, you don't OWN it, it isn't your barbie doll, or your pet goldfish, it isn't a plant you are growing, it is a HUMAN BEING, the moment your egg meets your partner's sperm and conception happens, it is it's own property, and you have agreed and signed and sealed the deal which says that it is your responsibility to protect that human being until it can protect itself.

It is that simple, people, there is nothing more to it, everything else is just whining and crying and complaining about the unfairness of it all, the unfairness to YOU, the woman, without regard to the fairness to the other human involved, inside of you.

Don't confuse the issue by bringing in CRIMINAL acts such as rape. Criminal acts don't fit into what is "right" or "legal", which is why they are called criminal acts.

Now, clearly, if the health to the mother is at risk, then it is the persons right to choose to abort the pregnancy. "AH HAH!" I hear some of you thinking, as you begin your worthless attempt form intelligent-SOUNDING rebuttle, "But how is that different?" I am glad you asked.

It is different because allowing someone to die for your convenience is dishonorable and wrong, whereas allowing someone to die because if you do not, you may die as a result, is simply a personal choice (one that many would also argue is detestable and shows a lack of morality, strength of character, and charity), but nevertheless it is not illegal.

Chosing to abort a pregnancy because it poses a health risk to you is equal to chosing to trample over another person (to get by them when they are down on the ground, unable to get up and move out of your way/ahead of you) because they are in the way of you escaping a burning building. This happens all the time in our society, concerts, etc. It is, of course, "accidental", and is not considered criminal, and thus you have defined the lines of the LAW.

Abortion to save your own life due to risks = legal but morally questionable, but once again, LEGAL. Abortion for your own convenience because you were not wise enough to make good choices in your life to PREVENT the pregnancy in the first place, and/or be prepared to deal with the possibility if you were gambling with it = pure evil, the very definition of ignorance, and selfishness, and glut.

The end.

"it is a HUMAN BEING, the moment your egg meets your partner's sperm and conception happens. " I don't accept your definition of Human Being, and so all that follows is based on a false premise.

Dende, I'm not sure I see the contradiction between supporting programs to reduce abortions and the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.
We finance government programs to encourage all kinds of things like healthy eating, exercise etc. while the we citizens exercise our constitutional right to sit on our asses and eat a twinkie.

Norm, you're right there are many social ills which are not outlawed but we try to reduce through government measures. You've mentioned some. Dropping out of high school after the legal minimum is another. Anti-smoking measures is another. It's not really hurting anyone directly, but we want to help people not to hurt themselves. But in what sense is abortion a social ill against which we are justified in marshalling the resources of government? According to the law and the medical establishment a fetus only has any value if a mother values it. Society doesn't need the fetus either, our population is doing just fine. Why encourage mothers to value the fetus rather than not value it? I can't see a way to answer this question and then deny that a fetus deserves some kind of legal recognition. Helping prevent abortions doesn't seem to be providing for the general welfare in the way these other things are, since from the perspective of the law the fetus is not a subject of welfare nor is it necessarily a benefit to anyone else--indeed it's just as likely to be a detriment to the welfare of someone else, even if the mother gets all kinds of guaranteed benefits.

I personally believe that pregnant women should get guaranteed government health and living benefits while they are pregnant and for some time afterwards, if they can't afford it. They should get it whether there is a right to abortion or not, simply as a human right. If people want to justify these benefits because they might reduce abortions, fine, but I don't think that this is a good argument for them, unless you also want to acknowledge that at least some fetuses deserve legal recognition.

For all those who want to make it a crime to kill zygotes, morulas, blastocytes and embryos, I would hope that they would also make it a crime to allow children who are already born to die from starvation. It is also a crime to allow children already born to live a life of desperation.

Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds.

How much does everyone really value human life? Are they willing to have their taxes raised to support hungry children and to improve their well being in other ways?

I really hope that there is not only all of this effort made to protest against abortions and to pass laws which prevent abortion, all the while forgetting about the children not only in one's own country, but all over the world. Some laws should also be passed that ensure that the children born are taken care of and well tended.

