income inequality and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you for this post, since you honestly show your position. I wish people'd do that for sex reassignment surgery, where they admit implicitly or explicitly they're going against the medical community's opinion.

I dont know what you are talking about. As far as I know pro-life means anti-abortion. People. I am pro-abortion choice for everyone. Thats what I am bothering around. Because you are the one being against pro-abortion CHOICE for everyone. Choice means having options. The moment you are forcing your whole country to support abortion, it is YOU that is not PRO-choice. I AM PRO-CHOICE. YOU are not.

YOU are trying to argument to take me my choice. While I am argument FOR pro-choice of abortion for everyone.

So get your hypocrisy where the sun dont shine.

My country is neutral since 1955. We dont engage military in foreign wars, so while you may have send drones to Afghanistan, our troops consisted of technicians assisting in reinstalling urban infrastructure. So yes, I have no issue that my taxes were spent for new built water pump and filter station, that supported citizens and villages. And the last time a political party was so crazy to mention thinking about reinstalling death sentence for organized criminals, the party was totally smashed at the elections.

There is nothing hypocrisy about that. You have around here the free choice, and unlike your US country, noone around your normal social contact group will bother you for aborting, so it is seen as an total private decision of everyone that has to be accepted. The reason why there is no that "battle" for that topic around here simply IS because it is seen and accept as personal and private decision, that everyone must do for its own. But explicite part of an desicion is having options. The moment you take people the free possibility too choose, but force only one option on all, you destroy that. Blaming around how that is someones private decision, that noone is involved with, but then wanting to involve on your own everyone in your country, that is hypocrisis for me.

It hardly can be a private decision, if you involve the complete country by get that payed with taxes. Maybe in your country you dont see yourself responsible for your politics, and refer it to "those above be responsible for it." but around here we think its we are responsible for our politics, and "the guys above" jobs is to do what we tell them, so its our responsibility what they do, because we elect them.

The same people who want only certain sections of the population to have access to abortion now, will not stop until they limit access for every section of the population, at that point the US will become a country where no-one can get an abortion and women are forced to travel if they can afford it, or injure themselves or to raise children they don't want. Who benefits from that scenario? Pro lifers say the child benefits because their particular belief system tells them all human life must be protected (unless that human deserves the death penalty apparently, or lives in an enemy's country), I believe the child does not benefit, my belief system tells me that soul will be born elsewhere instead. Isn't it better for a child to be loved and wanted and for a woman not to be forced to devote her life to raising a child in difficult circumstances?

The US is among the richest countries, it can afford to look after its less fortunate individuals, it chooses not to, I find that morally reprehensible.

Well, I know my OPINION counts for absolutely NOTHING. But I HONESTLY feel that this isn't a simple reductio ad absurdum.

Now for my gratuitous tl;dr.:

What nobody wants to bring up is that this is a moral issue. On the one hand, it's good and moral to strip a segment of the human population of its humanity in order to kill it--by certain definitions, that constitutes genocide. I'm not talking about a slippery slope here where we just decide to kill anyone for any reason at any time--but if you can justify killing a segment of the population based on certain factors, then you necessarily MUST conclude that it's good and acceptable to strip other segments of the population of their humanity and justify their killing as well. If you're going to argue in favor of abortion based on age or developmental stage, then you have to agree that, say, killing the elderly and infirm is also acceptable in order to be consistent with such a position on abortion. MOST people tend to avoid looking on others with that level of contempt, and I find it strangely ironic that well look at perhaps the most innocent and vulnerable among us, i.e. the unborn, as worthy of contempt.

On the other hand, it's good and moral to protect the rights of the unborn and prevent their murder at the expense of women's rights. The irony here is that in order to protect the rights of some, certain rights of others must be impinged upon. I don't exactly have a well-crafted argument in this direction, except simply to say that this is nothing new. My right to my pursuit of happiness might include the desire to live wherever I want. So if I pick a certain place to live specifically because I like the view with an empty lot across the street, I'm perfectly within my rights if a new property owner comes in and builds a house on that lot to burn it down at the first, and every, opportunity. Reality says I don't really have that right. Or perhaps I feel uncomfortable because I know that a particular person is alive and insists on growing the ugliest mustache I've ever seen. I should be well within my rights to kill that person for taking up my oxygen. I do NOT, however, actually have that right. A baby growing in the womb under ordinary circumstances constitutes little more than a temporary annoyance. There are alternatives to killing the baby just because it's annoying for a few months and intensely painful for a few hours. Temporary pain and annoyances will come and go. You can't recover a life lost to infanticide. So the reality is that we DO have some recourse in ordinary life when our territory is threatened. Very seldom does any recourse imply that the loss of life is guaranteed in order to protect daily trivialities.

