an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[IdiotsOpposite]

Why should the state carry that burden?

I am going to sound harsh here. Maybe the state should just put rapist out of their misery and then there would be no burden to any one. No one would be raped.

Not sure how you get that. Lots of people do things that earn them the death penalty. It's a deterrent, but it doesn't work on everyone. People will still be raped, and there will still be rape children, no matter how strong you make the punishment for rape.

 

[caketastydelish]

"I'm against it until it makes me look like a dick."

If being a middle-of-the-road political moderate makes me look like a dick, then so be it.

Again, current President Barrack Obama feels about the same way I do on the issue.

Anyway, I thought this thread wasn't supposed to have personal attacks. Either have a compelling argument for why I'm wrong, or don't. Saying I almost look like a dick, doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[timtofly]

Not sure how you get that. Lots of people do things that earn them the death penalty. It's a deterrent, but it doesn't work on everyone. People will still be raped, and there will still be rape children, no matter how strong you make the punishment for rape.

It is hardly enforced any more. It probably has no more deterrent factor any more either. People are not stupid, they will continue to get away with things until it happens to them. You are right in that people will still do it, but I am also right that if they no longer exist, they wil definetly not do it to another human.

 

[caketastydelish]

Not sure how you get that. Lots of people do things that earn them the death penalty. It's a deterrent, but it doesn't work on everyone. People will still be raped, and there will still be rape children, no matter how strong you make the punishment for rape.

It is hardly enforced any more. It probably has no more deterrent factor any more either. People are not stupid, they will continue to get away with things until it happens to them. You are right in that people will still do it, but I am also right that if they no longer exist, they wil definetly not do it to another human.

The problem is with the American law, which goes back to the founding fathers. By memory on this issue is rough so I must paraphrase, but it goes something like this:

"It is better for 10 guilty men to be declared innocent, than for 1 innocent man to be declared guilty".

This is the way they saw it, and this has carried onto present day. I am aware there are cases of innocent people in jail, but the cases of guilty people not being in jail are far more frequent. The American justice system says the defendant can not be declared guilty, unless ALL reasonable doubt does not exist. That is, even if they're pretty sure that the person is guilty, if they have even the slightest doubt, they're innocent.

This is why so many rapes simply go unreported, and why those that do get reported often end up with nothing happening. This is a bold statement, but allow me to make it:

I personally would be willing to go to jail, if that's what it takes for the rapist to go to jail too.

That is, I wouldn't mind the justice system sending a few more innocents to jail, if that's what it takes to get most of the guiltys.

 

[Traitorfish]

If being a middle-of-the-road political moderate makes me look like a dick, then so be it.

Again, current President Barrack Obama feels about the same way I do on the issue.

...Ok? Is that important?

Anyway, I thought this thread wasn't supposed to have personal attacks. Either have a compelling argument for why I'm wrong, or don't. Saying I almost look like a dick, doesn't get anyone anywhere.

What makes you think it was personal, let alone an attack?

 

[caketastydelish]

...Ok? Is that important?

Here's where I'm getting at: Everything is relevant, and all a matter of perspective. From the perspective of someone that is 100% pro-choice, I do indeed look like a dick. From the perspective of someone that is 100% pro-life, I still look like a dick. Because I'm so far from the two extremes, anyone on either side of the extreme will think I look like a dick. What I think is drastically different from what they think.

What makes you think it was personal, let alone an attack?

I just thought you were implying that I almost look like a dick because of where I stand on the issue. If I said you almost look like a dick because of wherever you stand (presumably 100% pro choice I'm thinking), would you consider that a personal attack?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The problem is with the American law, which goes back to the founding fathers. By memory on this issue is rough so I must paraphrase, but it goes something like this:

"It is better for 10 guilty men to be declared innocent, than for 1 innocent man to be declared guilty".

This is the way they saw it, and this has carried onto present day. I am aware there are cases of innocent people in jail, but the cases of guilty people not being in jail are far more frequent. The American justice system says the defendant can not be declared guilty, unless ALL reasonable doubt does not exist. That is, even if they're pretty sure that the person is guilty, if they have even the slightest doubt, they're innocent.

This is why so many rapes simply go unreported, and why those that do get reported often end up with nothing happening. This is a bold statement, but allow me to make it:

I personally would be willing to go to jail, if that's what it takes for the rapist to go to jail too.

That is, I wouldn't mind the justice system sending a few more innocents to jail, if that's what it takes to get most of the guiltys.

And I disagree. My views are such what you bolded above.

Guess there's really nowhere to go with this then huh?

 

[caketastydelish]

And I disagree. My views are such what you bolded above.

Guess there's really nowhere to go with this then huh?

