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

[Cutlass]

You have odd ideas about American history. Abortion was around practically from inception and done with herbs. And shock....by American Christians.

It's a tactic by atheists to not capitalize a proper noun on purpose when in any humanities course this nonsense would be pointed out as a way of creating a fallacy in your opponent's argument that doesn't exist. No one can prove the existence of God. Either way is solely based on faith not science.

You can't have decorum in dialogue by that kind of post.

The preponderance of Roman Catholics and Protestants in America have no political will to abolish abortion. There is hope that the Supreme Court will be honest and point out that the Constitution is silent on abortion. Thus it would be a state and individual decision based on the 10th Amendment. Roe v Wade would be null and void...not to abolish abortion...but to turn the decision properly to the states and individuals and to be negotiated. Thus some states could legally elect to modify their state constitutions that abortion is a natural right to be protected....while others would not do so.

Emergency contraception has been around as long as douching was around. Standard oral contraception can induce miscarriages based upon hormone levels which vary from patient to patient.

As such, I see very little difference in douching versus oral contraception versus morning after pills. Since we have publically discussed this in America since 1971, it is odd that there is a stigma about emergency contraception.

The segment of patients who have irregular menstral cycles is the one main area where delayed decision making might result in abortions. Whereas standard emergency contraception with risky behavior might eliminate 90% of surgical and surgical/chemical abortions.

It is a no-brainer to alter the paradigm which creates an industry for Planned Parenthood that preys on minorities in an expensive manner.

You can't have decorum in dialog so long as you are perpetuating the lie that Planned Parenthood preys on minorities.

I understand that this is a Party Approved Talking Point (PATP). And that the Politburo gives you brownie points for staying on it. But you're new here. And we have all seen it before, and we are not impressed.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Potato potado. In nearly all cases it is exactly the same people decrying one 'state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity' and demanding a different 'state sanctioning the deliberate killing of people would be an atrocity'.

If those people are so insistent that 'killing the baby is wrong!', why are they also so insistent on killing baby?

I mean, if they actually voted to, I don't know, maybe not killing the baby? Then maybe they'd have a moral point. But they don't. A vote for a conservative is a vote to kill the baby. The difference between pro-choice and pro-'life' is that with pro-choice the baby has a much better chance of living.

Where's a source that this is remotely true?
Rather the bulk of conservatives donate money to ensure protection of the impoverished especially children.

Does anyone honestly believe that clothing closets, food banks, programs for single moms, etc are run by pro-choice people??? These are run by Christians who are conservative.

Compare that to 59 million abortions. Statistics says you are wrong.

 

[Cutlass]

Where's a source that this is remotely true?
Rather the bulk of conservatives donate money to ensure protection of the impoverished especially children.

Does anyone honestly believe that clothing closets, food banks, programs for single moms, etc are run by pro-choice people??? These are run by Christians who are conservative.

Compare that to 59 million abortions. Statistics says you are wrong.

And how many have been killed by lack of healthcare? Lack of social services? Lack of welfare? Every conservative in Congress just passed a law that will result in the deaths and suffering of American children, because they needed that money to give a tax cut to people who don't need a tax cut. A vote to repeal Obamacare is a vote to kill American children. A vote to defund Planned Parenthood is a vote to kill American children.

Voting conservative is voting knowingly, deliberately, and with complete malice of forethought, to kill American children. This is why you do not have a moral ground to stand on on the abortion issue.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

And how many have been killed by lack of healthcare? Lack of social services? Lack of welfare? Every conservative in Congress just passed a law that will result in the deaths and suffering of American children, because they needed that money to give a tax cut to people who don't need a tax cut. A vote to repeal Obamacare is a vote to kill American children. A vote to defund Planned Parenthood is a vote to kill American children.

Voting conservative is voting knowingly, deliberately, and with complete malice of forethought, to kill American children. This is why you do not have a moral ground to stand on on the abortion issue.

Proof? Sources? Any semblance of nonpolemics? Come on, try harder.

Meanwhile whatever you come up must exceed 59 million murders. Your side has a very steep problem to overcome.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Relevant:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._lot_of_money_especially_if_you_actually.html

$30,000 to have a baby in the US. Rent or baby. You choose.

