Half of the US bans abortion. Then what?

[Farm Boy]

Depends on how you mean. Easier to adopt male children from Russia, they're more likely to keep thier girls. At least such was true the last time the USA and Russia had a relationship that allowed for that.

Elementary education in the USA is tailored closer to helping girl children succeed, though that's relatively new. The top earners in the society are old enough that paradigm wasn't in force and nobody thinks generationally because. I dunno, perspective is actually difficult?

 

[Silurian]

It seems to me that your elusive and snide posts are so you don't have to break a façade of objective, rational thinking and betray a moral bias you'd like to impose on others. Please, disabuse of me of that notion in an eloquent way if I'm wrong.

All people work with their brain, some people do not realise that. The best paid prostitute is often not the prettiest, they use their brain.
You compare people who do physical work, say a dancer, with prostitution because you think that those jobs are just physical work which is not true.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My camera is also very much a pain, even once it's ready for some reason I have to wait a couple seconds after pushing my shutter button for my picture to be taken. And my quality seems very poor, and also I need to take quite a few pictures of myself before I find one that's remotely acceptable, so I totally feel your pain lol.

I've for a long time said if someone's really trying to reduce abortions, you should be supporting things like:

• women having affordable access to healthcare, so carrying and delivering a baby won't financially ruin her
• universal access to post-secondary education, so she can still afford to go to school while caring for her new baby
• universal healthcare access, at least for children, so she knows her baby will be healthy
• stop threatening to take away programs like SNAP, because she may need help providing for her child
• offer supplementary support for childcare and daycare, so she can still go to school and work
• make laws protecting women with guaranteed maternity leave, so she can both have a job and survive pregnancy

I just feel if you really want to do something, then you should work on eliminating fears women have with having unexpected children. Oh and of course my list isn't all inclusive, I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking about right at this very moment.

Hmm, so basically get the state to pay for absolutely everything and throw money at her and it will reduce the incentives to have an abortion. Can't fault the logic I suppose. While we're at it, how about we get the state to give everyone absolutely anything and everything that they want to have, on demand, and we can probably reduce burglary and muggings to zero overnight as well.

 

[Synobun]

In your haste to be angry and indignant, you failed to recognize that most of those things would apply to men too.

 

[MaryKB]

In your haste to be angry and indignant, you failed to recognize that most of those things would apply to men too.

I find it interesting his definition of "absolutely everything" seems limited to basic necessities, you know what I mean? Or I guess maybe he'd like a more "fair" system that doesn't give anyone anything, and maybe just do something like prohibit men from working or attending school for say five years after getting a woman pregnant?

Or otherwise I guess I'm just hearing that tired refrain over and over again about "I'm going to force you to have a baby you can't handle, but I'm not going to do a thing to help you!"

I guess I was just trying to say how if you really support life and want to reduce abortions, you'll support things like that so a young woman's life isn't destroyed. And I feel if you're still anti-abortion but won't support life needs, then you're really just about controlling women's reproduction.

 

[Synobun]

I guess I was just trying to say how if you really support life and want to reduce abortions, you'll support things like that so a young woman's life isn't destroyed. And I feel if you're still anti-abortion but won't support life needs, then you're really just about controlling women's reproduction.

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

 

[HoloDoc]

Hmm, so basically get the state to pay for absolutely everything and throw money at her and it will reduce the incentives to have an abortion. Can't fault the logic I suppose. While we're at it, how about we get the state to give everyone absolutely anything and everything that they want to have, on demand, and we can probably reduce burglary and muggings to zero overnight as well.

Actually, providing universal healthcare has been shown to lower costs to a state, because having healthcare improves worker productivity and safety, amongst other things. Having legal avenues to protect women - and men - from domestic violence reduces crime, and saves the state money because you don't have to incarcerate people. If I curd the have divorced her, either my ex would have killed me or I would have killed her years ago; having legal options prevented a death and a prison sentence, thus saving the state money. States with universal free, or at least cheap, education has been shown to improve a state's economy long-term and lead to a happier, healthier, and more productive populace.