So if you are someone who expends great energy wanting to prevent abortions, I hope that you put even more energy into saving the children who already here on this earth and suffering.

heres some thoughts ive distilled:

you dont accept someone elses definition of a human being. therefore its justifiable to kill it?

if youre 17 and whatever youre not allowed to vote so maybe if youre 20 weeks or under youre not allowed to live?

neither of these thoughts bears any of the classic hallmarks of intellectual honesty, justice or indeed morality.

there is no place for carefully reasoned, case by case and scientifically proven analysis of this issue. abortion for convenience is murder. any other viewpoint is pure evil.

"abortion for convenience is murder. any other viewpoint is pure evil" That is certainly a conversation stopper, murder is the unlawful killing of another abortions are not against the law. Do you view discarding blastula as murder? Is a two week old fetus a person? Is a clump of cells with no brain a person? It is easy to throw around terms such as scientifically proven, what exactly is scientifically proven, that your definition of a person is true? That begs the question. You haven't proven anything when your definition includes what it is you're trying to prove. Talk about the hallmarks of intellectual honesty.

Jo Ann, I'm happy to agree with you that I think it's a crime to allow children to starve to death. Depending on what you meant by "life of desperation" I could probably agree with you on that one too.

One thing I find curious is that liberal arguments in favor of abortion are often linked to attacks against conservatives' failures to provide for the already living. Am I just paranoid here or has anybody else noticed that? There seems to be an implication that nobody dares speak out loud that is really revealing about the different worldviews. Stipe and I might maintain that it is better to be born hungry and have a chance at life than aborted and have no chance at all. Jo Ann might maintain that it is better to be aborted than risk misery through hunger and desperation. If I have misrepresented your views please correct me.

Jo Ann writes: "How much does everyone really value human life? Are they willing to have their taxes raised to support hungry children and to improve their well being in other ways?" Part of the problem is that we can't come to a consensus on what 'human life' means. I value it, you value it, but we mean different things by it. As for taxes, if you can 100% assure me that my tax money will be wisely spent helping kids, then raise 'em up. I'll pay and I'll even like it. If not we can work out some other way to help them.

At any rate do we have a consensus that late term abortions are bad and ought to be illegal?

well norm. neither of us is going to win an argument on scientific definition which is exactly why there is no place for it here.

and im not going to chase fire engines to try and save every poorly labelled glass dish i can find.

what i am going to do is uphold an honest assessment of the issue. I assert, without equivocation, that if anyone attempts to destroy one cell of human tissue that might one day become my child, then i will react in exactly the same way as if it was my four year old in danger. that is to say: i will take every necessary action and i severely doubt my ability to control my wrath if i fail.

others are free to observe my stake in the earth and make their own cases for where to stick their fingers, but do not tell me that i must adhere to the findings of any white coated, microscope peerer or that i have to consider the opinions and feelings of anyone else.

I don't understand your reluctance to deal with a hypothetical. It seems a good way to determine if you value unborn life as much as that which is born, and if not why? Rather than start with five blastula in a petri dish lets try this. Five children are on a railroad track you are standing by the switch you can divert the train to a side track where there is a single child. If you do nothing five children will die. If you divert the train one child will die. What do you do? If the answer is to save the five then you need to explain why? Now apply your reasons to the petri dish with five blastula to the one two year old and tell us what you would do and how you decided. Your welcome to make choices for yourself, but I suspect you want to impose those choices on others.

Hey everybody

This is my first time posting with the new handle. I've previously posted as DA and ROH, just so you know.

I'm not sure where I stand on abortions, but what I am sure about is that the argument for/or against abortion is rarely on intellectually honest grounds.

Is it intellectually honest to say that a clump of cells isn't a person when you know with a relative amount of certainty that if that clump of cells isn't interfered with it will then become a person?

