[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[hobbsyoyo]

It would be a breathe of fresh air if the anti-choice crowd would spend as much time and energy proposing and supporting legislation to make child care more affordable, improve the educational system and make sure poor people don't starve to death and have healthcare as they crusading against people's right to choose.

Sure you think you're pro-life but apparently that only extends to the moment of birth at which time it's everyone for himself. Why won't you think of the kids???

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So if you think something is bad, you must first make sure you solve all other bad things in the world before you're allowed to talk about it. Okay.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You realize that the factors I talked about are directly, inextricably linked with abortion, right? You understand this, right? Please tell me you understand this, it's quite important.

 

[Cutlass]

The pro-choice crowd loves to label anyone who disagrees with their ethos as Hitler. But then all they need to do is study the statistics on abortion to see an outrageous genocide of millions in America alone (59 million since 1973)..which they are responsible for supporting. Which is tied to eugenics in America like the forced sterilization of minorities and those with mental issues.

And on and on. It is such a cruel hellish farce. The only way was to pretend that by magic the fetus was not a true human being ....just some totally unscientific collection of cells.

I don't know, but within 59 million deaths, there probably was a cure for cancer, clean energy, countless brilliant minds, thousands of gifted artists, etc.

It is an incalcuable loss.

See, it is exactly posts like this one that demonstrate that you have no willingness to be on the moral high ground. Since you feel so comfortable taking the low road, it becomes impossible to believe that you have ever even considered the right or the wrong of the situation.

People who actually believe themselves to be on god's side would not ever consider making the arguments that you make. So since we know that the people making those arguments know themselves to be enemies of god, then how can we take seriously their 'religious convictions' about abortion?


And, btw, I notice you give no attention to the millions of born Americans that the policies pushed by 'pro-life' politicians and voters cause the deaths of. Why is the fetus the most important thing in the world, but the child can be killed with no attention paid whatsoever?

 

[Cutlass]

Cancer is probably the only thing keeping the population in check (by which I mean slightly less wildly out of control). Well, cancer and abortion. Probably some other stuff too.

Conservative social and economic policies kill more than abortion.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You realize that the factors I talked about are directly, inextricably linked with abortion, right? You understand this, right? Please tell me you understand this, it's quite important.

No not really. If a person thinks that "killing a baby" (as they see it, whether you agree with it or not) is a morally reprehensible act, I don't believe there's a requirement on them to take active steps to reform the education system before they're allowed to say as such.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No not really. If a person thinks that "killing a baby" (as they see it, whether you agree with it or not) is a morally reprehensible act, I don't believe there's a requirement on them to take active steps to reform the education system before they're allowed to say as such.

Ok so this isn't what I was hoping for but your admission of ignorance is a sort of breath of fresh air.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ok so this isn't what I was hoping for but your admission of ignorance is a sort of breath of fresh air.

Please explain the ignorance? You're telling people how they should prioritise their concerns, or even what their concerns should be at all. You don't get to dictate what other people care about. Do you not see how, if someone sees abortion as KILLING BABIES, that they might prioritise "STOP KILLING BABIES" above supporting cheaper childcare or whatever? I get that you don't see it as killing babies, but you kind of have to acknowledge that they do and that's kind of the key issue to address them on. Also, do you just assume that all pro-anti-choice people do not support cheaper childcare as some sort of blanket rule?

 

[Farm Boy]

You realize that the factors I talked about are directly, inextricably linked with abortion, right? You understand this, right? Please tell me you understand this, it's quite important.

They aren't. I've been saying this for years and nobody incorporates the information into future statements. Well sure, they are in the sense that everything is linked, but this isn't that direct.

Right now, and for at least the two past decades, the financial burden to young women and childcare is not the question for denizens of the USA, rusty on my European research on the topic. There are people who will offer financial assistance for the chance to adopt those childcare expenses as their own. There is no need for parents for anticipated healthy infants. There is demand. Steady and constant. Tons of it. There are debates to be had, from "Is it moral not to kill it if we think it's suboptimal?" to "What do we do to care for children born with suboptimal brains when we could have just killed them sooner?", but... all that aside, if you're talking about abortions - the in utero humans that are legally acceptable to kill for any reason or no reason at all - childcare expenses are totally spurrious.

Or, I suppose, we could just go back to just figuring everything is linked and simpler is easier. But if everything is linked, what do you think it says about us that we use double logic to look at the same thing - first, it's not a person just a bundle of cells when we want to contemplate the morality of destroying it. Second, it's definitely a person with a person's commensurate rights when we look at the costs of not destroying it(even if we're bad at identifying the costs). So we build a society where it's considered acceptable to create offspring for fun and then destroy them as less important than money. That's a fun "everything is linked."

 

[onejayhawk]

Not that it makes a difference mind you, since it's the way PP is run today that's important.