Look at Oregon, specifically Portland, in the US. It has a better economy, healthier and happier population, and more productive workforce than almost everywhere else in the US, attractive college graduates at a rate that is second only to Louisville, Kentucky - home to the great Jim Cornette - out of all your cities. And all this since it changed policy direction in the 1960s, when it was basically where impoverished places like West Virginia are now. It instituted many of the ideas proposed by Mary that you're belittling.

Look at facts, not ideology, and you'll often find that your thinking has been mistaken. I grew up in rural NSW, where Pauline Hanson was considered the best politician going, where immigrants took all our jobs, and where women needed to keep their legs open and their mouths shut. I grew up. The rest of the world might want to try it sometime.

(Although I do still like a woman that can do the last bit. Don't kink-shame me)

EDIT: Just realised I wrote, or more likely suffered an autocorrection to, "attractive college graduates" rather than "attracting college graduates." I'm not changing it, because I think it's funny.

 

[Synobun]

Manfred's a Brit, Holo.

 

[HoloDoc]

I find it interesting his definition of "absolutely everything" seems limited to basic necessities, you know what I mean? Or I guess maybe he'd like a more "fair" system that doesn't give anyone anything, and maybe just do something like prohibit men from working or attending school for say five years after getting a woman pregnant?

Or otherwise I guess I'm just hearing that tired refrain over and over again about "I'm going to force you to have a baby you can't handle, but I'm not going to do a thing to help you!"

I guess I was just trying to say how if you really support life and want to reduce abortions, you'll support things like that so a young woman's life isn't destroyed. And I feel if you're still anti-abortion but won't support life needs, then you're really just about controlling women's reproduction.

The point is to destroy a young woman's life. If she didn't want her life to be ruined, she should have kept her legs shut. And of course, been born rich, pretty, Christian, and white.

 

[MaryKB]

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

I really don't like calling them "pro-lifers", I feel that they don't deserve that term, because if you're pro-life you'll actually believe in policies that encourage and enhance life, right? Like I'd think to be pro-life you need to be: pro-universal healthcare, pro-social safety nets, anti-capital punishment, anti-war, pro-elderly care, pro-prison reform, pro-homeless assistance, pro-domestic violence assistance, and so on and so on, you know? Life doesn't end at birth, right?

I don't like "anti-abortionists" either, because there's no such thing as a pro-abortionist. I feel the best and most appropriate term should be "anti-women's rights."

 

[HoloDoc]

Manfred's a Brit, Holo.

I don't think I referred to him as American? Not that it matters. The Tories are Republicans at heart.

 

[MaryKB]

The point is to destroy a young woman's life. If she didn't want her life to be ruined, she should have kept her legs shut. And of course, been born rich, pretty, Christian, and white.

I read a really interesting article about how a woman explains how 100% of unwanted pregnancies are men's fault. I thought this was really interesting, especially when you consider things like availability and difficulty of use for birth control, and how men are willing to destroy a woman's life for a few minutes of his own pleasure.

https://www.someecards.com/life/social-news/woman-destroys-anti-abortion-argument/

 

[Synobun]

I don't think I referred to him as American? Not that it matters. The Tories are Republicans at heart.

Look at Oregon, specifically Portland, in the US. It has a better economy, healthier and happier population, and more productive workforce than almost everywhere else in the US, attractive college graduates at a rate that is second only to Louisville, Kentucky - home to the great Jim Cornette - out of all your cities.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In your haste to be angry and indignant, you failed to recognize that most of those things would apply to men too.

Because you think that I think men deserve to be given free stuff?

I find it interesting his definition of "absolutely everything" seems limited to basic necessities, you know what I mean? Or I guess maybe he'd like a more "fair" system that doesn't give anyone anything, and maybe just do something like prohibit men from working or attending school for say five years after getting a woman pregnant?

Or otherwise I guess I'm just hearing that tired refrain over and over again about "I'm going to force you to have a baby you can't handle, but I'm not going to do a thing to help you!"

I guess I was just trying to say how if you really support life and want to reduce abortions, you'll support things like that so a young woman's life isn't destroyed. And I feel if you're still anti-abortion but won't support life needs, then you're really just about controlling women's reproduction.