Loss of life, however, is OFTEN considered justified when a life is already threatened. As I've said before, I don't LIKE the death penalty, nor do I get any kind of thrill knowing that people are put to death for crimes they commit--even crimes that result in the loss of a victim's life. Putting someone to death for murder will never bring the victim back to life. But by the same token, we cannot put a price on a human life the same way we can compensate a person for the loss of a limb resulting from a work accident or negligence, willful or involuntary. I believe the only true justice that even can be offered is the life of the murderer himself.

The unborn have no control over their circumstances. However, even if a regular person's actions are unintentional and unknowingly put a person's life in danger, it stands to reason that a person acting to protect himself from those actions, even involuntary actions, and possibly putting someone else (the person committing the involuntary act) in danger of death if no reasonable alternatives are available at the time the incident occurs, is justified for causing the unknowing assailant's death for the sake of his (the would-be victim) own personal protection. Based on THAT ALONE I can't justify the complete elimination of abortion procedures. However, my reasoning would place abortion among emergency medical procedures in which a mother's life would be in danger otherwise. However, it also fosters a different perspective on pregnancy termination: It takes into account that the termination COULD occur at a point at which neither the child's nor the mother's life would be in danger and presents the opportunity to save both. So, I suppose at this juncture it technically would not be called an "abortion" since the pregnancy terminates early with a live birth. But the point is that medical procedures offer alternatives to abortion (killing babies) and actual baby-killing abortions would be an extreme rarity under extreme, rare circumstances.

Living a frivolously promiscuous lifestyle and terminating a life in order to avoid consequences of irresponsible behavior, as I see it, has no similar justification. In SOME ways, we are free to do as we please. We can smoke and drink excess alcohol if we like. We are NOT allowed to do those things if by our actions under the influence we put others in danger. I fail to see the difference when it comes to abortion. There are things we probably SHOULD be able to do (from this point of view--do what you will as long as no one gets hurt) that we can't do without risking lengthy prison sentences. Consensual sex between adults and minors, for example. Suddenly the right to privacy gets tossed out the window. You can't live wherever you want because you're wearing a scarlet letter, even after prison. And that doesn't even necessarily result in someone getting killed! Or even mentally/emotionally damaged. And we know of at least one case (Mary Kay) in which the relationship resumed after prison time was served and the child at the time reached adulthood/age of majority. THESE are the kinds of things we get our panties all up in a wad over with severe consequences for wrongdoers, and women who get abortions simply because having a baby cramps their lifestyle don't get so much as probation for manslaughter.

In closing, I can understand that there might be justifiable situations in which abortion could be necessary. While I find that troubling, it's not nearly as disturbing as the contempt shown for the most innocent and vulnerable among us. On those grounds, if such contempt for other human beings for whatever reason is acceptable so as to justify homicide, then it would be worthwhile to give Hitler a posthumous trial to see whether Germany really got a fair shake in response to their treatment of Jews, or perhaps we could review the former CSA on their position of slavery to see if southerners deserve reparations and the option to exist autonomously. If someone takes issue with that, then having a contemptuous attitude towards the unborn is as inconsistent as it is despicable.

Yes, it's so "contemptuous" to want every baby born to parents who are ready, willing, and prepared practically, financially, and emotionally to be parents. You really don't get it, do you?

Define what it means to be "ready" to be parents. I've never met any ideal criteria for being a parent, especially criteria based on practicality, finances, and emotions. I was scared to death to become a father, but I now have 3 wonderful children that I can't imagine life without. So it seems "readiness" by any definition isn't required for baseline parental adequacy.

And no, it's not contemptuous. Unnecessary, but not contemptuous. What's contemptuous is the attitude of some towards the unborn as being non-human, sub-human, or what-have-you in order to feel justified in getting rid of them. It would at least be more consistent to say that it is just as acceptable to toss unwanted kids in a river, off a cliff, or leave them in the snow/dessert/forest.

AT LEAST people facing the prospect of that might have a chance of running into someone begging to take an unwanted baby off their hands.

Abortions of convenience are justifiable much in the same way as setting off a bomb in a school cafeteria to get rid of bullies who've tormented you since 1st grade...and don't think the thought never crossed my mind at one point in my life. Remind me...what usually happened to kids who actually went through those kinds of plots? Hint: We as a society tend not to feel very sorry for them.

