Abortion

[12th Doctor]

wow courts that don't legislate that would be great!

LOL that would be something else

[12th Doctor]

I am, of course, anti-abortion.  I would like to make a point, however, to all of you pro-abortion (no such thing as pro-choice) people:  reversing RoevWade in a proper, legal way would not do away with abortion.  It would simply allow states to make their own laws on the subject.  Also, I was raised majoratvly by women, my father ran out on my mom before I was born.  That doesn't make me believe, however, that abortion should be legal in all cases or that, idealy, the father doesn't carry responsiblity in raising a child.  Raised by women.  Have great respect for feminine stregth.  Not a feminist and not pro-abortion.

[12th Doctor]

Aborts this conversation to return it to Abortion.

You wish.

All I know is that the answer to everything is "42".

[12th Doctor]

Well, there is a middle way between, say, PD and Migrendel, I hope. A point that many people miss is that a liberal society (in the American sense) cannot exist without high moral standards. As soon as people start using the system to their own advantage it collapses. That is why Scandinavia, the most honest group of countries in the world, have such large welfare states. The problem is that nothing has been done to uphold morality and ethics in these societies, and thus the entire system is now endangered.

I agree completely.  A free and (classically) liberal society depends upon a certain level of moral standards, and the expectation that the vast majority of people will support themselves, and take responsibility for their actions.

As appealing as the welfare state sounds in theory -- nobody in want, nobody in need, all needs met -- in practice it is morally corrosive because needs cannot be met unless somebody is there to meet them.  If everybody decides that they will excercise their entitlement to have their fellow citizens support them, the whole thing will collapse because there will be nobody there to provide the needed support.

The whole "privacy" and "rights" argument behind the abortion movement is a facade in my opinion.  It's really about convenience.  Abortion is a necessary accompaniment to the to casual sex, since pregnancy is often an undesirable by-product of this type of sex.  The philosophy is, do what you feel like, and get rid of the unpleasant consequences.  It's a lot like slavery; all the arguments and justifications and rationalizations in the world can't make it right.

What you are saying is true, though I was actually making another point...

In a classic liberal laissez-faire society, those who don't take responsibility for their own lives will probably just die, and thus society will work, at least fot the others. In a leftist society, they will be living on other people's money, and thus undnermine the society as a whole. In Sweden the increasing problems with tax evasion, people taking advantage of social services and so on, has raised doubts about whether the current system is possible to maintain. If you increase the social responsibilities of the state while removing moral standards, you're headed for disaster.

That is very true.  I agree that the lack of moral reasponsibility in society is startling and unsettling.  I too see the abortion debate as one of responsibility.  If we cannot be responsible about our behavior, even to defend the most defensless people in our society, what does that say about us?

[12th Doctor]

I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important.

My God, he's quoting Kant!

[12th Doctor]

I will defend third-trimester abortion, because I believe it to be a component of liberty that cannot be renounced.
I will begin by contradicting the reasoning of Roe and Casey. They seem to show little understanding of Constitutional principle and are primarily a reflection of what the Supreme Court wanted in the way of policy. The Constitution's text has a fairly absolute mandate as to abortion: Legal at all points before birth. Section 1 of Amendment XIV settles the question of fetal standing before the law. It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Fetuses are thus not citizens as defined by the Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in defending. It never fails to amuse me that the same Conservatives who deny rights to illegal immigrants because of their lack of citizenship will twist the meaning of this clause to accomodate fetuses. Amendment IX states "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed so to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I find this to be a perfect example of legal language which protects the rights of women from an overzealous legislature intent upon hallowing fetuses at everyone's expense. Also, the Equal Protection Clause seems to protect abortion because criminalizing it would be tantamount to sex discrimination. It would seem apparent that the consequences of bearing children are very different for men and women. Study after study shows that women bear a much greater economic hardship as a result of reproducing. With this empirical evidence firmly in mind, the failure of the government to provide for relief in the form of abortion to pregnant women would result in a disparate impact, and thus a violation of equal protection. So, to mandate that abortion be a right throughout the pregnancy would merely be abiding by the pure dictates of the law.
Abortion can also be conceptualized from a philosophical perspective. Utilitarians, in the line of Jeremy Bentham, can argue that the happiness of the mother outweighs the rights of the prospective person. Libertarians, in the line of John Stuart Mill, can say that a woman's self determination is a fundamental right. A Kantian definition of Categorical Rights would say that the right to an abortion is an inviolable principle. Even Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, who said fetuses had rights after hominization, and St. Thomas Aquinas, who felt female fetuses were persons after 40 days and males after 80, defended some vestiges of a concept denying fetuses full rights. Of course such a decision might grow in complexity as a fetus ages in gestation, but that is precisely why it should be left to the individual who knows their circumstances.
Personally, I feel that defending a woman's physical autonomy is a moral duty of government. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. I can see no justification for allowing an unwanted pregnancy to obstruct something so innately personal and so circumstancially imperative.
In closing, abortion would rightfully be included in the pantheon of rights considered fundamental to humanity. However, some wish to fob it off like a poor relation. I fear for the future. I fear for the day when humanity's flickering candle of personal dignity goes out. That is why this right must be defended so vigilantly, and gestation should not take priority over all that is so important.