Well I think most people would disagree. My views on that are quite unconventional.

Yes indeed, that's what it comes down to. My views on this particular subject have changed only after one of my friends were raped, and this has drastically increased my sympathy for rape victims and what should be done about it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think the government is not doing their proper job. That is, if you're not going to give a woman the option to abort, then you should cover all of her expenses for raising her baby. Anything she can't get on her own, the state should pay for. Frankly, I think the state (at least the american government) hasn't been doing an adequate job of this thus far. Yes it would be expensive, and yes taxes will have to be raised. But you see, if you're not going to allow a woman to abort, then the child brought into this world should have all of their needs met.

It boggles my mind to see all the anti-choice people who keep blathering on about "innocent babies" when these future babies will have little or no chance at a decent life once they really are babies (once they're born). Adequate - and NUTRITIOUS - food, proper clothing, proper shelter (preferably somewhere that isn't a cesspit), and access to a decent education... access to affordable childcare (affordable on a young mother's budget, NOT what the government thinks is "affordable") so the mother has the chance to be employed part-time or full-time... the courts doing their utmost to make the father pay HIS share if he isn't already... and so on. Otherwise, the anti-choice crowd should just admit their hypocrisy and SHUT UP. Because they can call themselves "pro-life" as much as they want, but their actions prove the opposite.

Would this result in a raise in taxes? Why should it? The problem with funding this is not that there isn't enough money - it's that the money already available is being spent on killing people on the other side of the world, and investing in jobs for people on the other side of the world (it's like that for Canada, too - it's been a very long time since I've actually seen anything with a "made in Canada" label on it). Stop spending on the useless crap like war and there would be plenty to invest in your own people.

 

[caketastydelish]

It boggles my mind to see all the anti-choice people who keep blathering on about "innocent babies" when these future babies will have little or no chance at a decent life once they really are babies (once they're born). Adequate - and NUTRITIOUS - food, proper clothing, proper shelter (preferably somewhere that isn't a cesspit), and access to a decent education... access to affordable childcare (affordable on a young mother's budget, NOT what the government thinks is "affordable") so the mother has the chance to be employed part-time or full-time... the courts doing their utmost to make the father pay HIS share if he isn't already... and so on. Otherwise, the anti-choice crowd should just admit their hypocrisy and SHUT UP. Because they can call themselves "pro-life" as much as they want, but their actions prove the opposite.

Would this result in a raise in taxes? Why should it? The problem with funding this is not that there isn't enough money - it's that the money already available is being spent on killing people on the other side of the world, and investing in jobs for people on the other side of the world (it's like that for Canada, too - it's been a very long time since I've actually seen anything with a "made in Canada" label on it). Stop spending on the useless crap like war and there would be plenty to invest in your own people.

Here, this might help:


Link to video.

don't watch it if you easily get offended

thank you for the tip, idiotsopposite.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Don't use the full link: just paste the part after v=.

 

[Ajidica]

Also interesting:

Link to video.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Unfortunately, my computer speakers don't work. I'll have to watch these later.

 

[Traitorfish]

Here's where I'm getting at: Everything is relevant, and all a matter of perspective. From the perspective of someone that is 100% pro-choice, I do indeed look like a dick. From the perspective of someone that is 100% pro-life, I still look like a dick. Because I'm so far from the two extremes, anyone on either side of the extreme will think I look like a dick. What I think is drastically different from what they think.

Yes, but you're like 97% anti-choice, so the sort of anti-loooking-like-a-dick precautions that you're going to be taking are all going to be pretty one-sided. Just because 97% anti-choice appears moderate in the twisted landscape of what passes for politics in the US doesn't mean that it is an authentically moderate position, just that on this, as in so many other areas, Americans skew hard towards the 18th century.

I just thought you were implying that I almost look like a dick because of where I stand on the issue. If I said you almost look like a dick because of wherever you stand (presumably 100% pro choice I'm thinking), would you consider that a personal attack?

Pfft, that's not why I look like a dick.

 

[Farm Boy]

It boggles my mind to see all the anti-choice people who keep blathering on about "innocent babies" when these future babies will have little or no chance at a decent life once they really are babies (once they're born). Adequate - and NUTRITIOUS - food, proper clothing, proper shelter (preferably somewhere that isn't a cesspit), and access to a decent education... access to affordable childcare (affordable on a young mother's budget, NOT what the government thinks is "affordable") so the mother has the chance to be employed part-time or full-time... the courts doing their utmost to make the father pay HIS share if he isn't already... and so on. Otherwise, the anti-choice crowd should just admit their hypocrisy and SHUT UP. Because they can call themselves "pro-life" as much as they want, but their actions prove the opposite.

