Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your wrong!!!
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Or even before leaving the womb, since there's been a move recently by pro-life* politicians to de-fund the largest provider of pre-natal care to low income women in the U.S.
Originally posted by Josephine:
This bit of polemic argues that people who want to ban abortions, but also want to cut programs that provide food and medical care to children and pregnant women, are not really pro-life at all. That if you really cared about the children in the womb, you'd want to make sure they were provided for once they left the womb.
quote:While there are plenty of individuals who identify themselves as pro-life who genuinely care about children post-birth, I've found that a good way of anticipating the positions any supposedly pro-life* organization or politician will hold can be determined by answering the question "what, in this situation, will make life harder for women". This explains why no major pro-life* organization in the U.S. endorses the use of contraceptives, and also why tactics like deception, intimidation, and occasional violence are popular with the movement.
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you are pro-life, but also support cutting the programs described in the article, could you explain why how the two positions fit together in your mind?
quote:Except that's not a position accepted by any major U.S. anti-abortion organization. They are uniformly against criminal sanctions against women who obtain abortions. This seems contradictory if they believe abortion to be murder, unless they also believe that women don't have the capacity to be moral agents.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Abortion - in the most extreme configuration of the case against - is the idea that the mother is free to murder another human being because their existence is an inconvenience to her.
quote:That may be. However, unless I'm greatly mistaken, it's only in the past couple of hundred years or so that child mortality in what is now the developed world has fallen to such a small fraction of what it was before, and to such a small fraction of what it still is in the developing world.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now it is the most fundamental definition of a state that it provides for the defence of its members against murder. So it is the duty of the state to prevent the murder of the unborn child. But the idea that the state has a duty to provide for the physical well-being of its subjects? Very new - a distinction which as an Orthodox you should find significant!
quote:So why the fundamentalist opposition to birth control? One of the best ways to prevent abortion and to ensure that those who don't have the means to support their children is for access to affordable birth control. Many fundamentalists are now wanting to limit access to birth control while denying any responsibility to care for the children who are born because of it. Also, there needs to be proper education about birth control methods. I'm amazed at the lack of knowledge that leads to pregnancies.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now it is the most fundamental definition of a state that it provides for the defence of its members against murder. So it is the duty of the state to prevent the murder of the unborn child. But the idea that the state has a duty to provide for the physical well-being of its subjects? Very new - a distinction which as an Orthodox you should find significant!
Bottom line: if you have sex with a member of the opposite sex, you impose the risk upon yourself that you will have to provide for that baby at least until birth - and if you are a man, potentially a lot longer. (OK - so that muddies the water in rape / incest / under age sex cases, but it clarifies it otherwise).
quote:Not that new. Ancient Athens and ancient Rome both provided a sort of dole to the unemployed and poor citizens.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But the idea that the state has a duty to provide for the physical well-being of its subjects?
quote:To be clear: I am offering a coherent moral philosophy that leads to the policies of at least some pro-lifers. Which is what the OP asked for. It is self-consistent. It may or may not be right. The arguments about birth control do not follow from the position I have outlined, which doesn't say anything on the topic. To muddy the waters with the reference is unhelpful, constituting an ad hominem argument - some of the supporters of X also argue for Y so X must be wrong; some of the supporters of Obama no doubt believe in the imposition of a socialist state, but that's not Obama's fault.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
So why the fundamentalist opposition to birth control? One of the best ways to prevent abortion and to ensure that those who don't have the means to support their children is for access to affordable birth control. Many fundamentalists are now wanting to limit access to birth control while denying any responsibility to care for the children who are born because of it. Also, there needs to be proper education about birth control methods. I'm amazed at the lack of knowledge that leads to pregnancies.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Simple: they are confused and think that when the U.S. has a higher infant mortality than Cuba's, it's something to be proud of.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:This, on the other hand, is more or less the right answer.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
AIUI in the US there is a subset of the religious right which wants to enforce a particular set of morals around sex: only within heterosexual marriage, in a situation where you have the means to care for any kids who show up. A great many policies in other areas seem to be based around the importance of not encouraging people to do otherwise. So if you make pregnancy and parenthood easier for the "wrong" people, you are encouraging them in their slutty ways. Likewise, if you offer easy access to abortion, contraception, or anything aimed at prevention of STIs, you're encouraging them to get it on. The ideas that a) abortion should be banned and b) pregnancy and parenthood for poorer women should be difficult do not conflict in this worldview - they're aiming at the same thing.
I'm not saying that all pro-lifers would take this view. There are many more who want to give kids a good start in life, and want to support their mothers. It seems, though, that for the people who do want to combine these two elements of outlawed abortion and minimal support, discouraging or even punishing sex outside of marriage is the main motive.
quote:Actually, I think this is really simple to answer. Not that I support or really know anything about the proposed cuts you're talking about, I should say...
Originally posted by Josephine:
This bit of polemic argues that people who want to ban abortions, but also want to cut programs that provide food and medical care to children and pregnant women, are not really pro-life at all. That if you really cared about the children in the womb, you'd want to make sure they were provided for once they left the womb.
If you are pro-life, but also support cutting the programs described in the article, could you explain why how the two positions fit together in your mind?
quote:Given that distinction, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe such a position as "anti-abortion" rather that "pro-life"?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's partly a matter of ordering moral imperatives according to seriousness, and partly a differnce between imperatives of grave moral import and matters over which there can be different prudential judgements. Whose job it is (and precisely how) to support mothers and their children once born clearly falls into the latter category, whereas pro-lifers will see abortion as the former.
quote:YOU are the one who brought up that the point that anyone who has sex must accept the fact of pregnancy and financial responsibility for the baby. Not to mention, the opposition to birth control does factor in as it forces those who cannot afford children to have them. Some of these are married couples. If denial of birth control is on the table - as it is with lack of coverage for birth control and now funding cut to one of the agencies that provide birth control - not abortion. If the parents are forced to give birth to these children - who is going to pay for them? Adoption is an answer for some, but not all.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:To be clear: I am offering a coherent moral philosophy that leads to the policies of at least some pro-lifers. Which is what the OP asked for. It is self-consistent. It may or may not be right. The arguments about birth control do not follow from the position I have outlined, which doesn't say anything on the topic. To muddy the waters with the reference is unhelpful, constituting an ad hominem argument - some of the supporters of X also argue for Y so X must be wrong; some of the supporters of Obama no doubt believe in the imposition of a socialist state, but that's not Obama's fault.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
So why the fundamentalist opposition to birth control? One of the best ways to prevent abortion and to ensure that those who don't have the means to support their children is for access to affordable birth control. Many fundamentalists are now wanting to limit access to birth control while denying any responsibility to care for the children who are born because of it. Also, there needs to be proper education about birth control methods. I'm amazed at the lack of knowledge that leads to pregnancies.
quote:Let's try and clarify an argument that inevitably gets mixed up in complexity. Is it the role of the state to punish wrongdoers - or is it the role of the state to protect its citizens from harm. If it is strictly defined as the former, then the illegality of abortion - assuming that unborn children are human - follows automatically. It's only if you adopt a wider view of the role of the state do you end up getting stuck into a wider debate.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
YOU are the one who brought up that the point that anyone who has sex must accept the fact of pregnancy and financial responsibility for the baby. Not to mention, the opposition to birth control does factor in as it forces those who cannot afford children to have them. Some of these are married couples. If denial of birth control is on the table - as it is with lack of coverage for birth control and now funding cut to one of the agencies that provide birth control - not abortion. If the parents are forced to give birth to these children - who is going to pay for them? Adoption is an answer for some, but not all.
The "it's your personal responsibility not society's" does not feed a hungry child or provide needed health care. I would argue that in cases where the parent cannot or will not, it is our moral obligation to provide for those needs.
quote:I can and do. There are lots of sets of beliefs that are coherent, in the sense that they are perfectly understandable, and yet self-contradictory.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But you can't deny that it is coherent.
quote:Leave a bin containing free condoms with explanatory leaflets in every public place frequented by people of childbearing age. Including schools and universities.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've yet to see anybody promoting a government policy that will even make the problem better...
quote:Let's say a single woman is supporting two children by working three part-time jobs. She is married, but her husband moved out (and moved out of state) when she got pregnant. He's not providing financial support. She can't afford a laywer to get support from him. She doesn't have any health insurance, of course. Her employers are careful not to allow her to work enough hours that she'd qualify for their benefits. She doesn't get paid sicktime, either.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But, the choice isn't between abortion or the child being raised in dismal poverty. Adoption is always an option.
quote:Not true. As MT pointed out, there's a fairly clear set of policies a country can adopt to lower its abortion rate. Countries with widespread, cheap, and effective contraceptive availability, good sex education, and a generous social safety net (e.g. most of Western Europe) have some of the lowest abortion rates in the world despite allowing relatively free access to the procedure. Nations that restrict contraceptive availability, have minimal sex ed, little or no social safety net, and criminalize abortion nonetheless have some of the highest abortion rates in the world (e.g. certain nations in Latin America and the Middle East). In other words, the policy positions advocated by most pro-life* organizations are exactly the same policies that have failed wherever they're applied.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm quite torn on this issue. The whole situation is a sign of the moral bankruptcy of Western society. I've yet to see anybody promoting a government policy that will even make the problem better much less solve it.
quote:Except we're not talking about government provision of contraception, just the pro-life* movement's general opposition to it even being available.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As far as birth control is concerned: if I choose to benefit from the use of the road by driving a car, I am expected to provide for the consequences of having an accident by having insurance. That sex should be such a 'right' that the state should provide birth control is an interesting step of logic: to assume that people are so unable to resist their urges on this one particular topic is... problematic.
quote:I agree. But we should inquire into the basis for the different prudential judgements. Offering public pre-natal and post-natal medical care is routine in many countries, and I don't see it bankrupting any. Opposition on ideological principle or whatever might be understandable were it a radically new idea, but it has proven to be a good public investment given only an assumption that children shouldn't die. There is such a thing as criminal negligence, when someone cares too little to take even a minimal step to prevent a tragedy. This can get one into almost as much trouble as actually precipitating it. Rightly so, don't you think?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's partly a matter of ordering moral imperatives according to seriousness, and partly a differnce between imperatives of grave moral import and matters over which there can be different prudential judgements. Whose job it is (and precisely how) to support mothers and their children once born clearly falls into the latter category, whereas pro-lifers will see abortion as the former.
quote:I don't see the abortion rate by itself as the single sign of moral bankruptcy. Abortion could be made illegal and Western society would still be morally bankrupt. A nation could have a generous safety net and still be morally bankrupt. Selfishness and a lack of personal responsibility are signs of moral bankruptcy. All we are doing is debating about whose selfishness and irresponsibility should be allowed by the government. Until we get beyond that, we aren't all in this together.
originally posted by Croesus:
Not true. As MT pointed out, there's a fairly clear set of policies a country can adopt to lower its abortion rate. Countries with widespread, cheap, and effective contraceptive availability, good sex education, and a generous social safety net (e.g. most of Western Europe) have some of the lowest abortion rates in the world despite allowing relatively free access to the procedure. Nations that restrict contraceptive availability, have minimal sex ed, little or no social safety net, and criminalize abortion nonetheless have some of the highest abortion rates in the world (e.g. certain nations in Latin America and the Middle East). In other words, the policy positions advocated by most pro-life* organizations are exactly the same policies that have failed wherever they're applied.
quote:This. Not to mention there is a great emphasis in the Bible on providing for the needs of the poor. A good portion of the OT had to do with providing for the poor. Farmers were to leave a percentage of their crop for the poor and others were required to pay a percentage of their income on top of the temple tax to provide for the poor. Children cannot and should not be required to work, so society must provide for their needs when their parents cannot or will not.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I can and do. There are lots of sets of beliefs that are coherent, in the sense that they are perfectly understandable, and yet self-contradictory.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But you can't deny that it is coherent.