My God, he's quoting Kant!

We are living in a different time.  I'm sure that St. Augustine would not have approved of abortion on demand.

[12th Doctor]

I decided to make a preemptory strike, bejkuy. Rather than allowing you to make the typical statements about Planned Parenthood, and its founder, Margaret Sanger, being a racist organization, I'll put her views on civil rights in context and rebut all the common use of quotations that seem to show racism:
Sanger and Eugenics
Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Unable to foment popular opposition to Margaret Sanger's accomplishments and the organization she founded, Sanger's critics attempt to discredit them by intentionally confusing her views on "fitness" with eugenics, racism, and anti-Semitism. Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists, like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by healthy and "fit" women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger's books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning ("Sanger on Exhibit," 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany ("Margaret Sanger and the 'Refugee Department'," 1993). Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:

Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).

Margaret Sanger clearly identified with the issues of health and fitness that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s, when treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown. However, Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that effected passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other inherited traits vary by individual and not by group.

In 1927, the eugenics movement reached the height of its popularity when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, held that it was constitutional to involuntarily sterilize the developmentally disabled, the insane, or the uncontrollably epileptic. Oliver Wendell Holmes, supported by Louis Brandeis and six other justices, wrote the opinion.

Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored

incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions
the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.
placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct
Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable and outmoded. Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for over 30 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves.

Sanger's Outreach to the African-American Community
In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city's health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community's elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois.

Beginning in 1939, DuBois also served on the advisory council for Sanger's "Negro Project," which was a "unique experiment in race-building and humanitarian service to a race subjected to discrimination, hardship, and segregation" (Chesler, 1992). The Negro Project served African-Americans in the rural South. Other leaders of the African-American community who were involved in the project included Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women, and Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. The Negro Project was also endorsed by prominent white Americans who were involved in social justice efforts at this time, including Eleanor Roosevelt, the most visible and compassionate supporter of racial equality in her era; and the medical philanthropists, Albert and Mary Lasker, whose financial support made the project possible

A passionate opponent of racism, Sanger predicted in 1942 that the "Negro question" would be foremost on the country's domestic agenda after World War II. Her accomplishments on behalf of the African-American community were unchallengeable during her lifetime and remain so today. In 1966, the year Sanger died, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.

Charges of racism against Sanger are most often made by anti-choice activists who are unfamiliar with the history of the African-American community or with Margaret Sanger's collegial relationship with that community's leaders. The tangled fabric of lies and manipulation woven by anti-choice activists around the issues of class, race, and family planning continues to be embroidered today, more than three-quarters of a century after the family planning movement began.

What does "fitness" mean if not racial/genetic purity.  Margret Sanger also despised ALL Catholics especially the Irish.

[12th Doctor]

Ms. Sanger did not hate Catholics. I don't know who told you that, but it's just not true. Her opposition was to Catholic dogma. She was born in 1879, in a world vastly different from our own. She was raised a Catholic in a strict Irish family, and she saw the consequences Catholic ideology had on women. Her mother bore 11 children, and died a slow and miserable death because of it. Do you know why Mrs. Sanger's husband didn't use the then available prophylactic devices, and she didn't use the antiseptic douches and pharmaceuticals by then available? Their church stood foursquare against it. A thoroughly silly canon based upon intellectual rubbish cost that woman her life.