I view the ball as already rolling towards Humanhood at the point of conception... so the definition of what constitutes a person is a moot point.

norm, i am discussing my life here. i am describing exactly what id do in a given situation. any fiction and hypotheticals added do nothing but mock my resolve to protect my child.

and i will not move, nor be moved, no matter what story, scientific fact or indeed threat anyone poses.

you finish that post in perfect harmony. i WILL choose to do this, and if i see a child i dont know in danger i trust my resolve to extend that far as well.

"any fiction and hypotheticals added do nothing but mock my resolve to protect my child." No one is mocking your resolve to protect our child. If I'm not mistaken it was your choice to define other views as pure evil, but when you're asked to defend your own views you resort to maudlin appeals to your resolve to protect your child. I have no problem saying I'll save the five at the cost of one, that you refuse to consider it is quite revealing.

yes if you want to destroy that which is your child it is evil.

yes if you offer me the chance to save 5 kids at the cost of another i consider you evil.

i will do everything in my power to protect that which is worth protecting and needs protecting.

my stake in the ground is not under threat here so i do not need to protect it.

i bid you a good night.

I didn't offer you a chance to save five at the cost of another, I asked what you would do if confronted with that situation. In the real world people have to make life and death choices like that every day. I don't believe anyone views all life as equal including you, but there is no point in discussing it with you where even a hypothetical question is evil.

Well, every arguement about abortion seems to go along very predictable lines. The conservatives/religious people say "its a human being". Someone who isnt them says "no they are a clump of cells or potential"

Now, for any sane arguement or discussion - this pretty much ends it. Its like saying 1+1=789, when scientific proof says 1+1=2.

But, no, instead of saying that "we are wrong, its a potential that cannot live outside of the mother if to remain a foetus, it then becomes a neo-nate", which is to speak factually, the rightwingers go all in a maze & use words like "The End" & "I dont care" etc - which as we know, is not scientifically based, but emotional aggression. Well, is it not?

Now, I dont claim to speak perfect scientificeze,but I know a fact when I see one.

And a point made earlier that this has NOTHING to do with abortions (so many holes in the anti-abortion position its comedic - and deservedly so needs a good laugh-over), but its about sex.

This seems to be their position: - who cares about the mother! - its murder! (they dont say if they would impose the death penalty on the mother, who is a murderer) - I just dont like it - its evil (and some say) - I will go out & humiliate and threaten mothers & doctors; blow them up; use VDA (not nonviolent direct action); will use names & labels to make my point; I will show people ugly pictures of scientific disposal..

For its all about emotion.

As if I, a male, have ANY right to tell the mother to go through 9 months of pregnancy. Like what, do like the Bill Maher clip does, and have armed guards making sure she doesnt take any herbs?? W.T.F!!

If it was about abortions & ABORTIONS ONLY, then there would be a wish to eradicate all abortions forever. Then the subject will be solved.

For all I can see for S. Dakotans is pain, suffering for people LIVING NOW, not potentials.

Ah, but there you go, an anti-abortionist has no idea about the exact biological state of a zygote in mitosis. Just on & on about souls & stuff.

Go on, write a paper to Nature magazine on how you have overturned all of science by saying that the foetus is a human being. A full legal independant breathing foetus that is a 'human being'. Yes, a HUMAN...BEING. Fully ready to pop out after 2 days after conception; 4 weeks after conception. Yes, 4 weeks!

Oh, its just too big & too comedic to hit all areas at once. Too funny. Sigh...

hypothetical situations are great. think rationally on a subject and select the logical answer. easy.

but if i answer any hypothetical questions it has nothing to do with reality. because i will always completely ignore science, rationality and hypotheticals on this subject. and if the reality of the situation is not factored into the hypothetical then the thought experiment is invalid except perhaps for entertainments sake. when abortion becomes entertainment then that moves beyond pure evil. if that is even possible.

you speak the truth when you say that my assertions are conversation stoppers. declaring something evil is a conversation stopper because i wont change my point of view. and if im not changing then im not communicating.

yet you continue to reply.