But god will hate you forever if you make that other choice.

 

[Farm Boy]

Relevant to your discussion with whom?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Relevant to your discussion with whom?

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???

And then about 3 pages that followed it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, well, if you want to talk to me about money, that's a pretty sketch article for this use. But from it:

"Women with insurance pay out of pocket an average of $3,400."

If you're talking the competitive market for abortable standard pregnancy, most women will be covered by a combination of government and private insurance. There are gaps, and generally as one's income rises, qualification for aid decreases too fast. If one is forming an adoption plan, rent is a standard allowable gift. Shortcomings in insurance coverage are standard allowable gifts.

Your take on what my God hates is terrifically uninteresting.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Most women aren't all women. Moreover, $3,400 isn't a reasonable sum for childbirth either - particularly when the government is trying to get rid of health insurance for the poor in any case. And the fact that there is no plan from the right to bring down costs from $30,000 is also pretty telling in where their priorities are at.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To repeat my earlier point, it seems an awful like the right are against just about every policy that would reduce abortions other than making them illegal.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, those other people are fascinating.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

You can't have decorum in dialog so long as you are perpetuating the lie that Planned Parenthood preys on minorities.

I understand that this is a Party Approved Talking Point (PATP). And that the Politburo gives you brownie points for staying on it. But you're new here. And we have all seen it before, and we are not impressed.

Are you kidding me? Turning babies into mincemeat for profit in minority neighborhoods doesn't exist? They are as evil as payday loansharking. But then since selling fetal tissue was so lucrative, we know they are more careful to sell coveted human trophies.

Margaret Sanger was no saint. She was a repulsive outright racist. Her peers were blatant Nazi sympathizers. That whole chapter of American history is full of horrifying eugenics directed at the "great unwashed" who were despised new immigrants and outright crude caricatures of minorities in the same manner as Hitler did with the Jews.

Their goal was to cut off the dead wood of American society. If you were not Anglo Saxon...you were lumped into that category.
So now, I am being accused of being a Russian communist spy. How crazy that is as I am such an archconservative that at one time, such folks were vehemently opposed to Communism. Thanks for the guffaw.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes, those other people are fascinating.

Definitely:

Are you kidding me? Turning babies into mincemeat for profit in minority neighborhoods doesn't exit? They are as evil as payday loansharking. But then since selling fetal tissue was so lucrative, we know they are more careful to sell coveted human trophies.

Margaret Sanger was no saint. She was repulsive outright racist.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Anyone can look up the macabre methods for aborting babies. They come out in pieces. It is horrifying barbarism that we would be appalled with if it happened to dogs.

Look it up. See how the babies' forehead is bashed in and limbs are taken out. Now, the fetal brains are considered precious as they can sell them. They actually packaged up fetal heads for medical research. We know this from admissions by former Planned Parenthood workers and video evidence. And they thought this was amusing. How revolting.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I guess if that's just how interesting you're going to make it, you probably deserve the same amount of good faith and replies.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I guess if that's just how interesting you're going to make it, you probably deserve the same amount of good faith and replies.

Right because it's typical for me to begin flaming and trolling right out the gate.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: This is an RD thread. Stop beating each other up and discuss the topic, or it will be closed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Nope. That's like saying you can't be against murder without being massively concerned with the future lives of anyone who surived a thwarted murder attempt. Also, again, you seem to be asserting that anyone who takes the pro-life stance is necessarily against pretty much all social programs or humanitarian acts. Is that the case?

I'm asserting that many people who take the pro-life stance also express their anger and resentment about social programs to help disadvantaged mothers raise their children ("Won't anyone think of MAI TAX DOLLARS!!!").

Sorry, but if I don't want you to be murdered, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to fight for your public libraries and parks. And it absolutely definitely doesn't mean that if you were in imminent danger of being murdered that I should concentrate on your libraries and parks as the primary method of saving your life.

Since I'm no longer in danger of being murdered (having moved away from the drug-infested neighborhood where I was accosted on the street, there were numerous incidents of domestic violence on the floor above mine, and somebody was murdered in the next building), this isn't about me and my well-being.