If you want to go at it from that direction, look at the locations of the clinics and the demographics of the clients, if you can find it.

Google Margaret Sanger. As of yesterday, the second hit is this one. http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html The subject is loaded with racial connotations and misinformation is common. I have not investigated the accuracy of the site's information.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The need and desire for abortions scales with access to resources. Apparently that's completely lost on @Farm Boy and @Manfred Belheim

 

[Farm Boy]

It scales with more than that. It also scales with social views on single motherhood, for example. You think I'm the one that's whiffing on factors Hobbs?

Oh whatever. It's late capitalism. Of course this is the framing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm sorry but I can't decode your posts to a sufficient level to get to the heart of your argument. That's my admission of ignorance

 

[onejayhawk]

The need and desire for abortions scales with access to resources. Apparently that's completely lost on @Farm Boy and @Manfred Belheim

There is never a need. One could as accurately say there is a need for suicide.

Was that a misstatement or misunderstanding?

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There is never a need. One could as accurately say there is a need for suicide.

Was that a misstatement or misunderstanding?

J

Nope it was intentional. Agree to disagree

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The need and desire for abortions scales with access to resources. Apparently that's completely lost on @Farm Boy and @Manfred Belheim

Bleh. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean your reasoning is "lost on me". You just don't seem to get that, for some people, "killing babies" is something they find morally indefensible. You don't tackle something you find morally indefensible by advocating for social programs that might reduce the rates of morally indefensible things happening by 20% over a period of 10 years, you just say "no, we can't allow that" and then go from there.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hobbs, when is the decision to terminate a pregnancy legally applicable? During that period, what are the financial/economic* interests for carrying or terminating said pregnancy? What are the childcare and insurance costs?

*It's generally the wrong way to look at it. Women do this less frequently, but some still do it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Do you not see how, if someone sees abortion as KILLING BABIES, that they might prioritise "STOP KILLING BABIES" above supporting cheaper childcare or whatever?

Then their so-called "pro-life" stance is nothing but a sham. If you're going to proclaim yourself as pro-life, you should be in favor of making sure that once the baby is born, it's not going to be afflicted with illnesses or death due to malnutrition/starvation, preventable diseases, inadequate access to doctors and hospitals, and that it has the necessities such as shelter (ie. properly insulated, not run-down, not rife with toxic mold, has proper heating, plumbing, clean water, electricity). And that doesn't even include the necessity of access to adequate schools, literacy (ie. access to libraries), and safe places for recreation.

Right now, and for at least the two past decades, the financial burden to young women and childcare is not the question for denizens of the USA, rusty on my European research on the topic. There are people who will offer financial assistance for the chance to adopt those childcare expenses as their own. There is no need for parents for anticipated healthy infants. There is demand. Steady and constant. Tons of it.

Right, because that's why all the orphanages, foster homes, group homes, etc. are closed down - they're not needed because every unwanted kid is immediately snapped up like the crazy parents who actually got into physical fights over the last Tickle Me Elmo doll in the toy stores.

In the real world, kids are not adopted so easily, at least not the older kids. There was a recent article on CBC.ca about two men (a married couple) who adopted three siblings and ran into a really dumb bureaucratic wall when it came to getting SIN numbers for the kids: the government wanted to know "the mother's maiden name."

How is a gay married couple supposed to provide that? And the inevitable ignorant comments about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" proliferated in the comments section. More kids could be adopted if government and private adoption agencies would get over this garbage of not allowing gay/lesbian couples to adopt, or throwing up completely unnecessary barriers in the hope that the couple will give up.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Bleh. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean your reasoning is "lost on me". You just don't seem to get that, for some people, "killing babies" is something they find morally indefensible. You don't tackle something you find morally indefensible by advocating for social programs that might reduce the rates of morally indefensible things happening by 20% over a period of 10 years, you just say "no, we can't allow that" and then go from there.

Uh huh and instead of supporting causes that will dramatically decrease the numbers of abortions, you'd rather talk about killing babies. That's sad and kind of sick when you think about it.

Hobbs, when is the decision to terminate a pregnancy legally applicable? During that period, what are the financial/economic* interests for carrying or terminating said pregnancy? What are the childcare and insurance costs?

*It's generally the wrong way to look at it. Women do this less frequently, but some still do it.

Bro what

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you want to go at it from that direction, look at the locations of the clinics and the demographics of the clients, if you can find it.

Google Margaret Sanger. As of yesterday, the second hit is this one. http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html The subject is loaded with racial connotations and misinformation is common. I have not investigated the accuracy of the site's information.

J

How do you think I got the information I posted? I googled it.

In case of uncertainty it would be wise to refrain from labeling someone as a white supremacist and eugenics proponent just to score cheap points.