I sorry, I meant to say Jewish, not Irish.  More over, I object to you calling it a "silly" doctrine.  11 lives, that's how many Mrs. Sanger brought into the world.  11!  Is that "silly"?  Apparently it is to you, but not to me.  Some how i doubt that Mrs. Sanger died regreting that she had those children.  And I object to you calling it "intelletual rubbish".  It is a doctrine based on faith.

[12th Doctor]

So, supersoulty, your statement that a woman of Irish ethnicity hated Irish people sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

In principle, it is not impossible to hate your own kind.  Hitler thought the master race should be blonde-haired, blue-eyed tall and muscular.  Funny, that doesn't match Hitler's discription to well.

[12th Doctor]

In the mean time, it is a known fact that many of Sanger's followers believed that birth control was an effective way to get rid of the "surplus population".

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does "fitness" mean if not racial/genetic purity.  Margret Sanger also despised ALL Catholics especially the Irish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to note this is the first time I've used a quote mechanism in all my time here. I did this to preserve the initial statement of supersoulty in case he edits it. So he apparently meant to say "Margaret Sanger despised ALL Catholics, especially the Jewish"? I think not. I think he made an extrapolation with no factual support, and now is trying to run away from that with his tail between his legs. I cannot speak for Mrs. Sanger's train of thought. That was more than a century ago, but I think Margaret Sanger might be the most reliable source. I also think I went overboard when I called it intellectual rubbish. If something is based in faith (a word often paired with the word blind), it has no intellectual basis.

So I also forgot the word "and" as in "and especailly"  I see that you have sunk down to the level of pointing out my typos and using them against me.  I'm also sorry that the concept of "faith" is something to be looked down upon, in your way of thinking.  What can I say then, you can look down upon me all you want then.  If you think that my faith is blind, what can I say.  I also note that you made no response to my earlier post to you attempting to mend relations between us.  If you didn't see it, then I won't hold it against you, if you just choose to ignore it, I would say that that proves who is really the "rude" one here.

[12th Doctor]

Yes, they did. But you have to question the values of someone who feels that keeping the population at a sustainable level is somehow objectionable and discrediting.

A "sustainable level".  I don't understand how you can justifiy it like that.  I don't understand how you can say that there are millions of people out there who shouldn't get a shot because the population needs to be kept at a sustainable level".  What is "Sustainable" to you?  What is surplus?  I don't know how you can be so cold.  You know who else talked about the "surplus population"?  Ebinezer Scrooge.  If you believe that there is such a thing as the "surplus population" then I strongly encourage you to read Julian Simon.  He proved all those people who worried about "surplus population and "sustainable levels" wrong.  Malthus was wrong in the 18th century and he is wrong now.

[12th Doctor]

I haven't pointed out your spelling and punctuation errors. That would petty. But if you allege a typographical error to change the meaning of an easily renouncable statement, then it becomes imperative for me to show a level of scepticism. I didn't see your post, and in theory in think mending fences sounds wonderful, but with the nature of our discussions, I find it highly inviable in real life.

Look, I respect your opinions on an inteletual level, even though I could never understand them.  I don't want to attack you on a personal level.  And take my word that the orignal meaning I had intended was not what got writen.  I new Sanger was Irish, because I'm Irish and I know that Sanger is an Irish name.

[12th Doctor]

Malthus was wrong to an extent. He was right in the fact that species, such as Maple trees, mussels, and humans will continue to reproduce. But he is wrong in the fact that war, poverty, disease, and famine are the only things that can mitigate this trend. If people responsibly decide their future, and plan ahead with prudence, that would be unnecessary. Population would exist in a reasonable state of stability, its equilibrium punctuated only by truly revolutionary events in the life of the planet. That would be normal, of course, because the Darwinian paradigm of gradualism is being increasingly replaced by a more realistic view of change in population and the gene pool. If you risk this, you play Russian roulette with the health of everyone who lives. I do not see how you could turn your back on those already born in favor of those yet to come into existence.