I think of our Lord's admonishment of the Pharisees: you tie huge burdens on people's backs but do nothing to help them carry them.
The car analogy, by the say, is inane. It would work better if you made it thus: the fact of the existence of insurance, and how it works, isn't something one is born knowing, and the pro-life side has legislated that it not be taught, rather it insists on a "walk only" education.
quote:I do think so. And I also agree that offering free pre- and post-natal care is a marvellous idea - wouldn't be without it.
Originally posted by Alogon:
There is such a thing as criminal negligence, when someone cares too little to take even a minimal step to prevent a tragedy. This can get one into almost as much trouble as actually precipitating it. Rightly so, don't you think?
quote:It's often easier to go by people's actions than by their stated principles. For example, a lot of abortion opponents will claim that they are, in principle, not opposed to "relief for poor and hungry women and children", but in practice have never come across such a program without wishing to cut or eliminate it. I guess it comes down to whether you give more weight to people's words or their actions.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I'm curious to know who the pro-lifers are that oppose, in principal, any form of relief for poor and hungry women and children.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Except we're not talking about government provision of contraception, just the pro-life* movement's general opposition to it even being available.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As far as birth control is concerned: if I choose to benefit from the use of the road by driving a car, I am expected to provide for the consequences of having an accident by having insurance. That sex should be such a 'right' that the state should provide birth control is an interesting step of logic: to assume that people are so unable to resist their urges on this one particular topic is... problematic.
quote:My friend, to whom I referred in my post above, is in fact in Texas, although rather misplaced in the largely progressive city of Austin. She's typical, however, of the usual mean-spirited Texas conservatives in many ways. Her attitudes are simply contradictory.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I'm curious to know who the pro-lifers are that oppose, in principal, any form of relief for poor and hungry women and children. I suppose there are some pro-life libertarians are against government spending money on any welfare programs. The Texas Republican Party platform, which is one of the most conservative state parties in the country, seems to have endorsed limiting welfare payments - - which I think means TANF - - to two years in exchange for training, etc. Federal TANF payments are currently limited to five years. Before 1995-96, there was an unlimited period of time. The presenting issue, therefore, seems to be how long one should be eligible for welfare: whether two years is too unreasonably short, or a longer period of time (however long that is) - - or even an unlimited period of time, encourages government dependency, even perpetual intergenerational dependency.
quote:Then I'm Donne for - but I'm more shaped by (if not yet like) Chesterton.
Originally posted by Leaf:
Chesterbelloc: I once read in a commentary of John Donne that "his mind naturally expressed itself in puns". If true, I do not think it to his credit.
quote:Equally seriously, I think it's incumbent on those of us who feel that abortion is an unjustified killing of the innocent not to pussy-foot around the horrible practicalitities of it simply because it makes people feel icky. Why? Because we think its "ickyness" has everything in the world to do with its wrongness. And abortion frequently involves much more "icky" things than a clean painless death. And the providers of abortion and those who support them do so much to sanitise and shield people from the realities of it already.
Originally posted by Leaf:
More seriously, with your attempted pun, do you not note the emotive language you bring to this? I understood the OP as being about ideas, a possible cognitive and philosophical dissonance. Within a few posts, you and Ender's Shadow (characterizing a perception of "murder") have succeeded in bringing in highly charged emotional language. I respect that you feel strongly about this, but this is why we have Dead Horses.
quote:Please don't pretend that the anti-abortion movement is motivated by love of liberty, or that attempts to equate contraception with abortion wouldn't, by the same logic as outlawing abortion, put it under the purview of the "crime-punishing state".
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except we're not talking about government provision of contraception, just the pro-life* movement's general opposition to it even being available.
It's logically consistent to argue for a crime punishing state only. Please don't pretend that the fact that some fundamentalists want to prevent the availability of condoms means that it's not.
quote:There is a logically coherent position that holds:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Please don't pretend that the anti-abortion movement is motivated by love of liberty, or that attempts to equate contraception with abortion wouldn't, by the same logic as outlawing abortion, put it under the purview of the "crime-punishing state".
quote:One huge problem with this is that a single mother with a 2-year-old infant can't go to work without childcare. If she's working a minimum-wage job, depending on where she lives, the cost of the childcare may even be more than she's making. Train her all you want, she can't take a job, unless she can bring her kid to work with her, which given the sort of jobs that she's likely to be able to get, isn't likely.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
I'm curious to know who the pro-lifers are that oppose, in principal, any form of relief for poor and hungry women and children. I suppose there are some pro-life libertarians are against government spending money on any welfare programs. The Texas Republican Party platform, which is one of the most conservative state parties in the country, seems to have endorsed limiting welfare payments - - which I think means TANF - - to two years in exchange for training, etc. Federal TANF payments are currently limited to five years. Before 1995-96, there was an unlimited period of time. The presenting issue, therefore, seems to be how long one should be eligible for welfare: whether two years is too unreasonably short, or a longer period of time (however long that is) - - or even an unlimited period of time, encourages government dependency, even perpetual intergenerational dependency.
quote:No shit? Do you think that women who choose abortions don't realize it's a serious moral issue? A lark in the park? Do you KNOW any women who have chosen abortions, and how they feel about it afterwards? The support groups for mourning women who have had abortions? Do you give a fuck about them? Abortion is usually chosen not because it's seen as a positive good, but as the least worst alternative. Perhaps this blinkeredness is due to the pro-life habit of labelling their opposites "pro-abortion." They are not pro-abortion. They are pro-choice. Very few people think abortion is a good thing in and of itself and to be promoted independent of the circumstances that sometimes cause it to seem the least worst thing to do.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
please also consider that I and many others believe that a large amount of that distress may be caused by the wrongness of abortion itself. And that this distress is a moral clue.
quote:I believe it. Perhaps it's because they feel bad about having made their decision and don't need you to rub their nose in it self-righteously?
I can't understand why anyone who doesn't already believe or suspect that abotion is deeply morally wrong would feel emotionally harrowed by my rhetoric.
quote:Yes. In fact, I give enough of a fuck to get angry that so many of them are told by the very professionals they consult that it is not a serious moral issue (except in so far as it may impact on the practicalities of their own lives). And that when they buy that line they often tear themselves up with guilt afterwards because they come to believe it was a serious moral wrong to their own child after the procedure. Not because anyone else comes up and tells them so in judgement, but because they feel "bad about having made their decision" themselves. That's a horrible fact. And it may just account for their mourning and need for counselling: that "they feel bad about having made their decision and don't need [me] to rub their nose in it self-righteously".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you think that women who choose abortions don't realize it's a serious moral issue? A lark in the park? Do you KNOW any women who have chosen abortions, and how they feel about it afterwards? The support groups for mourning women who have had abortions? Do you give a fuck about them?
quote:And precisely has said this? It certainly isn't me or anyone else on this thread.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You MUST have this child, we will FORCE you to, but won't lift a finger to help you raise it or keep it healthy.
quote:Adoption?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then it's to be a cold-hearted bastard. You MUST have this child, we will FORCE you to, but won't lift a finger to help you raise it or keep it healthy.
Or in other words, "pro-life" expires at birth.
quote:This is what the pro-life people who are against support of hinfants as described on this thread. Such people are who this thread is all about. Have you read the thread?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:And precisely has said this? It certainly isn't me or anyone else on this thread.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You MUST have this child, we will FORCE you to, but won't lift a finger to help you raise it or keep it healthy.
quote:Ah, we'll force you to carry this baby for 9 months, and then you can give it away. That's so much more kind.
Beeswax Altar said:
quote:Adoption?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then it's to be a cold-hearted bastard. You MUST have this child, we will FORCE you to, but won't lift a finger to help you raise it or keep it healthy.
Or in other words, "pro-life" expires at birth.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Adoption is not going to solve the difficulties faced by a single mother with other children who will lose her job, and thus her income, and thus her home, if she bears the child.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Adoption?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then it's to be a cold-hearted bastard. You MUST have this child, we will FORCE you to, but won't lift a finger to help you raise it or keep it healthy.
Or in other words, "pro-life" expires at birth.
quote:This would explain another thing that has always struck me as a jarring inconsistency: why people in the pro-life movement do not protest at fertility clinics, even though in vitro fertilization involves killing lots of fertilized eggs. The clients at those clinics are generally prosperous and married. They're the right kind of people having the right kind of sex.
It seems, though, that for the people who do want to combine these two elements of outlawed abortion and minimal support, discouraging or even punishing sex outside of marriage is the main motive.
quote:Adoption is not going to solve the difficulties faced by a single mother with other children who will lose her job, and thus her income, and thus her home, if she bears the child.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Adoption?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then it's to be a cold-hearted bastard. You MUST have this child, we will FORCE you to, but won't lift a finger to help you raise it or keep it healthy.
Or in other words, "pro-life" expires at birth.
quote:This would explain another thing that has always struck me as a jarring inconsistency: why people in the pro-life movement do not protest at fertility clinics, even though in vitro fertilization involves killing lots of fertilized eggs. The clients at those clinics are generally prosperous and married. They're the right kind of people having the right kind of sex.