every time you reply you dig yourself an even deeper hole.

you dig a hole for yourself logically - for you are trying to argue rationally with someone who will not respond to logic.

you dig yourself a hole morally - for to disagree with me on any level is to assert that my paternal responsibility is wrong.

you dig yourself a hole philisophically - for you continue to deny that the full range of human experience is limited to logic and you refuse to acknowledge that emotion and faith are just as valid as indicators of truth.

you may continue to insist that my views cannot possibly be 100% right and cannot apply to everyone, but even this excavates your pit further - for i never claimed to be right. i only ever claimed i would never change my stance.

no matter which way you try to rationalise this you will lose - for you cannot truthfully rationalise the issue without considering the emotion.

your only way out of this hole is to admit that you would stand up for and protect that which you are responsible for bringing into this world. and to admit you would extend that responsibility to all others.

do not resist this turnaround simply because i offer it - for i can claim no victory by saying i was right.

do not resist this change for logical reasons - for they are the very opposition to the change.

and do not resist repenting because you read other persons remarks that back you up - for they all need to go through the same process.

i will continue reading this thread and i will hope for some positive responses. i will not state my position again. i am willing to respond to questions.

thankyou grant.

Mike, you said, "One thing I find curious is that liberal arguments in favor of abortion are often linked to attacks against conservatives' failures to provide for the already living." Why would you find this curious? If someone values life to the extent that they are willing to fight for the life of a zygote, then I would think that they would be even more disturbed by human suffering. The zygote doesn't suffer.

Mike, you then said, "Jo Ann might maintain that it is better to be aborted than risk misery through hunger and desperation." No, you did not misrepresent my views. If I had the choice of being born to a mother who is a heroin addict,a prostitute, and live my life in poverty and pain, or to have been aborted, I would choose to never have been born and have to suffer. I would rather be dead than be some little baby in some third world country slowly starving to death. I hardly consider that an opportunity.

I have experienced suffering, and it sucks. It really sucks. I have experienced being dirt poor out of choice. I lived amongst the poor in a weird place where there are these single rooms and a common toilet/bathtub. The desperation that I saw made me ill. I met a 16 year old girl whose 17 year old brother pimped her. I used to work for an organization which looked for homes for children who come from abused families. Once they turn 18, they are on their own. And hardly anyone gives a shit about them. As employees, we would end up trying to keep in touch with them and help them out with gift cards to Albertsons and encouragement, but there were too many to save them all. We hunted around for services which might help them, but none are available. So there they are at 18, with no family to guide them. They eventually move away some where, and we find out later that they end up in jail for dealing drugs or holding up a convenience store.

Mike, you said, "if you can 100% assure me that my tax money will be wisely spent helping kids..." Nope, I can't do that. I can't guarantee you 100%. The money is not always spent wisely. You know it and I know it.

Mike, you said, "At any rate do we have a consensus that late term abortions are bad and ought to be illegal?" If the life and the health of the mother is at stake, then I think it should be legal.

For me, one thing is certain. The more I hear about mothers who deliberately let their children starve, young fathers who beat their crying children to death, and other horrific examples of people who should never have been parents, the more I'm convinced that abortion is the responsible choice.

It seems like there are a lot of women, and men, who, once they discover they're about to become parents, don't think about it. They don't bother considering what it takes to be a good parent, perhaps because they don't care.

Recently, there was an extreme case of neglect in my neck of the woods. An alcoholic mother drank herself into a stupor and let two of her three children die of thirst. Child welfare knew about her case, but it's difficult for case workers to prove extreme neglect. Unfortunately, the state can't take children out of every neglectful home because there's too many of them. There was an even lovelier case back in '97 where a woman let her baby starve because she didn't want her boyfriend to know that she had a child.

I can't believe that either of these women, or the thousands (maybe even millions), of neglectful parents out there really bothered thinking about the responsibilities of parenthood. Even my responsible, loving friends and family members complain about it frequently. Raising children is no picnic.