I notice that you focus on libraries and parks, rather than the most immediate needs of food, clothing, shelter, and education. Or haven't you read about the kids who go to school hungry because the family food budget won't stretch to breakfast?

"Bro What?"

WHEN is the decision to abort relevant? It's important to the mechanics of how it works, and Valka, while correct about the status of the foster system - is demonstrating why it is important to know. The humans who are aborted not the same subsection of humans whose custody winds up seized by the state, which is who foster children are. They are not the same humans. Foster children are irrelevant to abortion. They're already too old to kill to fix.

Newsflash: Kids end up in the foster system for numerous reasons. They're not all seized by the state. Sometimes all it takes to end up there is having both parents die and no relatives to step up and take them in. And there are parents who deliberately abandon their kids - the state doesn't "seize" them. The parents just leave them somewhere and never come back. I guess the kids who get abandoned in hospital emergency rooms are more lucky than the ones who get abandoned at bus stations, airports, or out in the street somewhere.

I assume you think the reason that some kids are seized is due to parental neglect or worse. Try explaining that to the aboriginal kids in Canada who were literally kidnapped and taken to the residential schools, or who were kidnapped during the Sixties Scoop. The latter involved the kids being forcibly removed from their homes and literally sold into international adoptions to the U.S. and Europe.

Adoption isn't irrelevant; you're the one who paints this rosy picture that there are hordes of would-parents clamoring to adopt. Well, where are they? In many cases they can't afford the fees. For the rest of the cases, there are "reasons" why the adoptions aren't approved, or because the would-parents want a cute baby who has no family attachments; they don't want an older child because the situation gets complicated with birth family issues and other problems to do with health, education, behavioral issues, etc.

What is even worse is the weird tactic of not capitalizing God when discussing spirituality that you disagree with...
...
But yoyo would deny a Christian can voice their political opinion whatsoever!

You're complaining about incivility because some of us don't capitalize god, yet you refer to a fellow forum member as "yoyo" - which, while it's part of his username, could also be taken as slang for a stupid or crazy person?

That old paradigm went away by most with Prohibition and dry counties. That is foisting morality on others because you think you have the right to do so. It is nonsensical.

Are you seriously claiming that it's not Christians who think they have the right to "foist their morality" on others?

You still don't get to tell other people what to think. If they are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible, you don't get to tell them that their top priority should be endorsing social programs to reduce the numbers of people taking the state up on their offer to murder their babies for them. It's actually a really stupid thing to even request.

People are free to think whatever they want, even contradictory, hypocritical nonsense.

You don't want fetuses to be aborted. Yet you don't give a damn about social programs to help the child after it's born. That suggests that this practice of claiming to be "pro-life" is sheer hypocrisy. People with this mindset are pro-pregnancy. Far too many of them don't give a damn what happens after the pregnancy is over and suddenly there's a baby to take care of.

Putting to one side the moral arguments against abortion for the moment, I'm really not sure I understand why there are so many abortions.

Haven't people heard of birth control?

Of course they've heard of it. That doesn't mean it's actually accessible, or that it always works with 100% effectiveness.

When we terminate pregnancies because money, when there are safe haven laws, when there are adoptions, we aren't being real. We're lying. And if you take up that argument, you are lying. The physical and emotional costs of carrying a pregnancy are true and significant, they're more than adequate to make the point. A way out must be provided if women are not to be livestock. But stop lying about why we do things and what we gain when we do. Yes, people will be bad parents. Some of those bad parents will have their children taken from them by the state, and the foster system is underfunded. The only way abortion factors into that is if you look at the foster system and think, "Man, wouldn't it be great if these kids had been aborted before they were an issue and expense." Which, for the record, I think is pretty unstated common. It's the only rational explanation for conflating the two groups.

Oh, please. You need to realize that safe haven laws aren't universal. Not every city has laws that say if a woman wants to give up her baby she can leave it at a hospital, police station, or fire department. And you're presuming that everybody knows about these laws in the municipalities that have them.