It seems, though, that for the people who do want to combine these two elements of outlawed abortion and minimal support, discouraging or even punishing sex outside of marriage is the main motive.
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, we'll force you to carry this baby for 9 months, and then you can give it away. That's so much more kind.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:I really don't give a flying fuck what 99% of the pro-lifers think about me.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh come on, Mousethief, do you expect any prolifer to believe you really care about the children after a response like that?
quote:Despite it being parroted all over by abortion opponents, there does not seem to be any connection between having an abortion and developing depression. There is, of course, a fairly well-known correlation between having a baby and depression, so perhaps it's not having an abortion that that leads them to "come to believe it was a serious moral wrong to their own child".
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In fact, I give enough of a fuck to get angry that so many of them are told by the very professionals they consult that it is not a serious moral issue (except in so far as it may impact on the practicalities of their own lives). And that when they buy that line they often tear themselves up with guilt afterwards because they come to believe it was a serious moral wrong to their own child after the procedure. Not because anyone else comes up and tells them so in judgement, but because they feel "bad about having made their decision" themselves. That's a horrible fact. And it may just account for their mourning and need for counselling: that "they feel bad about having made their decision and don't need [me] to rub their nose in it self-righteously".
quote:Ask yourself; you brought it up.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So why should they care what you think about them?
quote:Proof?
Most unwanted pregnancies happen because people were behaving irresponsibility.
quote:Yes, as do we all. They would seem to be less able to fulfill their responsibility than others, who might have to take up the slack, or, God forbid, help them to find ways to make better choices.
At the same time, plenty of people are in trouble because they make bad choice after bad choice after bad choice. Don't they have a responsibility to the rest of society?
quote:I am, and always have been, an ardent proponent of harm reduction. I suppose my view of humanity is darker than some others -- I think people are going to be irresponsible. They're going to have sex, whether they're in a position to take care of a baby or not. They always have. They always will.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Please note, I said Liopleurodon's analysis of the prolife side was more or less correct. At the same time, it appears to me like the other side cares more about preserving the right to act irresponsibly at all cost. It doesn't seem like either side cares much about the "children."
quote:Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
quote:By subsidizing bad choices?
originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, as do we all. They would seem to be less able to fulfill their responsibility than others, who might have to take up the slack, or, God forbid, help them to find ways to make better choices.
quote:Yep, expires at birth. I guess the pro-life* position can be summarized as life beginning at conception and changing into a "bad choice" at birth, depending on whether the speaker approves of the parents or not.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:By subsidizing bad choices? [/QB]
originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, as do we all. They would seem to be less able to fulfill their responsibility than others, who might have to take up the slack, or, God forbid, help them to find ways to make better choices.
quote:And that responsibility would include requiring women to bear children they don't want, through an experience they don't want to go through? If that were the case, I would politely return society's admission ticket and say, "Sorry, I don't wish to be part of you."
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... plenty of people are in trouble because they make bad choice after bad choice after bad choice. Don't they have a responsibility to the rest of society?
quote:Ah. As I thought. No Proof. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
quote:The children didn't make any choices, good or bad. So providing for them doesn't subsidize their bad choices, it protects them from the results of someone else's bad choices.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:By subsidizing bad choices?
originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, as do we all. They would seem to be less able to fulfill their responsibility than others, who might have to take up the slack, or, God forbid, help them to find ways to make better choices.
quote:From the gurney point of view, I've had an ERPOC (Evacuation of the Retained Products of Conception) following an incomplete miscarriage at 12 weeks. It's physically the same procedure as some forms of abortion, though, obviously, for a different purpose i.e. to remove a foetus which has died naturally to stop ongoing blood loss or before septicaemia sets in. It's totally different to carrying a baby to term and giving birth. As Leaf says, it's "one more experience in the stirrups." I mourned my miscarried baby, but the physical experience of the ERPOC (up to point of going under anaesthetic) was just more of the sort of uncomfortable and undignified procedure which is the lot of women.
Adoption is certainly an option. But ISTM that the difference in experience between an abortion, and confinement followed by adoption, would be orders of magnitude. An abortion would be one more experience in the stirrups, so to speak: not at all unfamiliar to women through their medical lives. Going through all the changes of advanced pregnancy, giving birth, and then entering unfamiliar legal territory of adoption, quite dramatically different. "Well why not adoption?" seems to gloss over the tremendous differences between these two experiences. Perhaps it should be considered from the gurney point of view.
quote:If punishing wrongdoers also extends - as I believe it should - to endeavouring to protect from wrongdoing, and 'wrongdoing' can include social and economic oppression - as I believe it can - then immediately the scope of the state's involvement under your former definition, is greatly widened towards your second.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's try and clarify an argument that inevitably gets mixed up in complexity. Is it the role of the state to punish wrongdoers - or is it the role of the state to protect its citizens from harm. If it is strictly defined as the former, then the illegality of abortion - assuming that unborn children are human - follows automatically. It's only if you adopt a wider view of the role of the state do you end up getting stuck into a wider debate.
quote:OK, here's the Liopleurodon Plan. Note that this is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. It doesn't have any other agenda.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've yet to see anybody promoting a government policy that will even make the problem better much less solve it.
quote:We don't know where babies come from? We don't know how to prevent pregnancies? Its the common sense position. If you have other evidence, I'd like to see it. But...you don't.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ah. As I thought. No Proof. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
quote:All I said is it really isn't about the children. Responses like your and mousethief suggests it isn't about the children for your side any more than it is about the children for the other. Somebody doesn't want to be forced with a difficult decision about an unwanted pregnancy don't get pregnant. This takes care of most unwanted pregnancies. Then, society can care for victims of rape and pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother.
originally posted by Leaf:
And that responsibility would include requiring women to bear children they don't want, through an experience they don't want to go through? If that were the case, I would politely return society's admission ticket and say, "Sorry, I don't wish to be part of you."
quote:So does adoption.
originally posted by Josephine:
The children didn't make any choices, good or bad. So providing for them doesn't subsidize their bad choices, it protects them from the results of someone else's bad choices.
quote:I said the problem was moral bankruptcy in Western society. Your plan does nothing to address what is in my opinion the root problem.
originally posted by Liopleurodon:
OK, here's the Liopleurodon Plan. Note that this is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. It doesn't have any other agenda.
quote:This is substantially similar to the Kazimiero Planas (Kazimier's Plan). In my view it's quite feasible to vigorously discourage abortion, but fairly and humanely so only in the context of an advanced welfare state/social democracy. This is exactly the rub for the pro-lifers in the USA, who seem to be laissez-faire economic libertarians who could give fuck all about the plight of the economically and socially disadvantaged.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:OK, here's the Liopleurodon Plan. Note that this is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. It doesn't have any other agenda.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've yet to see anybody promoting a government policy that will even make the problem better much less solve it.
1) Provide comprehensive sex education to all students aged 11 and over. In addition, provide assertiveness training (in single sex groups or individually) which doesn't push an abstinence-only message but does promote the message that this is your body and you have a right to say no. This is something that teenage magazines are (or at least were - it's been many years since I've read one) very good at doing - accurate information about sex and contraception with a hefty dose of "don't let him talk you into anything you don't want to do."
2) Provide condoms for free as Ken said. Give women and girls the option of having a longterm contraceptive implant for free without telling their parents. Make this available without them having to go out of their way to a clinic. This option should be raised at routine checkups. Allow school nurses to distribute the morning after pill and educate girls on how to use it.
3) Offer material support for women who have become pregnant. This may include a grant to purchase cots, clothes, a pram etc. If necessary this can be means tested. Subsidise childcare. Provide support in emergencies - for instance, accomodation for girls who may be turned out of the house if they become pregnant.
4) Fight the social stigma of having a child at a young age. Make sure that it is viable to get an education as a young parent. You can be realistic about the effort involved and the impact on someone's life, but discourage the view that young mother = slut. There is a perception that working class girls are more likely to become pregnant as teenagers. This *may* be true, but my own experience at a girls' private school was that middle class girls were just as likely to become accidentally pregnant, but far more likely to go and have an abortion, quietly, so that their prospects at school and uni weren't screwed up.
Much of the stuff in 3 and some of 4 is already done throughout much of Europe. Some countries have additional problems - I suspect that in the UK a major cause of unwanted pregnancies is alcohol consumption, which is why I think a longterm contraceptive is a better bet than anything which requires action at the time. Unfortunately some people would probably give up on condoms if they knew the contraceptive angle was covered - I'm not sure how to balance that trade-off. That said, it's better than young people having completely unprotected sex, which seems to be very common at the moment.
The trouble is that such a plan would be very difficult to implement: it would cost money but it would also create a storm among religious groups who would go nuts over the idea that teenagers could be encouraged to have sex by these proposals, and their parents wouldn't know. Well, no, their parents wouldn't know - informing parents is a pretty good way of ensuring that teenagers won't bother with the precaution. But the fact is that if you're old enough to reproduce you have to be old enough to make your own decisions about sex, because your parents aren't there every moment to make those decisions for you.
Also I've never been very convinced by the argument that you can encourage kids to have sex in this way. ISTM that people will generally have about as much sex as they, personally, feel inclined to have (or none if they can't find a partner, I guess). Giving them easy access to contraception won't persuade them to have more sex, and telling them that sex is bad won't persuade them to have less.
quote:But banning abortions does?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:So does adoption.
originally posted by Josephine:
The children didn't make any choices, good or bad. So providing for them doesn't subsidize their bad choices, it protects them from the results of someone else's bad choices.
I think this is the third time adoption has been mentioned as a solution. But no one has addressed the issues that I brought up -- adoption doesn't solve the pregnant woman's immediate problems.
If you work in a low-end job, and you take time off work, you don't get paid. You may even get fired. So if you have the baby and give it up for adoption, you are still without a job, without income, and therefore without food and shelter for yourself and your other children. Putting the new baby up for adoption doesn't fix that.
If a pregnancy is going to disrupt a young woman's relationship with her parents -- if they're going to throw her out if they find out she's pregnant -- adoption won't fix that, either.
Adoption solves some of the problems for some pregnant women. But it is not a panacea.
quote:I said the problem was moral bankruptcy in Western society. Your plan does nothing to address what is in my opinion the root problem.