Malthus was wrong on more points than just that.  First, he arrgueed that the human poplulation would over take humanities ability to make food.  He failed to take into account that great farming technology would allow us to feed far more people.  He argueed that resources would run out with an increasing human population.  He failed to take into account that technology would create and allow us to discover new resourses.  Malthus believed that increased populations would led to lower standards of living.  Reasearch shows that the standard of living ALL OVER THE WORLD has only increased with increasing populations.

The fact is that the higher the poplulation, the better it is for humanity, because that way we will have more people, MORE minds working on solutions to global problems.  Look at how far technology has advanced in the last 100 years compared to the rest of human history.  That corospondes with the rise of population.  Abortion strips us of a better future.  Think of all of the people who have come from situations "ideal" for abortion, who have made such a difference in the world.

[12th Doctor]

Also, what aspect can't you understand? I think they're fairly understandable.

What don't you understand about why I think the way I think?  This goes two ways.

[12th Doctor]

so supersoulty, where exactly (I understand you're against it, almost vehemently so) do you stand on abortion...no exceptions? exceptions for rape/incest, mother's health? What about a state's right to legislate either way without the federal government stepping in, or is the issue so grave that Washington must/and is the only vehicle to do it...

Inspite of the fact that I myself am opposed to abortion in all cases, I would not abolish it in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.  I would overturn RoevWade and make abortion a state-by-state issue again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about programs (ie education) to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that our sex education should contain sexual education and abstinance education.

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, there are other threads that have more on them.  You could look at my convention speech, I think that I made a statement on the debate thread as well.

[12th Doctor]

I never thought about it that way Gustaf, so I guess I'll drop it. And the increase of standards in living has nothing to do with population. They are merely correllating facts. Think of how much better it would be if all this great technology could be applied to a population not spiraling out of control. Such a view that you have about Malthus fails to take into account its perfect accuracy when he wrote it, and obviously circumstances have changed. Also, Malthusian-type situations are seen in many countries in Asia and Africa, where the only things tempering the shockingly high fertility rate are conflict, disease, poverty, and famine. For its limited appeal in the developed world, Malthus is still very applicable to many countries still in existence.

I could agree with you, except for the fact that Malthus' prediction were supposed to be for the future.  A future that he predicted inaccuratly.  In my book that makes him wrong.

As for what you said about the developing world, the fact is that we have more than enough food to feed people in starving nations, and if they could they could probably produce enough food to feed themselves.  The problem is not lack of resourses.  The problem is that most of them live under oppressive regimes like those of Charles Taylor and Kim Jong Il and the several other in Africa and Asia.

[12th Doctor]

I would like to give my two cents.  First off, I am a pre-med student majoring in biochemistry.  
That said, biologist have a set of standards (seven) that must be fulfilled in order to classify something as living.  They include response to stimulus, growth, development, metabolism, and others.  The fetus, without a doubt, fulfills the requirements to be considered living.  
As to the argument of cells being capable of being humans, that is scientifically not true.  The major difference between the fertilized egg and skin cells is that the skin cells are already specialized, whereas the fertilized egg is undergoing development and the stem cells are beginning to reproduce and specialize.
Seeing as how the woman and the fetus have a different DNA structure, the fetus is not part of the woman.  Furthermore, tests performed on pregnant women show that they have two sets of brainwaves and two heartbeats.
For a philosophical argument, I ask shouldn't a right have universal application?  We all have the freedom of association, the press, and speech.  This does not depend on whether we are male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white.  The so called right to an abortion, by its very nature already excludes half the population, as men may not have abortions.  This is further compounded by girls who have note reached puberty, which because of their inability to ovulate can not become pregnant.  Then there are the women that no longer ovulate, they may not become pregnant either.  With an increasing elderly population, this excludes about another 10%.  Then we have all the women that are sterile, those that are lesbians, and those that are celibate.
As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion, as is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL.  The legal basis for Roe v Wade was the Griswold v Pennsylvania case.  This case came up with the idea of a right to privacy in marital relationships.  If someone is not married, how can they have this right to an abortion?
FYI, abortion was practiced in the NAZI concentration camps to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.  There is also a group of pro-life atheists and agnostics, it's called Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League and its website is www.godlessprolifers.org.
Something that was posted on the first page truly troubles me.  The argument that letting states decide the abortion issue would force poor women to lead miserable lives is truly a troubling statement.  That is nothing more than Marx's class warfare strategy.  If you are poor, work harder and make self sacrifice.  That is what my family had to do when we first came to this country.  I can tell everyone here that hard work and sacrifice will insure an upward economic mobility.  If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.
Partial birth abortion is called this in the media because of the procedure used.  The child is delivered feet first, leaving only the head inside the womb.  Scissors are used to open the skull, and then a vacuum is used to collapse the skull.  What is left of the child is then fully delivered.  I've noticed that when describing the procedure how many people that consider the fetus to be just a collection of tissues start to cringe.
I can understand making exceptions for cases when the mother's life is in peril, but can not understand why we must punish the child for the crimes of the father.  In instances of rape, the perpetrator should be captured and punished.