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.

The point is to destroy a young woman's life. If she didn't want her life to be ruined, she should have kept her legs shut. And of course, been born rich, pretty, Christian, and white.

Nope, she should have been born a straw[wo]man

I really don't like calling them "pro-lifers", I feel that they don't deserve that term, because if you're pro-life you'll actually believe in policies that encourage and enhance life, right? Like I'd think to be pro-life you need to be: pro-universal healthcare, pro-social safety nets, anti-capital punishment, anti-war, pro-elderly care, pro-prison reform, pro-homeless assistance, pro-domestic violence assistance, and so on and so on, you know? Life doesn't end at birth, right?

I don't like "anti-abortionists" either, because there's no such thing as a pro-abortionist. I feel the best and most appropriate term should be "anti-women's rights."

I think if you're claiming the right to name your opposition according to the worst interpretation of their stance as you percieve it, you have to concede the right for them to call you "baby murderers".

I don't think I referred to him as American? Not that it matters. The Tories are Republicans at heart.

Not a Tory either. Never have and (unless something very bizarre happens) never will vote for them.

 

[Synobun]

Given that your retort was rather centered on giving HER everything, I think that you hold rather unkempt views on women.

 

[MaryKB]

Given that your retort was rather centered on giving HER everything, I think that you hold rather unkempt views on women.

I feel it's really telling how his posts make me think he believes women should be required to bear all responsibility for reproduction without any support from men.

Stuff for free? She's being forced to carry and birth a baby you insist she must, I feel she's more than paying her fair dues.

 

[HoloDoc]

I read a really interesting article about how a woman explains how 100% of unwanted pregnancies are men's fault. I thought this was really interesting, especially when you consider things like availability and difficulty of use for birth control, and how men are willing to destroy a woman's life for a few minutes of his own pleasure.

https://www.someecards.com/life/social-news/woman-destroys-anti-abortion-argument/

I agree in principle, but I literally had children with a woman who crushed up her birth control pills and intentionally got pregnant, so it's a little simplistic.

Look at Oregon, specifically Portland, in the US. It has a better economy, healthier and happier population, and more productive workforce than almost everywhere else in the US, attractive college graduates at a rate that is second only to Louisville, Kentucky - home to the great Jim Cornette - out of all your cities.

Emphasis mine.

Oops. Well, the British have bad teeth, so those Portland graduates are undoubtedly more attractive. It still works.

 

[MaryKB]

I agree in principle, but I literally had children with a woman who crushed up her birth control pills and intentionally got pregnant, so it's a little simplistic.

Oh yes, well but your situation would be an intentional pregnancy (on her part), and my article I linked to is talking about unintentional pregnancies

 

[Lexicus]

just removing all responsibility from the parent to actually raise and provide for their own child.

Bringing up the next generation is the responsibility of all of us, and should not devolve on individual parents. The costs of raising children should be almost entirely socialized.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Given that your retort was rather centered on giving HER everything, I think that you hold rather unkempt views on women.

Given that I was replying to list of bullet points, every single one of which contained the word "she" or "her", maybe you need to rethink your stance. It's not exactly reasonable to expect me to be gender-neutral in response to a gendered statement.

I feel it's really telling how his posts make me think he believes women should be required to bear all responsibility for reproduction without any support from men.

Stuff for free? She's being forced to carry and birth a baby you insist she must, I feel she's more than paying her fair dues.

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.

As I've said, the only reason I said "give her everything" is because I was summarising (however glibly) your own list of bullet points which all used the words her or she in them.

Bringing up the next generation is the responsibility of all of us, and should not devolve on individual parents. The costs of raising children should be almost entirely socialized.

Well I mean that's definitely an opinion. But it's not an objectively true statement, and I'm sure you're aware that you're rather far to the left on this and most issues compared to most people. Also this is interesting in regards to the "authoritarian" comment made earlier. Not that you made that comment of course, but I can't think of a much better example of authoritarianism than forcing people who (for example) don't want to have children of their own, and believe that that are far too many people in the world as it is, to provide resources to allow other people to have as many children as they want, whenever they want.