[QUOTE]originally posted by Liopleurodon:
OK, here's the Liopleurodon Plan. Note that this is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. It doesn't have any other agenda.
quote:Ah. I thought the problem was that lots of women are having abortions, and that this is a bad thing. Hence coming up with some ideas about how to reduce the number of abortions.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I said the problem was moral bankruptcy in Western society. Your plan does nothing to address what is in my opinion the root problem.
quote:None of the programs mentioned in the OP article address those issues either. A young woman's relationship with her parents is already disrupted if she faces getting thrown out of the house if she gets pregnant. Getting the family help with the underlying issues would be a good thing not a bad thing. I sure don't think that is a good enough reason to sacrifice a child.
originally posted by Josephine:
I think this is the third time adoption has been mentioned as a solution. But no one has addressed the issues that I brought up -- adoption doesn't solve the pregnant woman's immediate problems.
If you work in a low-end job, and you take time off work, you don't get paid. You may even get fired. So if you have the baby and give it up for adoption, you are still without a job, without income, and therefore without food and shelter for yourself and your other children. Putting the new baby up for adoption doesn't fix that.
If a pregnancy is going to disrupt a young woman's relationship with her parents -- if they're going to throw her out if they find out she's pregnant -- adoption won't fix that, either.
quote:But, that is the moral bankruptcy. People having sex when they shouldn't is only one part of it. People refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex when they shouldn't is another. People failing to take advantage of all the opportunities society provides along with the second and third chances when they make mistakes. It's all part of moral bankruptcy.
originally posted by Liopleurodon:
If, as I suspect, "moral bankruptcy" in this context means "people are having sex and I think they shouldn't be" then say so. Then decide where your priorities are, because I'm pretty sure that you can either stigmatise and punish sex outside of marriage and/or poverty and/or lone or younger parents OR you can act to reduce the number of abortions, but you can't do both.
quote:My parents adopted me through a Christian adoption agency. I've always been glad my birth mother actually cared enough about the child she was carrying to actually give me a chance to live. It was after Roe v. Wade, so, she could have cared only about herself.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
Adoption also poses lifelong issues for many adoptees, who develop ongoing issues over their "true" identity (to say nothing of medical histories, etc.), a sense of "real" belonging.
quote:In a rich 1st world country, that is a reasonable extension to the role of the state, though still one that is an extension from the internally consistent one that does exist an alternative model. However in a poor country where the state is minimal - e.g. the US and UK 250 years ago - the idea that the state should extend to that sort of role is unrealistic. THEREFORE it is inappropriate to generalise from the particular as an absolute expectation, though it may be desirable.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:If punishing wrongdoers also extends - as I believe it should - to endeavouring to protect from wrongdoing, and 'wrongdoing' can include social and economic oppression - as I believe it can - then immediately the scope of the state's involvement under your former definition, is greatly widened towards your second.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's try and clarify an argument that inevitably gets mixed up in complexity. Is it the role of the state to punish wrongdoers - or is it the role of the state to protect its citizens from harm. If it is strictly defined as the former, then the illegality of abortion - assuming that unborn children are human - follows automatically. It's only if you adopt a wider view of the role of the state do you end up getting stuck into a wider debate.
quote:Wow. You've made a ton of assumptions about someone who is hypothetical and doesn't even exist. Impressive. This hypothetical woman is no doubt very aware that if she had decided to opt for a series of abortions rather than doing the best she can to provide for her children she would not be in the position where people like you can turn their noses up at her. You've written off the chances of her children, already - they're not going to lead productive lives, apparently. The fact that their mother has been in a series of relationships is enough to doom them to being losers.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QUOTE] You have several children. You get pregnant with another child by a man who has not intention of taking care of the child he fathered much less the other ones. I question how good a parent this person is in the first place. However, no one wants to say to the mother enough is enough. What are the chances the children she already has will end up living more productive lives? Not very good. This will be after society spends millions of dollars trying to overcome the breakdown of the family.
quote:Let's consider this a little further. The family might well be under all kinds of stress already -- unemployment due to recession, a serious illness, etc. That's not the fault of the pregnant girl, but it might well lead to the family disowning her, as she becomes the last straw. The disowning might well be the same "personal responsibility" thinking already under discussion: "We told you we expect you to remain a virgin until marriage; you've disobeyed; you're no longer one of us. Out!" The girl may not in fact know before the fact that getting thrown out will be a consequence of her pregnancy; so I don't think it's fair to say that the relationship went sour in advance. True in some cases, certainly; but not serviceable as a blanket assumption.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
None of the programs mentioned in the OP article address those issues either. A young woman's relationship with her parents is already disrupted if she faces getting thrown out of the house if she gets pregnant. Getting the family help with the underlying issues would be a good thing not a bad thing. I sure don't think that is a good enough reason to sacrifice a child.
quote:Whoa. Can we unpack this a little?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As to your first example, do we really care about the children or trying not to judge the lifestyle of the mother. You have several children. You get pregnant with another child by a man who has not intention of taking care of the child he fathered much less the other ones. I question how good a parent this person is in the first place. However, no one wants to say to the mother enough is enough. What are the chances the children she already has will end up living more productive lives? Not very good. This will be after society spends millions of dollars trying to overcome the breakdown of the family.
quote:When families rear children who grow up to be productive workers, taxpayers, citizens, who benefits? Society as a whole. Who bears the cost of the rearing (currently estimated in the US at $250,000 per child, NOT including college)? The parents. Who does the caring, minding, cooking, cleaning, nurturing, disciplining, etc. The parents. Do these offspring typically benefit their parents? In pride of accomplishment, perhaps, but materially? Not so much. In this society do offspring care for their parents in old age? Not in the US, where the aged & infirm are more typically warehoused in long-term care, often at government expense. Why don't we insist that these grown children man up and assume the burdens of their parents' care?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've said a million times before Josephine either we are all in this together or we aren't all in this together. If a person can choose to shirk their responsibilities to the greater society, then we are not all in this together.
quote:I said chances are not very good. There are certainly exceptions. All I expect is for people who have children to care for them. Yes, this might require sacrifice at times. Bad parenting dramatically increases the likelihood children will lead unproductive lives despite the best efforts of the rest of society.
originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Wow. You've made a ton of assumptions about someone who is hypothetical and doesn't even exist. Impressive. This hypothetical woman is no doubt very aware that if she had decided to opt for a series of abortions rather than doing the best she can to provide for her children she would not be in the position where people like you can turn their noses up at her. You've written off the chances of her children, already - they're not going to lead productive lives, apparently. The fact that their mother has been in a series of relationships is enough to doom them to being losers.
quote:I said Western society is morally bankrupt. You didn't suggest an option that wouldn't mean society is morally bankrupt. Subculture where fathers aren't expected to care for their children? Moral bankruptcy. Purposefully having children you know you can't support. Moral bankruptcy. Thinking that just because you like children you should have as many as you want? Moral bankruptcy. Men taking advantage of traumatized women? Moral bankruptcy.
originally posted by Lilopleurodon:
The thing is that writing this woman off as a "morally bankrupt" slut means that you don't have to engage with her about why she's in this situation - you can just tut at her. Does she live in an area, in a subculture, where fathers aren't expected to provide? What can be done about that? Does she have a desire to achieve something with her life, but other options are off limits so she thought "at least I can be a parent"? Does she just really love kids? Is she lacking access to contraception, or does she need education about it? Has she suffered a traumatic past which has left her struggling to put boundaries in place which means that men take advantage of her?
quote:No easy solution to that. I want to do what's in the best interest of the children. Like I've said, neither side seems to care about what's in the best interest of the children.
originally posted by Lilopleurodon:
I don't know, and neither do you, because this particular woman is hypothetical. However, you seem to regard her as a problem - what do you think should be done about her? Suppose some brave person does say "enough is enough" - what would that involve in practical terms?
quote:Ask Joesphine...she introduced the hypothetical woman in the first place.
originally posted by Lilopleurodon:
Finally: you haven't really explained what this has to do with abortion, since this woman has a bunch of kids. Did she abort some other kids? Is she the Kind Of Woman you think has abortions? Or was this just an opportunity to have a go at the sort of person you think is screwing up the world?
quote:You must not understand. If there is any reason a parent would throw a child out of their house for getting pregnant, there is a problem with the relationship.
originally posted by Lilopleurodon:
Let's consider this a little further. The family might well be under all kinds of stress already -- unemployment due to recession, a serious illness, etc. That's not the fault of the pregnant girl, but it might well lead to the family disowning her, as she becomes the last straw. The disowning might well be the same "personal responsibility" thinking already under discussion: "We told you we expect you to remain a virgin until marriage; you've disobeyed; you're no longer one of us. Out!" The girl may not in fact know before the fact that getting thrown out will be a consequence of her pregnancy; so I don't think it's fair to say that the relationship went sour in advance. True in some cases, certainly; but not serviceable as a blanket assumption.
quote:The circumstances are bad. However, only a percentage of women fall for the wrong sort. So, not making the situation worse for your children is entirely possible. A man willing to marry the woman and help provide for the children she already has is less likely to leave when another comes along.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
A certain percentage of women in such circumstances are going to end up seeking comfort in the arms of The Wrong Sort, and end up pregnant. Is this a consequence of her innate "irresponsibility," or of her circumstances?