Would this result in a raise in taxes? Why should it? The problem with funding this is not that there isn't enough money - it's that the money already available is being spent on killing people on the other side of the world, and investing in jobs for people on the other side of the world (it's like that for Canada, too - it's been a very long time since I've actually seen anything with a "made in Canada" label on it). Stop spending on the useless crap like war and there would be plenty to invest in your own people.

For about the 18th time in this thread...guh.

"It boggles my mind that all these pro-choice people keep blathering about the expense put on birth mothers and the assumed hypocrisy of the the pro-life crowd...."

Yes, raising a child is expensive. Pre-natal care is expensive. Expense, at least in America(I'm pretty sure Canada as well), is not legitimate reasoning to abort a pregnancy. It might be in theory, but it isn't in practice. The health issues and the experience of pregnancy/birth are, but you are yet again putting this situation as "raise the child yourself or abort it." Those aren't the only two options. Adoptive parents and government aid will cover prenatal care for birth mothers. They cover birth expenses. They cover benefits for time off work. They cover the legal fees. Then they cover the expense of raising the child. The decision to abort happens early enough in pregnancy that there is way more than enough time to identify and line up prospective adoptive parents who will be more than happy to work with a birth mother. The aid they provide is entirely by choice too, if a woman has the baby and changes her mind about the adoption plan she can so choose the raise the child herself without needing to return any of this support. There is no iron-clad contracting to take advantage of her here either.

<pant pant> There are legitimate arguments for pro-choicers to make here, stop trying to use this false dichotomy to score easy rhetorical points about how bad you perceive those on the other side to be!

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is the way they saw it, and this has carried onto present day. I am aware there are cases of innocent people in jail, but the cases of guilty people not being in jail are far more frequent. The American justice system says the defendant can not be declared guilty, unless ALL reasonable doubt does not exist. That is, even if they're pretty sure that the person is guilty, if they have even the slightest doubt, they're innocent.

Actually, that isn't what it states or implies at all. If that were the criteria hardly anybody would ever be convicted. In legal parlance a "reasonable person" is someone who has used due diligence to weigh the evidence both for and against. He is the one who must be convinced there is no "reasonable doubt", which means that he can still be doubtful that the defendant isn't actually guilty. But those doubts shouldn't be "reasonable".

I still have my doubts that the person I helped convict in a sexual assault case was actually guilty. And I'm sure the other 5 people on the jury feel the same way. In fact, the other 5 thought there was sufficient reasonable doubt when we entered the deliberation room.

This is why so many rapes simply go unreported, and why those that do get reported often end up with nothing happening. This is a bold statement, but allow me to make it:

I personally would be willing to go to jail, if that's what it takes for the rapist to go to jail too.

That is, I wouldn't mind the justice system sending a few more innocents to jail, if that's what it takes to get most of the guiltys.

You consider this to be a "middle-of-the-road political moderate" position? Sending far more innocent people to prison isn't the answer when your country already leads the rest of the modern world by nearly a factor of 10 in regard to the incarceration rate. You could even say it has already been implemented for blacks and other minorities, or for anybody else who can't afford the best attorneys money can buy for that matter.

Yes, raising a child is expensive. Pre-natal care is expensive. Expense, at least in America(I'm pretty sure Canada as well), is not legitimate reasoning to abort a pregnancy. It might be in theory, but it isn't in practice... <snip>

Sure it is. That is especially true if you aren't willing to pay all those attendant costs, including a far higher crime rate as the.video Ajidica just posted clearly shows. It should be required watching by everybody in public schools, because it certainly is being ignored by most of those who advocate "pro-life".

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure it is. That is especially true if you aren't willing to pay all those attendant costs, including a far higher crime rate as the.video Ajidica just posted clearly shows. It should be required watching by everybody in public schools, because it certainly is being ignored by most "pro-life" people.

I find it a tad ironic that you're claiming information is being ignored while you are managing to quote me while not addressing my basic point at all. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well, you are a sharp guy after all(Edit, just reread that and it sounded sarcastic when I really do mean it).

Let's say I accept the conclusions of the linked video in full - i.e. unwanted children increase crime rates 20 years later. Fine, let's roll with that but it isn't applicable to what I said at all.

What we are talking about is a decision made by women early in their pregnancies - whether or not to abort the pregnancy. I was addressing financial costs to women related to pregnancy who are unwilling or unable to pay for them at the time. Those specific financial costs and be and most often are covered by a decision to enter an adoption plan. I leave open the fact that the physical costs are still borne by birth mothers. Please also note I am not calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade(I know you probably read the entire thread, but it's getting to be several pages back).

