Legacy (& abortion rights...)

Oops, I said the cleanslate society had 8 members on another thread. I included davamanra, so it's 7.

Is everyone agreed with a 12 week limit, like they have in France?

sounds good to me, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

What sort of Extenuating circumstances?

the usual cited ones, generally involving the mother's health.

To what degree, though? The 'risk to the mothers health' has been used to justify aborting unwanted fetuses, who were judged as a 'risk to the mothers mental health'. Sometimes fetuses have been aborted because the mother couldn't handle another child.

There's always adoption for unwanted children, and children that the parents wouldn't be able to handle (i.e. they have five already).

as in 'risk of death or severe physical injury'

But, if the mother can carry the baby to 7 months, we can perform a Ceasarean at that point.

And have a premature baby? They often have multiple physical and mental issues, caused by not enough time in the womb. I think, in this case, it would be the choice of the mother and/or father, if they are to be the prime caretaker. If the child is going strait to adoption, then there would of course be a state policy.

[quote="Redsand11j"If the child is going strait to adoption, then there would of course be a state policy.[/quote]
Which we'll need to discuss, in this thread or another one.

Redsand11j wrote:

They often have multiple physical and mental issues, caused by not enough time in the womb.

That was a problem before, but (I think) medical science has progressed to a point where, whilest there is still some risk, it's low enough to warrant serious consideration.

Redsand11j wrote:

I think, in this case, it would be the choice of the mother and/or father, if they are to be the prime caretaker.

I have to take the baby's side on this. There'd have to be a limit after which no abortion would take place. If the issue is viability, then 5 months could concievably be the limit. Giving the parents the choice of whether to abort, though, on the basis that they don't want to have to look after a disabled child, is just... wrong. Adoption is the infinitely preferable alternative. Disabled people can still do jobs, at least disabled Incans could.

well, children in orphanages and foster homes generally aren't too happy.

Perhaps ceasarian at seven months wouldn't be too bad.

I don't know too much about the science here, though.

What would you rather be: dead or unhappy?

And I suggested adoption, not foster homes and orphanages. Adoption would be encouragd. We don't even need to let gay couples adopt to have enough couples. Whole extended families could also concievably adopt (I don't know about the psychology on this one, though).

Adoption seems to be on the decline, at least in the US. Also, it seems most adoptees go through orphanages or foster homes.

Also, of course they would be allowed to adopt. It's discrimination and prejudice to do otherwise.

Wiki is my info source.

And if they were never born, would they have died? Is it better to allow this unhappy child to die so that another, perfectly healthy one can be conceived? Who knows? That's philosophy for you.

You want Philosphy? OK, then that child would be potentially unhappy, so you're dealing with potentials, not actuals.

Why should Gay couples be allowed to adopt? It's not discrimination any more than not allowing a single person to adopt. The interests of the child has to come first. That means they should have a father and mother, not a mother, or a father, or two fathers, or two mothers. We should be discouraging single parenthood, not encouraging it.

yes, but this child has the normal probability of being unhappy, plus the unhappiness associated with adoption. The 2nd child would only have the normal probability, which is less than the first.

And how is a gay couple having a child single parenting? I have met a few people of that type of parentage (either through adoption or artificial insemination, and they seemed perfectly normal to me.

The child lacks a father AND a mother, just as in single parenting.

that makes no sense. They have two parents.

I said, a father AND a mother.

Do you mean maybe or?

I see no logic there.

When a gay couple adopt, the child will be lacking a Father AND a Mother. You *are* aware of what the word 'and' means, I take it?

Or,,,, the child will be lacking either a Father or a Mother. So they won't have both, as it a Father AND a Mother.

I have two simple rules: 1) Don't do anything that has a too much of a negative effect on someone, and 2) Be who you want to be, except when it conflicts with the first law. I'll probably right in a third law, and find someway of of clarifying the 1st law, but it'll do for now. I can then deduce all other laws from those.

how would they lack a father AND a mother. In the example of male homosexuals, they will lack a mother, but have two fathers.

They wouldn't have both a Father AND a Mother, they'd have EITHER two Fathers OR two mothers.

They need a father AND a mother. While I wouldn't completely ban single parenting, I think it should be discouraged.

oh, now I see, it was the syntactical ambiguities of english. I wish I spoke lojban.

Well, do you have a source to support your assertion that children raised in gay households do less well than others?