Is she a bad parent for wanting and trying to develop another partnership? Is she a moral failure because she isn't psychic, and doesn't know ahead of time that the guy is using her and will leave her flat the minute she falls preggers? C'mon.
quote:The benefits of living a productive life are inherent in living a productive life. Society benefits in having a member who actually contributes but the individual benefits from being in a society. I disagree about parents not benefiting from raising good children. I can give you a ton of examples from personal experience. And, yes, society should expect children to care for their parents and not warehouse them in nursing homes. You'll get no argument from me there. Just another example of moral bankruptcy.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
When families rear children who grow up to be productive workers, taxpayers, citizens, who benefits? Society as a whole. Who bears the cost of the rearing (currently estimated in the US at $250,000 per child, NOT including college)? The parents. Who does the caring, minding, cooking, cleaning, nurturing, disciplining, etc. The parents. Do these offspring typically benefit their parents? In pride of accomplishment, perhaps, but materially? Not so much. In this society do offspring care for their parents in old age? Not in the US, where the aged & infirm are more typically warehoused in long-term care, often at government expense. Why don't we insist that these grown children man up and assume the burdens of their parents' care?
quote:Its been repeatedly shown that poorer people give a higher proportion of their income to charity than better-off people. And I'm sure any church treasurer can bear that out from experience!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Politics is just one part of the charitable giving question. This study by Giving USA says that the poor give more! I've heard that the same is true in the UK.
quote:Once more, with feeling: ickyness does not correlate with rightness / wrongness. Shit is icky but it isn't wrong. Menstruation can be icky, ditto. Surgery is icky - heck, for some people, the sight of a small amount of blood is enough - but nobody thinks it's immoral. OliviaG
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... Equally seriously, I think it's incumbent on those of us who feel that abortion is an unjustified killing of the innocent not to pussy-foot around the horrible practicalitities of it simply because it makes people feel icky. Why? Because we think its "ickyness" has everything in the world to do with its wrongness. And abortion frequently involves much more "icky" things than a clean painless death. And the providers of abortion and those who support them do so much to sanitise and shield people from the realities of it already. ...
quote:BUT IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. Saying "there's a problem with the relationship" is brilliant hindsight. The girl is in front of you (general, metaphorical, hypothetical): she's sitting on the pavement in front of the grocery store, dirty, smelly and unkempt, with a hand-written cardboard sign saying "Homeless and pregnant - please help - need $$$ for food and hostel". What do we, as a society, do? Fix the blame in the past or fix the problem in the present? OliviaG
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...
quote:You must not understand. If there is any reason a parent would throw a child out of their house for getting pregnant, there is a problem with the relationship. ...
originally posted by Lilopleurodon:
Let's consider this a little further. The family might well be under all kinds of stress already -- unemployment due to recession, a serious illness, etc. That's not the fault of the pregnant girl, but it might well lead to the family disowning her, as she becomes the last straw. The disowning might well be the same "personal responsibility" thinking already under discussion: "We told you we expect you to remain a virgin until marriage; you've disobeyed; you're no longer one of us. Out!" The girl may not in fact know before the fact that getting thrown out will be a consequence of her pregnancy; so I don't think it's fair to say that the relationship went sour in advance. True in some cases, certainly; but not serviceable as a blanket assumption.
quote:But the ickiness I was talking about was a specifically moral queasiness - the feeling of moral unease about the very idea of doing or seeing certain things.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Once more, with feeling: ickyness does not correlate with rightness / wrongness.
quote:WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did one of the programs the OP article complains were being cut cover cases like that?
If so, which one?
quote:Ender's, I think you need to another 0 to get to a time when the state in the UK was "minimal". IIRC, the first poor laws, making it a legal obligation for a parish to support those without work within it, date from the reign of Elizabeth I, which goes some way beyond merely punishing wrongdoers.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In a rich 1st world country, that is a reasonable extension to the role of the state, though still one that is an extension from the internally consistent one that does exist an alternative model. However in a poor country where the state is minimal - e.g. the US and UK 250 years ago - the idea that the state should extend to that sort of role is unrealistic.
quote:So, all the government offers underage pregnant girls abandoned by their parents is WIC?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did one of the programs the OP article complains were being cut cover cases like that?
If so, which one?
quote:But in the UK, over 90% of abortions don't have any of the ick factor you're talking about. Over 90% happen before 13 weeks gestation, over 70% before 10 weeks gestation. An abortion before 10 weeks gestation is likely to be by abortifacient, which causes what looks like heavy menstruation. Between 10 and 13 weeks, it will be by D&C or similar evacuation procedures, which women have for other gynaecological problems various, as North East Quine described above.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:But the ickiness I was talking about was a specifically moral queasiness - the feeling of moral unease about the very idea of doing or seeing certain things.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Once more, with feeling: ickyness does not correlate with rightness / wrongness.
One reason people don't like to hear about what so many abortions actually involve is not that it has the grossness associated with falling in a bucket of shit or sipping a glass of chilled puke, but that it evokes the horror and revulsion associated with, for example, extreme crulety to animals. That's what anti-abortionists like me think can act as a clue to the moral status of such acts.
quote:Heck, CK - forget later term abortions then. Do you you have any idea what a 12 week old fetus looks like? Go on, google it. Google the developmental progress of 12 weekers.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But in the UK, over 90% of abortions don't have any of the ick factor you're talking about. Over 90% happen before 13 weeks gestation, over 70% before 10 weeks gestation. An abortion before 10 weeks gestation is likely to be by abortifacient, which causes what looks like heavy menstruation. Between 10 and 13 weeks, it will be by D&C or similar evacuation procedures, which women have for other gynaecological problems various, as North East Quine described above.
quote:Yes, that's exactly what I said.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:So, all the government offers underage pregnant girls abandoned by their parents is WIC?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did one of the programs the OP article complains were being cut cover cases like that?
If so, which one?
quote:You not read so good, Kimosabe. "We know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies" does not answer the challenge. I am not saying we don't know those things. I'm not sure how you could POSSIBLY read that out of what I wrote, unless you forgot the context entirely.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:We don't know where babies come from? We don't know how to prevent pregnancies?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ah. As I thought. No Proof. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
quote:FOUL! You asked for an example, and an example was given. You didn't ask to be shown that ALL programs to help these people were being reduced or eliminated. It appears for all the world that you're not arguing in good faith. At the very least this is a huge shifting of goalpost location.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:So, all the government offers underage pregnant girls abandoned by their parents is WIC?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did one of the programs the OP article complains were being cut cover cases like that?
If so, which one?
quote:This will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies? You think people have unwanted pregnancies because abortion is legal? You do know that people had unwanted pregnancies before Roe v Wade, right? The illegality of abortion then didn't prevent unwanted pregnancies. If abortion is made illegal again, it will not prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Prolifers want abortion to be illegal. If abortion is illegal, then women are less likely to have abortions. Meaning that in the ideal world of the anti-abortion proponent negative reinforcement of bad choices will be less likely to result in an abortion. It will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, more adoptions, or perhaps more marriages.
quote:Yes, it does. If we know how to prevent pregnancies, and an unwanted pregnancy occurs only one of three things could have happened. One, the couple engaged in unprotective sex. Two, the birth control failed. Three, the woman was raped. All you have to do is show some proof that a majority of abortions are a result of rape or failed contraception methods.
originally posted by mousethief:
You not read so good, Kimosabe. "We know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies" does not answer the challenge. I am not saying we don't know those things. I'm not sure how you could POSSIBLY read that out of what I wrote, unless you forgot the context entirely.
quote:That's just bullshit. The proposed 10% cut to WIC means damn all to what the government would do for a pregnant underage girl abandoned by her parents. Will she starve? Will her baby slowly starve and die? Those were the goalposts set by the article in the OP.
originally posted by mousethief:
FOUL! You asked for an example, and an example was given. You didn't ask to be shown that ALL programs to help these people were being reduced or eliminated. It appears for all the world that you're not arguing in good faith. At the very least this is a huge shifting of goalpost location.
quote:Yes, I know exactly what a 12 week foetus looks like and how developed it is. It's also inside a sac which is between 1 and 2 inches across at that stage and weighs around 14g. It is only potential life for as long as it remains in utero, if not miscarried - which at this point would also look like heavy menstruation. People are advised not to tell others until after this stage because spontaneous abortions are more likely until 13 weeks gestation, otherwise known as miscarriages. All those lovely blown up pictures you get to see are another manipulation of the imagery. I teach gestation and development.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Heck, CK - forget later term abortions then. Do you you have any idea what a 12 week old fetus looks like? Go on, google it. Google the developmental progress of 12 weekers.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But in the UK, over 90% of abortions don't have any of the ick factor you're talking about. Over 90% happen before 13 weeks gestation, over 70% before 10 weeks gestation. An abortion before 10 weeks gestation is likely to be by abortifacient, which causes what looks like heavy menstruation. Between 10 and 13 weeks, it will be by D&C or similar evacuation procedures, which women have for other gynaecological problems various, as North East Quine described above.
Now imaging "D&C"ing that. Not "icky"? Are you serious?
quote:Cuts to WIC mean that more women will have unhealthy pregnancies, which mean that more children have the possibility of being born with health problems. Those children (according to Federal Law) who can have learning difficulties due to health problems during pregnancy, are required to receive special services from the state.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:That's just bullshit. The proposed 10% cut to WIC means damn all to what the government would do for a pregnant underage girl abandoned by her parents. Will she starve? Will her baby slowly starve and die? Those were the goalposts set by the article in the OP.
originally posted by mousethief:
FOUL! You asked for an example, and an example was given. You didn't ask to be shown that ALL programs to help these people were being reduced or eliminated. It appears for all the world that you're not arguing in good faith. At the very least this is a huge shifting of goalpost location.
quote:The article's claim that millions of American children will be at risk of starving to death does seem over the top. But that the cuts the Republicans propose will hurt children in this country seems more than obvious to me. And the figure of 70,000 child deaths around the world put forward in the article comes from USAID (United State Agency for International Development).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:That's just bullshit. The proposed 10% cut to WIC means damn all to what the government would do for a pregnant underage girl abandoned by her parents. Will she starve? Will her baby slowly starve and die? Those were the goalposts set by the article in the OP.
originally posted by mousethief:
FOUL! You asked for an example, and an example was given. You didn't ask to be shown that ALL programs to help these people were being reduced or eliminated. It appears for all the world that you're not arguing in good faith. At the very least this is a huge shifting of goalpost location.
quote:In 20 years, you won't be able to demonstrate the learning difficulties of a single child are directly related to a 10% cut in WIC. Not a single one. There are too many ways to shave 10% off of what is a supplemental program.
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:Cuts to WIC mean that more women will have unhealthy pregnancies, which mean that more children have the possibility of being born with health problems. Those children (according to Federal Law) who can have learning difficulties due to health problems during pregnancy, are required to receive special services from the state.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:That's just bullshit. The proposed 10% cut to WIC means damn all to what the government would do for a pregnant underage girl abandoned by her parents. Will she starve? Will her baby slowly starve and die? Those were the goalposts set by the article in the OP.
originally posted by mousethief:
FOUL! You asked for an example, and an example was given. You didn't ask to be shown that ALL programs to help these people were being reduced or eliminated. It appears for all the world that you're not arguing in good faith. At the very least this is a huge shifting of goalpost location.
It's actually cheaper to make sure that women have a healthy pregnancy and healthy infants than to pay for special services which the state is require to give until the age of 21.
quote:Can you disprove it?
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Interesting...Can you prove that??
Can you be concerned about life, but not care about the quality of life? And if so, are you actually morally better?
To be honest, the only "pro-life" group that doesn't seem at least a little morally bankrupt to me is the Roman Catholic church, which does hold the sanctity of life from conception unto death very consistently. They believe in helping the poor and needy. They help with adoption services. They don't hold to the death penalty. All of which are very pro-life.