While we're getting rid of all the babies, let's see what all justifiable offenses we can come up with and follow through with against all we consider human garbage. Who can we get rid of? Let's see...school bullies, obviously. Round 'em all up in the gym and set it ablaze with the doors locked. How about that clarinet player who beat you out of first chair because she's got a little thing going on with the band director? Acid to the face. Evil-crazy-stalker-b!+ch-ex-girlfriend who won't leave you alone? Lure her to a drinking party, get her drunk/drugged, sweet talk her into participating in an old-fashioned gang-bang, and post the whole shebang to YouTube. It's OK, right? Because these prime examples of human scum either won't leave us alone, are seriously cramping our style, or otherwise just have it coming.

Before I get mod-spanked, let me say the point is that we generally find the above prospects disgusting and disturbing. Maybe you're different. I dunno. But no matter how evil or disgusting or inconvenient people are...no matter how emotionally disturbing they are to us or otherwise reprehensible just for their mere presence...we do NOT get the luxury of taking out our frustrations on people we cannot prove some kind of deliberate failing or offense. We DEAL with the aftermath, get over it, and move on.

I KNOW that not all abortions boil down to that kind of thing. I don't judge, despite how I might feel about it personally, when someone wants to preserve her own life and can ONLY do that by killing a baby, or when a young girl or woman has to make a difficult choice after rape. I'm friends with women who've had abortions, likely for awful, unjustifiable reasons. I hate what they did, but that doesn't excuse me from being kind to them any time I interact with them...same as I would with anyone regardless of what they did/didn't do, and I don't bring up uncomfortable topics. I can ALMOST be sympathetic, or maybe at least be more sympathetic, if someone does something under extreme emotional duress, but I can't feel sorry at all for people who have no more regard for the unborn than rotted meat to be thrown in the trash. It is contempt for the unborn, nothing more, and it makes us no better than school bullies or misogynist date-rapists.

Only indirectly. A large mass of people determine between them who the least worst person to represent their views in part of a smaller large mass of people is. That person then decides what the best view for him (or her) to hold is. The sum of those "best views" determines what taxes are spent on. Obviously that's generally and the three tier system in the US is more complicated. The point remains that the typical person has very little control over what taxes are spent on.


No, you just have to be stupid.

That's another one of the great things about representative democracy- it distances stupid people from decision making. Obviously there are some exceptions, like Rich Santorum, Jeremy Hunt or George W. Bush, but generally stupid people are under-represented in positions of power. This means that politicians are more likely to understand the meanings of words such as "murdering" and "babies".

Define what it means to be "ready" to be parents. I've never met any ideal criteria for being a parent, especially criteria based on practicality, finances, and emotions. I was scared to death to become a father, but I now have 3 wonderful children that I can't imagine life without. So it seems "readiness" by any definition isn't required for baseline parental adequacy.

And no, it's not contemptuous. Unnecessary, but not contemptuous. What's contemptuous is the attitude of some towards the unborn as being non-human, sub-human, or what-have-you in order to feel justified in getting rid of them. It would at least be more consistent to say that it is just as acceptable to toss unwanted kids in a river, off a cliff, or leave them in the snow/dessert/forest.

AT LEAST people facing the prospect of that might have a chance of running into someone begging to take an unwanted baby off their hands.

Abortions of convenience are justifiable much in the same way as setting off a bomb in a school cafeteria to get rid of bullies who've tormented you since 1st grade...and don't think the thought never crossed my mind at one point in my life. Remind me...what usually happened to kids who actually went through those kinds of plots? Hint: We as a society tend not to feel very sorry for them.

While we're getting rid of all the babies, let's see what all justifiable offenses we can come up with and follow through with against all we consider human garbage. Who can we get rid of? Let's see...school bullies, obviously. Round 'em all up in the gym and set it ablaze with the doors locked. How about that clarinet player who beat you out of first chair because she's got a little thing going on with the band director? Acid to the face. Evil-crazy-stalker-b!+ch-ex-girlfriend who won't leave you alone? Lure her to a drinking party, get her drunk/drugged, sweet talk her into participating in an old-fashioned gang-bang, and post the whole shebang to YouTube. It's OK, right? Because these prime examples of human scum either won't leave us alone, are seriously cramping our style, or otherwise just have it coming.

Before I get mod-spanked, let me say the point is that we generally find the above prospects disgusting and disturbing. Maybe you're different. I dunno. But no matter how evil or disgusting or inconvenient people are...no matter how emotionally disturbing they are to us or otherwise reprehensible just for their mere presence...we do NOT get the luxury of taking out our frustrations on people we cannot prove some kind of deliberate failing or offense. We DEAL with the aftermath, get over it, and move on.

