Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

If someone can barely afford to pay for their own survival on welfare, why the hell are they even risking getting pregnant in the first place? That's just plain stupid and the taxpayer's shouldn't have to bear the financial burden for someone else's stupidity.

Im surprised the srime rate in the Usa isnt even higher. Two years welfare and then your on your own seems a bit harsh to me.

I think that's unemployment. People still seem to manage to be on welfare for alot longer than two years.

Judging by that emoticon you think people getting welfare for more than two years is a bad thing. Im very puzzled.

you sayin poor people shouldn't have sex? why? anyone can afford a clothes hanger

sides, i'd ask WHY are so many on welfare...could it have anything to with...oh your beloved bushyboo and his kind? there's poverty because there are republicans.

If they can't work due to a diability, there is Social Security for long-term assistance. If they can work and they are on welfare, then it is not the government's problem that they won't get a job. If they are on welfare because they are having difficulty finding work, then that is no time to risk having a baby. If someone just doensn't feel like working, not only should they not be having kids, but forced sterilization is in order.

It might sound good to you on paper but would lead to civil war imo. And justifyably so. The minimum wage is a joke. I wouldnt be anybody's lacky for slave wages.

Raising minimum wage does not help anybody because all it does is drive up inflaition. Yeah, you have more money with a higher minimum wage, but goods and services also cost more, and often disproporionately to the raise, in order for a buisness to cover costs. Low income people almost always like the idea of higher minimum wages, but that's because the vast majority of them don't have the education to understand the economic ramifications of it.

Well tell me countries like the Republic of Ireland and Norway for instance have more generous welfare and a higher minimum wage but still manages to have lower unemployment than the USA and you wont see the same level of poverty there. I think the policy is about greed first and economic stability second.

American policy needs to be more inclusive or it will continue to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Over 2 million people in fact. For those that cant get a job i can understand them turning to crime to put some bread on the table.

They don't turn to crime to meet their needs, they durn to crime to support drug habits. Furthermore, crime was less of a problem when there was no welfare system.

Its not rude. Its the truth. Do you expect the truth to be witheld on the basis of "being nice"? You haven't seen me be rude yet.




Oh, come now. The "American Dream" is just that. A dream. More of a farse, really.




I've never read so much BS all at once in my life. Poverty causes stress. Stress can cause drug use. And I suppose you have the information to back up that bit about less crime without welfare?

Here's how I feel about abortion.

1. It is the killing of a HUMAN BEING with HUMAN DNA. I believe that life begins at conception. No matter how violently that life started, two wrongs do not make a right. By all means, give the child up for adoption, but do not kill a new human life because of how they started out. They didn't have a say in the matter.

2. It is something that will be with us, always, or at least for a very long time. Outlawing abortion would not stop abortion from happening; it would just make it more dangerous for desperate women. I believe that, for example, voting for someone because of their stance on abortion is kind of pointless. No president is going to phase out abortion entirely in any of our lifetimes, would be my guess. ((I'm in America, BTW; don't know about other policied but I'd guess it's similar))

3. The best way to prevent abortions would not be to make them illegal. If it was, I'd be for it. But, it wouldn’t, and it would, in a sense, be cruel to simply use that as a Band-Aid solution because it's an inadequate Band-Aid over a festering wound. If you want to have people have less abortions, the ideal thing to do would be to make the pregnancies safer, less traumatizing, less taxing, everything. For example, universal health care is, I think, an idea WELL worth looking into. ((And yes, I do have my own interests at heart there, but honestly I do think even if I were in the pink I'd be for it.)) Counseling for rape victims would be another thing which should be more available. Some kind of stipend for women unable to work during pregnancy- I'm not a social scientist, but some people out there are, and there HAS to be a way to make it work. ((I'd be all for taking the money out of space exploration, but I think that mentioning that might be the most controversial thing I'd be saying here. Take care of your sh-- at home first, is how I'd justify it.)) Awareness of these services. And, might I add, I think rape should have a MUCH longer maximum jail sentence. The current maximum jail sentence kind of offends me in its brevity. Anyway, such services as that. Here in Massachusetts they are now taking a tiny but good first step in that they are putting out commercials on TV about Baby Safe Havens, where babies who are under a certain age (I think three days old) can be left at police stations, fire stations, or hospitals (or something like that, I think that's right) with no questions asked. Theoretically, if the woman was able to conceal her condition through creative dressing, nobody would ever have to know. It would be a crappy start at life for the kid, BUT IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN DEATH.