No one else here has come close.
quote:I know, and you know. But the Religious Right are pushing abstinence-only education, so do the kids out there having sex know? The fact that "we" (the human race? Educated white English-speaking people of European descent? who is "we"?) know doesn't mean that everybody knows. In short, this is just so much bluster.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If we know how to prevent pregnancies, and an unwanted pregnancy occurs only one of three things could have happened.
quote:Huh? The government can do the same on less? And then less? And then less? You been smokin' that funny stuff?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The proposed 10% cut to WIC means damn all to what the government would do for a pregnant underage girl abandoned by her parents.
quote:Yes because demonstrating something like that is impossible. This is a stupid argument. It proves nothing; it doesn't even SAY anything.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In 20 years, you won't be able to demonstrate the learning difficulties of a single child are directly related to a 10% cut in WIC. Not a single one.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Prolifers want abortion to be illegal. If abortion is illegal, then women are less likely to have abortions.
quote:
Parents have a responsibility to their children and society. Society has a responsibility to help parents with their children to the extent that parents are doing what they can own their own. If parents are shirking that responsibility, then society's responsibility is to the child. Is it in the best interest of the child to stay with bad parents? I don't think so.
quote:
Now, my point this entire time has been that the children are of secondary importance to both sides. Most on the right are concerned about keeping taxes low. The social conservatives really do have an aversion to abortion. They also have an aversion to premarital sex and a tendency to choose as political allies people obsessed with low taxes and empowering large corporations.
quote:
The left is all about the freedom of choice. Doesn't really matter if the choices are good or not just so long as people get to choose.
quote:I'm not sure how you see the position on the left as being inconsistent with caring about children.
However, in theory, everybody claims to care about children. So, here we are...
quote:There's no guarantee that making abortions illegal will reduce the number of abortions by any significant percentage.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Prolifers want abortion to be illegal. If abortion is illegal, then women are less likely to have abortions.
Making it illegal is one way to reduce the number of abortions. It's not the only way. I'm not sure that it's the most effective way. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not the most effective way.
quote:We KNOW that poor nutrition during pregnancy causes developmental problems. It takes a cold person to ignore the facts by saying since you can't provide proof for an individual child down the line it doesn't matter. And the original cut proposed to WIC was more than 10%. If the GOP really had it's way the program would go away completely.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In 20 years, you won't be able to demonstrate the learning difficulties of a single child are directly related to a 10% cut in WIC. Not a single one. There are too many ways to shave 10% off of what is a supplemental program.
quote:From personal experience miscarriage is a bit more than heavy menstruation, even just at 7 weeks, but that might just be me. But I, too, know exactly what a 12 week foetus looks like. I've been through the tedious routine of (TMI warning) peeing and changing sanitary towels in the bath once the bleeding starts so that the blood clot which contains the foetus doesn't get accidentally flushed down the toilet, but gets wrapped up in kitchen paper (by me!) to take to hospital for checking. It is "icky"; in fact I would imagine that miscarriage is more "icky" than a managed abortion in hospital. But it's not unendurably icky, if it's what's happening to you, you just get on with it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:Yes, I know exactly what a 12 week foetus looks like and how developed it is. It's also inside a sac which is between 1 and 2 inches across at that stage and weighs around 14g. It is only potential life for as long as it remains in utero, if not miscarried - which at this point would also look like heavy menstruation. People are advised not to tell others until after this stage because spontaneous abortions are more likely until 13 weeks gestation, otherwise known as miscarriages. All those lovely blown up pictures you get to see are another manipulation of the imagery. I teach gestation and development.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Heck, CK - forget later term abortions then. Do you you have any idea what a 12 week old fetus looks like? Go on, google it. Google the developmental progress of 12 weekers.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But in the UK, over 90% of abortions don't have any of the ick factor you're talking about. Over 90% happen before 13 weeks gestation, over 70% before 10 weeks gestation. An abortion before 10 weeks gestation is likely to be by abortifacient, which causes what looks like heavy menstruation. Between 10 and 13 weeks, it will be by D&C or similar evacuation procedures, which women have for other gynaecological problems various, as North East Quine described above.
Now imaging "D&C"ing that. Not "icky"? Are you serious?
quote:I don't have the time or inclination to Google for the figures, but I'm fairly certain that the only time in recent years that the abortion rate in the USA has shown any significant decline was during the tenure of that renowned moral crusader, William J. Clinton. He did it by actually taking measures to reduce poverty.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Prolifers want abortion to be illegal. If abortion is illegal, then women are less likely to have abortions.
Making it illegal is one way to reduce the number of abortions. It's not the only way. I'm not sure that it's the most effective way. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not the most effective way.
quote:I didn't no a single person who didn't know by puberty that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Abstinence only explains why teenagers shouldn't have sex before married. Its you who are making a silly argument.
originally posted by mousethief:
I know, and you know. But the Religious Right are pushing abstinence-only education, so do the kids out there having sex know? The fact that "we" (the human race? Educated white English-speaking people of European descent? who is "we"?) know doesn't mean that everybody knows. In short, this is just so much bluster.
quote:It says those claims made in the original article border on demagoguery.
originally posted by mousethief:
Yes because demonstrating something like that is impossible. This is a stupid argument. It proves nothing; it doesn't even SAY anything.
quote:Couples who get pregnant need to take responsibility for the child. Get married and care for it. Put it up for adoption. Like I said earlier, I was adopted. My birth mother was 17. A guy who was in his 20's got her pregnant and then decided to leave her and go to college. My birth father was a selfish and irresponsible bastard. My birth mother did the right thing.
originally posted by Josephine:
I'm not sure that's true. I've read enough history to think that people haven't ever been entirely responsible and rational when it comes to sex.
quote:But right wingers are libertarians. With freedom comes responsibility. You are free to live the way to want to live. However, you are also free to suffer the consequences of your choices. The left cares more about insuring everybody can make their own choices with no consequences and without taking responsibility for them. There is a big difference. Even Jim Wallis recognized that at one point in time.
originally posted by Josephine:
Freedom is important, not just to the left, but to all Americans -- even the Tea Party types want to protect our freedom. Making our own decisions, making our own choices, is a pretty fundamental part of that.
quote:Because the focus is more on the rights of the parents to make their own bad choices without having their own actions questioned instead of the well being of the child or the greater good of society. The culture war is the larger issue. Both sides are more concerned with sex and the nature of family then they are about children.
originally posted Josephine:
I'm not sure how you see the position on the left as being inconsistent with caring about children.
quote:We know that poor nutrition during pregnancy causes developmental problems. We don't know that a 10% cut to WIC will in and of itself lead to poor nutrition during pregnancy. I gave reasons for that above which nobody has addressed.
originally posted by Niteowl:
We KNOW that poor nutrition during pregnancy causes developmental problems. It takes a cold person to ignore the facts by saying since you can't provide proof for an individual child down the line it doesn't matter. And the original cut proposed to WIC was more than 10%. If the GOP really had it's way the program would go away completely.
quote:Not everybody makes bad choice after bad choice. Some make just one bad choice. Contraception isn't one hundred percent effective. Pregnancy is almost always a possibility when a man and a woman have sex. Couples really wanting have sex without getting pregnant should use multiple forms of contraception. And, I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for the, "We couldn't control ourselves." If the male got to the point in the make out session where he couldn't control himself but the female said no and he kept going because he couldn't control himself, that would be rape.
originally posted by Niteowl:
And I really do have to call you out on being cold hearted on "poor choice after poor choice" comment. I know many people whose birth control failed. Do you save the condom for weeks afterward so you can prove birth control failed? How do you prove your pill failed? Most people would assume you forgot a pill or two or three. And again, you sometimes don't know for weeks afterward. Not to mention, I've known a few people who aren't on birth control because they aren't promiscuous and have been faithful to that, until hormones kicked in and making out turned into something they couldn't control until it was too late. Before you pass judgment on them, I know one couple very well and no one was more shocked then I was when they announced a pregnancy along with their plans to get married. You might want to back way off the judgmental attitudes.
quote:The couple I referred to had one moment of weakness after months and months of no sex. It happens, and those who don't plan on having sex and thus don't have condoms or other birth control methods handy because of that suffer first from an unplanned pregnancy and 2nd from judgment from people with your mindset. The same judgment that might send other women to an abortion. Fortunately, these two decided make a go of it together and got married. They paid a high cost for that decision at the time. Other couples/women might have made a decision to avoid the judgment and get an abortion. BTW, they are still married and have other children.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Not everybody makes bad choice after bad choice. Some make just one bad choice. Contraception isn't one hundred percent effective. Pregnancy is almost always a possibility when a man and a woman have sex. Couples really wanting have sex without getting pregnant should use multiple forms of contraception. And, I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for the, "We couldn't control ourselves." If the male got to the point in the make out session where he couldn't control himself but the female said no and he kept going because he couldn't control himself, that would be rape.
originally posted by Niteowl:
And I really do have to call you out on being cold hearted on "poor choice after poor choice" comment. I know many people whose birth control failed. Do you save the condom for weeks afterward so you can prove birth control failed? How do you prove your pill failed? Most people would assume you forgot a pill or two or three. And again, you sometimes don't know for weeks afterward. Not to mention, I've known a few people who aren't on birth control because they aren't promiscuous and have been faithful to that, until hormones kicked in and making out turned into something they couldn't control until it was too late. Before you pass judgment on them, I know one couple very well and no one was more shocked then I was when they announced a pregnancy along with their plans to get married. You might want to back way off the judgmental attitudes.
quote:You don't know enough people. Your experience is not normative. You shouldn't take what YOUR life is like to be the be-all and end-all of human experience. It is not a silly argument just because you live in a bubble.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I didn't no a single person who didn't know by puberty that having sex could lead to pregnancy.
quote:Whatever Mousethief
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You don't know enough people. Your experience is not normative. You shouldn't take what YOUR life is like to be the be-all and end-all of human experience. It is not a silly argument just because you live in a bubble.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I didn't no a single person who didn't know by puberty that having sex could lead to pregnancy.
quote:First, birth control is around 80-90% effective depending on the method. So, I question how often pregnancy really occurs because the method was used correctly and failed. Second, birth control isn't a 100% effective. Thus, people who aren't prepared to face the prospect of having a child together really shouldn't be having sex. At minimum, they should use multiple forms of birth control. Third, what about the father of the child? Why not expect him to help care for the mother of his child? Fourth, what about the girls extended family? Fifth, women get pregnant and keep their jobs all the time. Sixth, yeah, I'd rather the woman have the baby and put it up for adoption even if it means she looses her job. What should be done to help her is a different question.
originally posted by Pata LeBon:
And if what you have is a poor/unemployed single woman?