Does anyone honestly believe that clothing closets, food banks, programs for single moms, etc are run by pro-choice people??? These are run by Christians who are conservative.

Your source for this claim? I'm sick and tired of the false claim that only Christians are engaged in charitable works, or donate to charity.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thank you for the news Valka. I am aware there are orphans in the foster system. I am aware there are inappropriately seized kids in the foster system. These children are not relevant to the discussion regarding abortion. They are relevant to discussions about how we treat children. And yes, everything is linked on some hippy-dippy-cosmic-God-whatever-Sagan-Level-you-want-to-fractal-take-it-to, but generally - Kids that will wind up in the foster system in the near(ish) future for any reason at all are not children who appear to be the particularly prone to being aborted as pre-personhood-human. Unless, of course, we care to take the time to identify groups that are particularly likely to birth children who later wind up in foster care, for whatever reason, and then decide that we need to somehow manipulate the abortion rate in that group to produce a cheaper or more efficient societal result. Mind you, I don't think you're going there. I'd have few, if any, deeper insults than that.

All 50 US states have safe haven laws. I don't know everything about them all, and I don't know how they are internationally. I know even when they're in force availability and access remain imperfect. Which is kinda why I qualified the statements.

I'm aware it's difficult to adopt Valka. It's a lot more expensive than $3,400. I am also aware that the foster system has more need than do infants. I know that sometimes people bail when the going gets tough, and that sucks. A lot. I know that babies have been sold. We updated the laws, in many places though not all, some federal, most state(not sure Canadian), which increased expense, but hopefully has eliminated most/many of the things that could be considered the buying of children. Yet there is still demand. Strong, and steady. That rose colored tint is on your end, maybe. Though given what you say, I'm not sure why you insist it's there.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thank you for the news Valka. I am aware there are orphans in the foster system. I am aware there are inappropriately seized kids in the foster system. These children are not relevant to the discussion regarding abortion. They are relevant to discussions about how we treat children. And yes, everything is linked on some hippy-dippy-cosmic-God-whatever-Sagan-Level-you-want-to-fractal-take-it-to, but generally - Kids that will wind up in the foster system in the near(ish) future for any reason at all are not children who appear to be the particularly prone to being aborted as pre-personhood-human. Unless, of course, we care to take the time to identify groups that are particularly likely to birth children who later wind up in foster care, for whatever reason, and then decide that we need to somehow manipulate the abortion rate in that group to produce a cheaper or more efficient societal result. Mind you, I don't think you're going there. I'd have few, if any, deeper insults than that.

All 50 US states have safe haven laws. I don't know everything about them all, and I don't know how they are internationally. I know even when they're in force availability and access remain imperfect. Which is kinda why I qualified the statements.

I'm aware it's difficult to adopt Valka. It's a lot more expensive than $3,400. I am also aware that the foster system has more need than do infants. I know that sometimes people bail when the going gets tough, and that sucks. A lot. I know that babies have been sold. We updated the laws, in many places though not all, some federal, most state(not sure Canadian), which increased expense, but hopefully has eliminated most/many of the things that could be considered the buying of children. Yet there is still demand. Strong, and steady. That rose colored tint is on your end, maybe. Though given what you say, I'm not sure why you insist it's there.

²

YOU are the one who introduced adoption into this conversation, so how about knocking off the rudeness, 'k?

YOU are the one who claims that there are many people clamoring to adopt, yet you're ignoring the reality that there are many kids who don't even get fostered, let alone adopted.

Or maybe life really is that rosy in the U.S. It certainly isn't in Canada.

And do try to keep in mind that I'm looking at this from a Canadian perspective, so your "all 50 states have safe haven laws" claim is irrelevant from my perspective. There was a recent news article here that reported the death of a newborn baby who was just left outside to freeze to death. And guess what - that city had nowhere that she could have safely - and anonymously - left the baby.

And yes, everything is linked on some hippy-dippy-cosmic-God-whatever-Sagan-Level-you-want-to-fractal-take-it-to

What does this word salad even mean?

Not sure why you're bringing up $3400 to me; I'm not the one who's been tossing numbers around.

You and I are done with this conversation. I'm not interested in engaging with needlessly rude people.