I KNOW that not all abortions boil down to that kind of thing. I don't judge, despite how I might feel about it personally, when someone wants to preserve her own life and can ONLY do that by killing a baby, or when a young girl or woman has to make a difficult choice after rape. I'm friends with women who've had abortions, likely for awful, unjustifiable reasons. I hate what they did, but that doesn't excuse me from being kind to them any time I interact with them...same as I would with anyone regardless of what they did/didn't do, and I don't bring up uncomfortable topics. I can ALMOST be sympathetic, or maybe at least be more sympathetic, if someone does something under extreme emotional duress, but I can't feel sorry at all for people who have no more regard for the unborn than rotted meat to be thrown in the trash. It is contempt for the unborn, nothing more, and it makes us no better than school bullies or misogynist date-rapists.

Truly spoken like a man.

Are you willing to adopt any babies from the forced pregnancies you are proposing, or is raising a child also a minor inconvenience for the mother?

Restrictions on abortion do not reduce the number of abortions, they simply increase the number of women who die getting illegal abortions. If anyone is serious about reducing the number of abortions, then they should be willing to help pay for free birth control for everyone and promote education for girls. In every country that has implemented those things, the number of abortions has plummeted.

QFT

I just love it when men say this.

And it IS always, always men.

Just a question for the Anti-choice brigade.

Do you think a woman is incapable of deciding what the best thing to do is, in her unique set of circumstances?

As a general rule I don't believe that human beings should be empowered to kill one another. Choice, as a concept applied to life, makes no sense to me. If the child is alive, then no reason could possibly be good enough, if it is not, then no reason is necessary.


-------

Please note, before positing some annoying straw man attack on my position, I am nominally pro-life and am not against abortion to save the life of the mother or in circumstances of rape or incest. Nor am I some bushwhacked libertarian who does not believe in the welfare state, who thinks that unmarried mothers should be left to starve. So before you stereotype me, please make an effort to understand my position, where I am coming from and that I could be right. And in answer to the previous question about whether I would adopt a child to keep it from being aborted, my fiancé and I have made that offer previously to people in our social circle. There is also a substantial wait list for people to adopt children and for some reason ideology did not stop the left from changing the regulations and destroying access to adoption services across large parts of the United States.

Once you say "you can have an abortion if you were raped" then women won't be believed, the discussion will shift to women lying to get abortions.

I live in a country which does not allow abortions for rape, mental illness, incest or any other reason, it doesn't stop women having abortions, it just makes it dangerous, expensive and illegal so they do it without support. Even when the mother is in danger or the baby cannot live then it must go to court, at the mother's own expense, with no guarantees of success. If there is no time then the mother can die.

It would be a huge backwards step for the US to start down that road.

So how do you define human life? A foetus cannot live without the mother, are they separate lives? I felt that my babies were still part of me long after they were born, we were still partly the same person for a while, they still depended on me totally.

I really believe the mother knows best. The foetus has not yet become a person in its own right, it cannot be part of the decision making process, but that doesn't mean the government should step in, pretending to know better than the mother.

I think it's barbaric to force a woman to carry a baby to term, even if the baby will definitely never live past birth, but others argue that we cannot take that life even if it only lives for nine months in the womb, or nine months in the womb plus six weeks after birth in intensive care, it still must be given what life is possible. Do you permit abortions for severely disabled babies? Many countries test women for this in the foetus so they can be offered an abortion. Then who is to say what life is to be saved? What if the mother dies too as a complication? Where do you draw the line when you make decisions for individuals on the basis of your beliefs rather than the circumstances of the individual case? They know the circumstances, let the mother make the hardest decision of her life with help and support.

Whatever factors are involved in the decision being made, and whoever feels they have the right to make the decision, one thing should not be the deciding factor, that is the cost of the abortion. We talk about life and death and life changing decisions and the powers that be want to quibble about a few hundred dollars?

On the topic in general, I do find the correlation between the two to be interesting. Putting aside my thoughts on this topic (I am moderately pro life), I finding it interesting the correlation between abortion, African Americans, and poverty. There have been various connections (Margret Sanger and the KKK, and the correlation between where they place the clinics, as well as some of the mirroring rhetoric between the nazis and Planned Parenthood) that I believe makes the case not only for a correlation between those two, but race as well.

91, it may be that you are Australian vs. American, but over here it's not a great assumption to think that a pro-life position coincides with anti-government, anti-welfare, anti-public schooling, and pro-death-penalty views. You are rarely non-hypocritical in your stance, as compared to the majority of the pro-life people that Americans have to argue against.