It is more likely than not, that you are talking about a poor white woman 20-25 who was using birth control that failed. It is more likely that this is her first pregnancy. She has limited access to health care. If she takes off work, she does not get paid,and will lose her job if she takes off too many days in a row, or too frequently.
What is the responsible thing for her to do? If she decides to put the child up for adoption, she will have the problem of taking off days for doctor's visits, for the birth, etc. She will more likely than not, lose her job. After giving up her child, she will have to start looking for another job because she will still have to look at how to support herself even without a child.
quote:It's still ineffective 20% of the time. And you have no idea of how many poor/underemployed fathers bail on mothers. They believe that birth control is the mother's problem and therefore so is pregnancy. The state does not hold fathers accountable without the mother suing, which requires money for a lawyer. (Oh, and more time off of work to go to court, etc..) The family is more likely than not in the same job situation and is more likely than not just barely scraping by.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
First, birth control is around 80-90% effective depending on the method. So, I question how often pregnancy really occurs because the method was used correctly and failed. Second, birth control isn't a 100% effective. Thus, people who aren't prepared to face the prospect of having a child together really shouldn't be having sex. At minimum, they should use multiple forms of birth control. Third, what about the father of the child? Why not expect him to help care for the mother of his child? Fourth, what about the girls extended family? Fifth, women get pregnant and keep their jobs all the time. Sixth, yeah, I'd rather the woman have the baby and put it up for adoption even if it means she looses her job. What should be done to help her is a different question.
This is what I mean about moral bankruptcy. Sexual intercourse is a means by which life is created. It is not a recreational activity that should automatically follow dinner and a movie. Nobody has a moral right to have sex or engage in any other risky pleasurable activity and be free of the consequences. The sexual revolution might have changed the social mores for much of Western society. It did not however change biology.
quote:Do you know everybody?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I didn't no a single person who didn't know by puberty that having sex could lead to pregnancy.
originally posted by mousethief:
I know, and you know. But the Religious Right are pushing abstinence-only education, so do the kids out there having sex know? The fact that "we" (the human race? Educated white English-speaking people of European descent? who is "we"?) know doesn't mean that everybody knows. In short, this is just so much bluster.
quote:And since you were adopted and apparently have no issues around that, nobody else could possibly have such issues either, right?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Couples who get pregnant need to take responsibility for the child. Get married and care for it. Put it up for adoption. Like I said earlier, I was adopted. My birth mother was 17. A guy who was in his 20's got her pregnant and then decided to leave her and go to college. My birth father was a selfish and irresponsible bastard. My birth mother did the right thing.
quote:For a woman, carrying to term a child she didn't plan to bear is at minimum a 6-month-long consequence (from knowing she's pregnant to birth). So is rearing that child single-handed a consequence. So is marrying its father, when she may not be certain he is The One. So is relinquishing the child for adoption. So is terminating the pregnancy. Each consequence is different; each carries its own risks and pain. Just as there's more than one reaction to being an adoptee, there's more than one set of physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences to what a woman does after finding she's pregnant. You seem to be claiming that termination is somehow not a consequence. On what basis? It's apparently not the consequence you'd choose; but then, you're not going to face this dilemma, are you? And if it's not a consequence, why are you so concerned about it?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
With freedom comes responsibility. You are free to live the way to want to live. However, you are also free to suffer the consequences of your choices. The left cares more about insuring everybody can make their own choices with no consequences and without taking responsibility for them.
quote:State laws vary, but many states these days require by law that the woman seeking an abortion receive counseling which includes the risks abortion carries, the alternatives to abortion available, and the means to prevent a future conception. Many states also require notification, and sometimes permission, of parent(s) or spouse/partner before a termination can proceed. I frankly don't know where somebody can get a legal termination in the US without the action being subjected to thorough-going questions before it's performed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Because the focus is more on the rights of the parents to make their own bad choices without having their own actions questioned
quote:First, we're no longer talking about "well-being" when we're discussing termination. We're talking existence versus non-existence. An aborted fetus has no well-being to be considered. It's entirely possible that a fetus carried to term might have no well-being to be considered, depending on the possible presence of conditions which keep the fetus in pain or extreme disability.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
instead of the well being of the child or the greater good of society.
quote:They certainly should. Unfortunately, they probably can't. They have no medical insurance (AFAIK, the only two forms of birth control available to the sexually-active without the intervention of a medical professional are condoms and withdrawal, neither terribly effective). They probably have little disposable income to spend on doctor visits and supplies. You're in the UK, I believe; but in the US, this multiple-methods idea, while fine on its face, is beyond the practical means of probably a quarter to a third of the population of child-bearing age. That's rather a large group to expect total abstinence from.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Couples really wanting have sex without getting pregnant should use multiple forms of contraception.
quote:I would be inclined to think a libertarian position on abortion would be best described as fine, if you can afford it. Also, the libertarian position on responsibility could be equally well described as, screw the consequences - I have cash. (The majestic equality of the laws allows both beggars and billionaires to starve if they cannot support themselves.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But right wingers are libertarians. With freedom comes responsibility. You are free to live the way to want to live. However, you are also free to suffer the consequences of your choices. The left cares more about insuring everybody can make their own choices with no consequences and without taking responsibility for them. There is a big difference.
quote:Oh, I have those questions as well. However, only the living can question and wonder. I'd rather be living with questions than never getting the opportunity to question.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
I am personally acquainted with 7 adult adoptees (two in my own family). One of these people responds as you do; 4 others have a range of other responses and issues centering on "Who am I really?", and two don't know they're adopted (but I do, and wish I didn't, as they're family members about whom I'm keeping a secret I'd rather not have been saddled with).
quote:My birth mother put me up for adoption in part because my birth father didn't want to marry her. The man shouldn't have been having sex with a teenager in the first place. Once he got her pregnant, the guy went on with his life. That makes him an irresponsible bastard. Putting me up for adoption might have been the right thing to do regardless. It was certainly better than having abortion.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
It's a wonderful thing, of course, to be able to contemplate the complicated lives of others from your current perspective, as opposed to the perspective which might have been yours had your birth father done what you believe to be the "right thing" -- a perspective gained from being reared by a child bride and an "irresponsible bastard" (or at best a resentful, reluctant groom), both with incomplete educations, following a shotgun wedding.
quote:In most cases, the unborn child is being sacrificed for the sins of its parents. Make parents singular and that applies in the case of rape and incest as well. The parents are morally culpable for whatever decision they make.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, you seem to want to claim that the woman terminating a pregnancy is not taking responsibility for her actions. If she isn't, who then is responsible for the termination? If there are moral consequences, who bears them? If some next-life punishment is to be meted out, who will receive it?
quote:I'm in the US. A quarter to a third of those of childbearing age aren't all trying to avoid having children. Plus, plenty of people of child bearing age are expected to abstain from sex because they can't find anybody who will have sex with them. Why is it so wrong to expect the same thing of couples who aren't prepared for pregnancy if the birth control fails? If so inclined, the couple can still enjoy certain physical pleasures unavailable to the dateless.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
They certainly should. Unfortunately, they probably can't. They have no medical insurance (AFAIK, the only two forms of birth control available to the sexually-active without the intervention of a medical professional are condoms and withdrawal, neither terribly effective). They probably have little disposable income to spend on doctor visits and supplies. You're in the UK, I believe; but in the US, this multiple-methods idea, while fine on its face, is beyond the practical means of probably a quarter to a third of the population of child-bearing age. That's rather a large group to expect total abstinence from.
quote:Err...If the birth control has failed, the woman is already pregnant. Whether or not she has sex for the next 6 months or so won't change things...
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why is it so wrong to expect the same thing of couples who aren't prepared for pregnancy if the birth control fails? If so inclined, the couple can still enjoy certain physical pleasures unavailable to the dateless.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Miss points much? Originally you advanced this idea to counter my point that being adopted is not always a bed of roses for the adoptee; that adoptions fairly often don't work out and children are returned to state care, with all the risks and rejection issues that implies, etc., and that relinquishment poses significant ongoing problems for the mothers, particularly in closed adoptions. (You never responded to this.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Oh, I have those questions as well. However, only the living can question and wonder. I'd rather be living with questions than never getting the opportunity to question.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
I am personally acquainted with 7 adult adoptees (two in my own family). One of these people responds as you do; 4 others have a range of other responses and issues centering on "Who am I really?", and two don't know they're adopted (but I do, and wish I didn't, as they're family members about whom I'm keeping a secret I'd rather not have been saddled with).
quote:First, adoption and abortion aren't the only two options available. Second, better for whom? And how? Again, you seem determined to miss the point. You grew up and became who you are presumably in reponse to some combination of genes and upbringing. You are apparently satisfied with your outcomes and are now willing to prescribe for others without acknowledging that one man's meat can be another's poison.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:My birth mother put me up for adoption in part because my birth father didn't want to marry her. The man shouldn't have been having sex with a teenager in the first place. Once he got her pregnant, the guy went on with his life. That makes him an irresponsible bastard. Putting me up for adoption might have been the right thing to do regardless. It was certainly better than having abortion.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
It's a wonderful thing, of course, to be able to contemplate the complicated lives of others from your current perspective, as opposed to the perspective which might have been yours had your birth father done what you believe to be the "right thing" -- a perspective gained from being reared by a child bride and an "irresponsible bastard" (or at best a resentful, reluctant groom), both with incomplete educations, following a shotgun wedding.
quote:@ your last sentence: indeed. That IS the point; we are all morally culpable for our own conscious, deliberate acts, however and to whomever we understand our moral transactions to take place. That said, though, I understand you to have been claiming that terminating a pregnancy amounts to avoiding the consequences of an action you regard as sinful (unprotected sex outside of marriage).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:In most cases, the unborn child is being sacrificed for the sins of its parents. Make parents singular and that applies in the case of rape and incest as well. The parents are morally culpable for whatever decision they make.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, you seem to want to claim that the woman terminating a pregnancy is not taking responsibility for her actions. If she isn't, who then is responsible for the termination? If there are moral consequences, who bears them? If some next-life punishment is to be meted out, who will receive it?
quote:What?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I'm in the US. A quarter to a third of those of childbearing age aren't all trying to avoid having children. Plus, plenty of people of child bearing age are expected to abstain from sex because they can't find anybody who will have sex with them. Why is it so wrong to expect the same thing of couples who aren't prepared for pregnancy if the birth control fails? If so inclined, the couple can still enjoy certain physical pleasures unavailable to the dateless.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
They certainly should. Unfortunately, they probably can't. They have no medical insurance (AFAIK, the only two forms of birth control available to the sexually-active without the intervention of a medical professional are condoms and withdrawal, neither terribly effective). They probably have little disposable income to spend on doctor visits and supplies. You're in the UK, I believe; but in the US, this multiple-methods idea, while fine on its face, is beyond the practical means of probably a quarter to a third of the population of child-bearing age. That's rather a large group to expect total abstinence from.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:You prove my point. The thread is about opponents of abortion not caring for the children. You are suggesting upsetting the mother might be a reason for choosing abortion over adoption. That's fine. However, don't then tell me your primary concern is about children because it isn't. Being in state care is better than not living.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
Miss points much? Originally you advanced this idea to counter my point that being adopted is not always a bed of roses for the adoptee; that adoptions fairly often don't work out and children are returned to state care, with all the risks and rejection issues that implies, etc., and that relinquishment poses significant ongoing problems for the mothers, particularly in closed adoptions. (You never responded to this.)
quote:Again, you seem far more concerned with the feelings of the pregnant woman than the child. Again, that's fine. Just don't try to take the moral high ground about caring for children. I don't know what your feelings are for the father of the child being terminated. In most cases, he's already seen to his own happiness.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
What you seem to be claiming is that the only consequence that can be considered legitimate or adequate in face of the sin involved is giving birth to a living child, and then either rearing or relinquishing it.
