Half of the US bans abortion. Then what?

[Manfred Belheim]

No one said that it is. I always assume that the one dimensional persona that you display in your posts is a put on, intended to test how people here will react to the idea that such a horrific could actually exist.

Unfortunately I'm all too convinced that you're as genuintely horrible as you portray yourself to be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unfortunately I'm all too convinced that you're as genuintely horrible as you portray yourself to be.

Oh, in real life I'm exactly how I present myself here. A number of posters have met me and can vouch for that. The interesting thing being how people who take horrific stances in favor of racism, misogyny, etc are the only ones here, or in real life, who call that "genuinely horrible."

 

[Cheetah]

"Anti-abortion" is a neutral description of their position.

I'm not sure I can agree. I'm also «anti-abortion», yet vehemently think that abortions should be legal and easily available.

It's kind of sad that we're worried about court rulings here. Do we have any substantive evidence that banning it contributes to net good in some way? I mean tangible, IRL net good, not somebody's feelings about morality.

No, quite the contrary. We have actual evidence that banning abortions increases crime, destroys lives, shrinks the working population, diverts police and juridical resources, causes far more suffering, generally harms the economy, increases corruption and generally harms society and the state.

Banning abortions are bad in every way, shape and form.

Well I'm not disagreeing that most of the things on the list aren't probably good things, though I definitely wouldn't categorise most of them as "basic necessities". But they way you listed them all together like that is basically saying "give me everything and pay for everything". Free healthcare, free access to education, free childcare, paid maternity leave. None of that's "bad" as such, but saying that a parent "needs" all that stuff as a basic necessity is just removing all responsibility from the parent to actually raise and provide for their own child.

Plus your basic point seems to be that a lack of access to these things, which would mean some people would be unable to support a child, is what leads to more abortion. Which is no doubt true, but ignores the rather large elephant in the room that people who know they can't support children do have other options other than abortion to avoid having them. But again, that would require them to have some responsibility of their own. So you could remove all of those things and still not be "forcing people to have a babies they can't handle" in the vast majority of cases.

Also I'm not a pro-lifer. Just a tax payer who isn't overly enamoured with the burden of having to pay for other people's children because of their irresponsibility.

And getting back to this one:

Free healthcare, free access to education, free childcare, and paid maternity leave are all awesome things, and a smart and calculating state would realise that everyone and the state will be better off if it funds and provide those services.

And those really are all basic necessity stuff, and no it absolutely does not remove responsibility from the parent. However, having the state take on some responsibilities is generally a really smart move, as the state can bring far more resources to bear in properly doing stuff.

Furthermore, your second paragraph here seems to imply that «people who know they can't support children» intentionally get pregnant and then have an abortion cause they calculate that they can't afford it, which is ridiculous any way you look at it! Mary's list is obviously about policies that could help convince people who have unintentionally become pregnant that they can have a baby and still manage! Talk about strawmaning, you did it straight out the gate!

Her list («of how to reduce abortions») could also have included free and easily accessible condoms and other contraceptives. Would you consider that too to be «removing responsibility from the parent»?

 

[Senethro]

Labour voters who don't support basic socialism and state interventions that produce clear benefits?

Blair did a real number on this country...

 

[Synobun]

Labour voters who don't support basic socialism and state interventions that produce clear benefits?

Blair did a real number on this country...

It really just supports Tim's hypothesis that Manfred is simply putting on an act to maximize discord and antagonistic behaviour.

 

[Lexicus]

Voted for Labour in every General Election I've been eligible to vote in.

That's weird, have you seen their platform lately?

 

[HoloDoc]

That's weird, have you seen their platform lately?

Maybe he's never been eligible to vote? Technically he wouldn't be lying.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It simply goes underground where it is prohibited. The moral police are delusional as always. It's not like people weren't trying before it, except it will just be more dangerous to all involved.

And of course when the first woman does get arrested for having an abortion, then people will finally open their eyes. Probably not though, since people have shown repeatedly that they can turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't affect them.... yet. Because hey, if it's not Islamic, Theocracy is okay.

Of course, like I could trust politicians on protecting children whey constantly don't care about actual living children not getting the proper schooling and food and safe conditions....

 

[Synobun]

And of course when the first woman does get arrested for having an abortion, then people will finally open their eyes.

You're very hopeful. It's more likely that the response will be "She should have kept her legs shut." instead of anything bordering on the compassionate.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You're very hopeful. It's more likely that the response will be "She should have kept her legs shut." instead of anything bordering on the compassionate.

Probably not though

But I agree. Very easy to pass judgement when you're up there.

EDIT: Moral conservatism is all about punishment and not about compassion. It is the urge to put people who do not oblige by that sense of morality in place, which is why they're always clamoring over which groups will burn in Hell next, and gleefully push it as such. If people actually gave a damn about the issue, they'd push things like spreading knowledge about sex and pregnancy (oh wait sex ed bad), or finding other options to people. But of course, threatening people with the law is all they can come up with.

 

[Patine]

I don't think it's coincidental that most pro-lifers also happen to be authoritarian.

I find that, as used by most people who claim the term, "pro-life," is a farce. "Anti-abortion," and, often, "anti-euthanasia," would be accurate. But most who call themselves "pro-life," support IMMENSE amounts deliberate caused by and facilitated by, the government, either directly, indirectly, or by knowing or complicit neglect, in so many different areas, they often use opposition to abortion and euthanasia to try to "launder" their virtue and wash all the blood they've already gleefully sponsored and supported off their hands as it is. A despicable deception really, and, unfortunately, too few call them on that double-standard and hoodwink. I REFUSE to ever refer to such people as "pro-life."

 

[bernie14]

Yes it is!
Get with the 1-D program fool!

Flat earther?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Flat earther?

That's two. The 1-D program would be a flat-liner.

 

[Hrothbern]

Moral conservatism is all about punishment and not about compassion. It is the urge to put people who do not oblige by that sense of morality in place

I think it is even more primitive
morality not there

It is about obedience, to put back people in place where they belong, to keep them, to discipline them in their obedient position and role.
Disobedience to the system means punishment by the system.

And yes... compassion is alien to that.

 

[bernie14]

That's two. The 1-D program would be a flat-liner.

True dat....i was far too optimistic

 

[sophie]

Life Before Roe: The Story of a Back-Alley Abortionist

 

[Silurian]

this page is blank

 

[sophie]

this page is blank

Don't know what to say - it's sending me to the page when I click it.

 

[brennan]

My actual stance is that I believe that people who commit to having children should be in a position to be able to provide the majority of time, money and resources into the raising of their own children, rather than just relying on the rest of society to pay for everything and/or look after their children when they want to go off and do other things.

You may not have noticed this, but we live in a society set up so that people who have full time jobs are not guaranteed to be able to do this.

 

[Patine]

I agree, it is very telling how you think I'm saying that, despite not having said that. My actual stance is that I believe that people who commit to having children should be in a position to be able to provide the majority of time, money and resources into the raising of their own children, rather than just relying on the rest of society to pay for everything and/or look after their children when they want to go off and do other things.

You may not have noticed this, but we live in a society set up so that people who have full time jobs are not guaranteed to be able to do this.

As the old saying goes, "it takes a whole village to raise a child." With the state of many communities and neighbourhoods today, you've got to pity many children growing up into the next generation.