One of the terribly wonderful things about an adoptive family is that the child is most emphatically not an "unwanted child" to its parents which is the entire premise of the video. If you want that shown by action its certainly a lot slower and expensive to make adoptive parenthood happen than biological parenthood for most people. The facts in your video may be true, but its basic logical structure of choices leaves out a very real, very much in demand third option besides "abort or raise in sullen squalor," which is really the only point I've been making in this thread.

I guess I am confused by your responses to me throughout the last several pages. I pop in to say that abortion doesn't have to be as limited a discussion as most people make it, consider adoption. Do you have a specific beef with my stance on that? I don't get how the response to "there are families who want to adopt" is either "unwanted children become criminals" or "these women should implant the embryo and carry it themselves." Do you honestly think adoptive mothers chose that route specifically because they didn't want to be pregnant? Really?

 

[Akka]

Yes indeed, that's what it comes down to. My views on this particular subject have changed only after one of my friends were raped, and this has drastically increased my sympathy for rape victims and what should be done about it.

I guess we should just wait for one of your friend to spend 15 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit, so you can flip-flop on the subject.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

For about the 18th time in this thread...guh.

"It boggles my mind that all these pro-choice people keep blathering about the expense put on birth mothers and the assumed hypocrisy of the the pro-life crowd...."

Yes, raising a child is expensive. Pre-natal care is expensive. Expense, at least in America(I'm pretty sure Canada as well), is not legitimate reasoning to abort a pregnancy. It might be in theory, but it isn't in practice. The health issues and the experience of pregnancy/birth are, but you are yet again putting this situation as "raise the child yourself or abort it." Those aren't the only two options. Adoptive parents and government aid will cover prenatal care for birth mothers. They cover birth expenses. They cover benefits for time off work. They cover the legal fees. Then they cover the expense of raising the child. The decision to abort happens early enough in pregnancy that there is way more than enough time to identify and line up prospective adoptive parents who will be more than happy to work with a birth mother. The aid they provide is entirely by choice too, if a woman has the baby and changes her mind about the adoption plan she can so choose the raise the child herself without needing to return any of this support. There is no iron-clad contracting to take advantage of her here either.

<pant pant> There are legitimate arguments for pro-choicers to make here, stop trying to use this false dichotomy to score easy rhetorical points about how bad you perceive those on the other side to be!

Explain to me where, in my post, you saw me say that pro-choicers were blathering about the expenses put on birth mothers. Did I say ONE WORD about pre-natal care? I probably should have, since there are anti-choicers who seem to think that a destitute mother who wants to keep her baby should somehow be able to afford pre-natal care, and if she can't, they are quite willing to call her a leech on society and shame her for being poor, or for being pregnant in the first place - even if she was raped.

Yes, adoption is an honorable alternative. Kudos to the women and adoptive families who go that route. My anger is directed at those who are all for women (and children) keeping the baby (as in not aborting) NO MATTER WHAT.

Consider the case of a 10-year-old girl raped by a family member. Would you force her to go through with the pregnancy? Would you blithely wave it all away by saying, "Well, she can just put the baby up for adoption"? Newsflash: Kids that age are not physically meant to carry babies. Even with the best of care, there is a high likelihood that the mother and/or the baby would not survive, or at least would be severely damaged by the birth.

My previous post was directed at pro-lifers who are all for the "innocent baby" that is NOT YET A REAL BABY. They really care about it before it's born, but after...? So many of these "pro-lifers" are working very hard to strip these mothers-to-be of their social safety net - you know, the one that exists so they CAN care for the children after they're born. They don't care if the baby was the result of rape. They don't care if the baby will be born disabled, or even stillborn. They don't (at least many don't) care about the psychological health of the mother. They just want that baby born!

And then they want to forget about it and go on to the next one. It's not about quality, it's about quantity. Just a numbers thing. And denying women the choice of what to do with their own bodies and their own lives.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, you quoted oldschooler and went off on social safety nets and military adventurism. Since we're talking about abortion and you made no caveats other than pro-lifers are hypocritical I(perhaps incorrectly) took your post to focus on the financials of the situation facing the pregnant woman.

The stripping of social netting I agree with you on. It's a problem that faces low-income women who keep their children which impacts us all. If you point this out while proclaiming a pro-choice status what you are implying seems, at least to me, is that you believe the answer to this financial conundrum is to abort the pregnancy. I'm saying the financial argument there is bullcrap in the light of adoption being an option. I followed that point up in my next post by stating the health issues of pregnancy itself are not addressed by adoption. Does that shed some light on my answer to your subsequent question regarding ectopic pregnancies and cases of 10 year olds being raped?