4. This is a duh-duh thing but I will add that I think birth control should be made very, very available. Not just for pregnancy, either, there's the whole STD thing to worry about. Of course the pill doesn't help in that regard- do both. Do everything you can short of ending a life or harming yourself.

In conclusions, I am (and yes, this is possible), pro-life and pro-choice. I'd be against legalized abortions if I honestly thought it would stop all abortions. Long before it was legal, women were having them. Were it illegal again, abortion would continue.

That logic, in all honestly, puts a material value on human life. If you're going to use a peripheral argument, I will counter with one: Should people living substandard lives, I mean so substandard that it would be considered illegal to forcibly submit someone to such a life, be euthanized if they are not properly cared for? ((An immediately accessible example being homeless people.))

As for how I feel about the "quit your job and have the kid" idea- as I mentioned above, I think she should be cared for. Again, if it means higher taxes (which it would, likely) then any objection raised would be putting a material value on human life.

Tak, your argument made no sense. The way you argued your point was if (a) then (c) and if (b) then (c). Therefore, (a) must automatically be part of (b). And please, let's stay away from the personal arguments and debate the issue at hand (abortion) rather than the fact that Tokaia might have (or not) been rude to SpaceCase.

I'll further this because I want to explain this a bit clearer, even if just in my own mind.
Here is what was said:
(a) Abortion is voluntary killing of an unborn child.
(b) The voluntary killing of a person is generally referred to as murder.
(c) Therefore, with concluded logic, abortion is murder."

Here is the structure of this argument:

(a) All S is M.
(b) All M is P. ((generally refferred to is presumably meant ot be a universal affirmative, let's have the benefit of a doubt here)
(c) Therefore, all M is P.

This is a valid argument form.

Here is what was countered as being a similar argument:

fish are animals,
peole are animals,
therefore people are fish.

Here is the structure of this argument:

All S is M.
All P is M.
Therefore, all S is P.

This is not a valid argument form.

((Yay logic and philosphy classes, BTW. Good stuff.))

Such neat and tidy pigeonholing. What abot the people who can and do work and still require some sort of assistance, such as food stamps or Medicaid, in order to get by?

There is also the possibility of a person who is able to work but cannot land a job due to high unemployemnt rates, low hiring (such as in winter, a phenomenon we experience here), and fierce competition for the jobs that do exist. This particular scenario happens quite a bit here. Of course, with perseverence, good references and connections, and experience in the jobs being offered, usually the person will get a job in time. However, people do need food, shelter, and other necessities in the meantime, because applying for a job when you are homeless pretty much guarantees failure.

And I've said it before, but you people have entirely too much faith in birth control.

Also, I am beginning to wonder whether some of you have actually had to go out and struggle for your daily bread, because the harsh realities and deadlines, impending bills, unpaid rent, etc that can happen to a person seem not to be considered? Believe it or not, it is very possible to work 7 days a week and still hardly get by.

Also...Washington has a much higher minimum wage, and yet groceries cost about the same, living expenses are lower, and land is also cheaper there....so I am a little unconvinced on the minimum wage thingamabob. Women in Idaho rank 50th in the U.S. for earnings....

I disagree.

Firstly, the scenario I mention is that if the fundies and right wingers think that no child should be aborted, however deformed, because it can be given up for adoption, and that legislature should exist to protect these children from abortion, then who exactly is going to love, care for, and pay for them? Remember, this group does include children who have no chance at an adult life due to lethal birth defects that will mow them down long before puberty or even toddlerhood. Realistically, I think this question would have to be answered first. Babies and chidlren do have feelings, however deformed they are, and I think it would be cruel just to stick them in an orphanage until they wither away and die....a lot crueler than terminating the pregnancy.

Right now there are not enough adoptive homes for otherwise normal HIV+ babies who may or may not revert to HIV- test results. (I wonder what happens to the ones who do turn negative...how old they are by then and whether they are still small enough/young enough to appeal to adoptive parents?)

To liken this to euthanizing homeless people is absurd: homeless people are often capable of being self sufficient if the circumstances undergo a favorable change, they are not generally in need of immediate and very expensive surgery just to prolong their life, and they have already survived into adulthood, and will usually go on to live a normal lifespan if conditions allow.