All good points FLGOP.  I'm glad to see that you mainly used a scientific basis to prove your points as well.

[12th Doctor]

The women who need abortion, are most likely in poverty or real young. I meant "population control" more as an insurance that orphanages and foster care agencies, as well as other social services, don't grow. Abortion is not right, but it makes our children in the hands of better parents, and prevents further moral decay.

And Scrooge said 'Well, if they are going to die, then they had better do it quickly to decrease the surplus population'.  

[12th Doctor]

I am not talking about "decreasing" the surplus population, its avoiding increasing it. Can you imagine, what society would look like without abortion? I don't think it would look to strong.

Yes, because we all know how much of a drag it would be on society and humanity in general if all of the millions of people who were slaughter in the abortion mills- for reasons other than rape, incest, or life of the mother- were still alive today.  Hey my mother was single.  I'm sure that I've been a huge drag on the society.  I have no promise because of the circumstances of my birth.  Wouldn't have things been sooo much better if I wasn't here to suck the life-blood out of society?  My poor mother, what a strain it most have been for her to take care of me.  I guess that's a perfect reason to punch a hole in my skull and suck my brain out or inject me with fluid or chop me up with some other death device.  It would be great if society didn't have to deal with people like me because we are such trouble to everyone else.  I'm sure things are better because millions of people were never given a chance to live.  It's great that we can judge people before they are born, because as long as they are just a statistic that represents certain groups of the population, we don't have to think about it.  Is this what you meant?

Have you ever seen an aborted baby?  I have.  Were you born as one of those who are demographically most likly to be aborted.  I was.  Are you one of those members of the 'Surplus population'?  I am.  

Not that any of that will ever change your mind, but I'll leave you to chew on it.  

[12th Doctor]

I am not talking about "decreasing" the surplus population, its avoiding increasing it. Can you imagine, what society would look like without abortion? I don't think it would look to strong.

This are your exact words aren't they?  How am I supposed to read that.  It certainly sounds to me that you are making a value judgement about those who are aborted.  You seem to be maintaining that society is much better without those people.  Do I misunderstand you?

[12th Doctor]

...but I think they should consider it if they think they can not raise their child to make a positive impact on society.

Why should that be the determining decission about whether some deserves to live?  Do you have any clue how many people there are out there who are looking to adopt?  For most of these people, it is too difficult to get an American child, so they end-up going to places like China and Russia.  You seem to preclude that someones fates is determined simply by the circumsatnces of their birth and if those circumstances are not favorible, then we should just do away with those people, because we don't want to waste our time dealing with the hassel.  I thought that liberals were supposed to be compassionate.  Yet they would deny someone the ultimate act of compassion, the right to live.  How do you justify this seeming contradiction?

[12th Doctor]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I hate their lifestyle. And yes, if they continue with their lifestyle they will be condemned by God. And I never said they were like pedophiles. I think Brambilla said that.

I don't think that using the word hate in this context is proper if you wish to convey the fact that you find there life-style sinful or wrong.  Christ didn't hate anything or anyone.  Hate is a very powerful word.  i would use it far more sparingly than you have and certainly not tin this context.

[12th Doctor]

Mary Magdalene was never called a prostitute in the Bible. This is often repeated hearsay. The confusion can be for one of two reasons: a) Mary was from Magdala, a town with a rather seedy reputation, and people made a mistake based upon her origin, or b) this is part of an attempt to discredit a leading and devoted disciple of Jesus, probably because she was a woman.

Truth, but that is the tradition none the less and has been taught, as far as we know, since the very beginings of the Church.