How is the pain, grief, and loss experienced by the terminating woman not also a consequence, especially since, as we both agree, she is a full moral agent responsible for her actions, and will (from your perspective, though not mine) be held to divine account for them?
quote:I apparently didn't make myself clear.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
What?
quote:Yes, I can well believe that. Indeed everything I've seen so far indicates that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Have you been trying to say something helpful or coherent? If so, I missed it.
quote:No, I'd never make a dunderheaded spelling error like that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your wrong!!!
quote:Nice choice of words, but we're talking about a group of people (relinquishing mothers) who, as it happens, gets "upset" enough to suicide at (IIRC) roughly 10 times the rate of the rest of the population.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:You prove my point. The thread is about opponents of abortion not caring for the children. You are suggesting upsetting the mother might be a reason for choosing abortion over adoption.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
Miss points much? Originally you advanced this idea to counter my point that being adopted is not always a bed of roses for the adoptee; that adoptions fairly often don't work out and children are returned to state care, with all the risks and rejection issues that implies, etc., and that relinquishment poses significant ongoing problems for the mothers, particularly in closed adoptions. (You never responded to this.)
quote:I don't recall having claimed this.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's fine. However, don't then tell me your primary concern is about children because it isn't.
quote:And you know this because . . . ?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Being in state care is better than not living.
quote:And again, you seem far more intent on ignoring the issue I'm trying to raise.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Again, you seem far more concerned with the feelings of the pregnant woman than the child.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
What you seem to be claiming is that the only consequence that can be considered legitimate or adequate in face of the sin involved is giving birth to a living child, and then either rearing or relinquishing it.
How is the pain, grief, and loss experienced by the terminating woman not also a consequence, especially since, as we both agree, she is a full moral agent responsible for her actions, and will (from your perspective, though not mine) be held to divine account for them?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QB]
quote:I'm not aware of attempting to do this. I don't know, but suspect I'm in a Shiply minority, in that the moral qualms I personally experience over abortion have more to do with coercion, as apparently can happen in China. To my mind, abortion is a tragic necessity for some women in the West. It is, for some women/girls in some situations the least-horrific option in a range of terrible options. Yes, it ends a potential human life. Have we got a shortage of those on this planet?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, that's fine. Just don't try to take the moral high ground about caring for children.
quote:I don't understand this argument, though it's not the first time I've heard it. By this logic, we should all be churning out children constantly because every time you prevent a pregnancy, there's a person with a soul who you've prevented from being brought into existence. Sure, they might have a terrible life, but between that or not being born... It's true that I wouldn't exist if my mother had had an abortion. It's also true that I wouldn't exist if she'd had a headache on the night of conception, or miscarried me (she had three miscarriages before my brother and I came along) or if our ancestors had been wiped out along with the dinosaurs. Any particular human life is the result of an immense number of relatively improbable things happening, and yet the planet isn't short of humans.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Being in state care is better than not living
quote:Your comment suggests that one doesn't want to abort, but willingly will kill a recently born child. Killing recently born children happens in some countries, but no one on this Ship, that I have ever read, has ever advocated it.
Originally posted by no_prophet:
... Thus pro life doesn't expire a birth, actually it becomes pro death.
quote:And I find it so obviously true that I don't understand what people mean when they say they don't understand it. Life is better than death. That's sort of a tautology. Its one of the things we mean by "better".
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:I don't understand this argument, though it's not the first time I've heard it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Being in state care is better than not living
quote:Life isn't perfect. We all have problems. If every child who was going to have a tough time as a teenager got aborted, few babies would ever be born.
originally posted by Curiosity Killed:
I wonder, as someone currently working with challenging teenagers and their families, if the reason some of us are saying abortion is not murder is because we are seeing lives that really aren't wonderful and can see that insisting that all potential life is carried to term, there is every chance these children will join these difficult situations might not be ideal.
quote:The prolifers think the same thing about unborn children.
originally posted by Pata Le Bon:
I know that they don't need to be allowed to be in the general population, but their life is as sacred to God as anyone else.
quote:I rest my case.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
I don't recall having claimed this.
quote:I suspect the real problem is that the reason anti-abortion activists oppose abortion are not the opposite of the reasons other support the availability of abortion. They aren't even mutually incompatible. So even if someone on one side became entirely persuaded of the truth of the points the other side was making they wouldn't change their opinion.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
A lot of these black and white arguments seem to come down to a lack of imagination on the part of those arguing that the answer is simple, there is only one answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:I don't understand this argument
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Being in state care is better than not living
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:What do you mean by conception? Fertilization? Or implantation?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ethically I'd say that personhood begins at conception and therefore the 'some things are better than life' argument, if it applied pre-birth, should apply equally after birth, if it applies at all.
quote:Ken, thanks for this. I never really thought about that before, but as soon as you said it, I could see that you're right. And that does make things intractable.
Originally posted by ken
Disputes of that sort are particularly intractable because they can't be settled by logical argument because they aren't really about differences in understanding or knowledge. "Everything you say is true but it still doesn't change the..."
quote:Fertilization
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:What do you mean by conception? Fertilization? Or implantation?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ethically I'd say that personhood begins at conception and therefore the 'some things are better than life' argument, if it applied pre-birth, should apply equally after birth, if it applies at all.
quote:I don't like it and am ethically opposed to IVF for that reason. Bfeore we were married, Mrs B and I discussed this and agreed that, if we were in difficulty having children, we would go for adoption rather than IVF.
If you mean fertilization, then how do you feel about the freezers full of people at fertility clinics? Or about doctors looking at the blastocytes and deciding which ones to implant and which ones to discard?
quote:That's obviously not practically possible but I believe God knows His own.
And speaking of discarding -- you know that fertilized eggs are discarded by women's bodies at a very high rate, with implantation never occurring. Without implantation, not only does she never know she's pregnant (as might be the case with a very early miscarriage), she is in fact never pregnant. Are those human remains that should be handled with reverence and disposed of with dignity?
quote:This does not make sense. Even if it did, it only covers the people who believe one should have that choice, because the rest of us don't want people to have that choice in the first place. That's why they call us "pro-life".
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
... If you want the vast majority to choose to give birth rather than have an abortion, then you have to make that choice more attractive.
quote:I can't believe you said that!
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
... Punishing some people just makes them more intractable. ...
quote:The fact that I would regard having to raise a child as the punishment for getting pregnant is one of several reasons that I would be arranging for the abortion within minutes of having peed on the stick.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:I can't believe you said that!
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
... Punishing some people just makes them more intractable. ...
Raising a child is not punishment for causing a pregnancy. What would your kids* think if they heard that raising them was your punishment for getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant?
* Perhaps you don't have any. I just don't know. In that case, take the question on a theoretical basis.
quote:For some people, the prospect of raising a child would be experienced as a punishment for causing conception. Of course that's a horrible thing for the kids, and any decent person would try to conceal that fact from their children. It remains, though, that there are some people who are not cut out to be parents, who would hate every moment of it. The fact that it sucks doesn't make it not true. These people should try to avoid becoming parents. What they should do if pregnancy occurs is another matter, but there's no doubt that they exist. You can't make someone enjoy parenting.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
]I can't believe you said that!
Raising a child is not punishment for causing a pregnancy. What would your kids* think if they heard that raising them was your punishment for getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant?
quote:My example was of a mother who loses her job due to pregnancy. The understanding that I got back was that is a suitable punishment for getting pregnant.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:I can't believe you said that!
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
... Punishing some people just makes them more intractable. ...
Raising a child is not punishment for causing a pregnancy.
quote:1) I don't have kids. I teach kids in a low-income area and work with their parents.
I'm What would your kids* think if they heard that raising them was your punishment for getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant?
* Perhaps you don't have any. I just don't know. In that case, take the question on a theoretical basis.
quote:Their kids will know, sooner or later.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
If they have kids ... some will grin and bear it and not reveal how they feel ...
quote:But why run the risk? The world doesn't need more reluctant parents.
... and some will discover that parenthood was better than they expected.
quote:Killing old people is also one. So is killing a particular race of people, or those of a particular faith. How about killing those with an IQ less than 80?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
... We have a variety of means for preventing unwanted additions to the swelling population; abortion is one of these means. ...
quote:I'm talking about caring for children as it pertains to abortion. Like I said earlier, those on the left seem more concerned with choice for women whatever it happens to be. I'll give you an example from this thread.
originally posted by Josephine:
Beeswax Altar, I'm still trying to figure out what you mean when you say that people who want infants and young children to receive adequate nutrition, shelter, and medical care, without regard for the details surrounding the child's conception, don't care about the children. That position seems to me to be specifically about the children, and not about anyone else.
quote:Now, in the rest of that post, Apocalypso goes on to talk about scarce resources, overcrowding, the whole nine yards. Well, guess why China coerces women into having abortions? The Chinese government was concerned about the same things as Apocalypso and implemented a policy to control population growth. Seems to me like the primary concern is that the woman gets to make the choice whatever it happens to be.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
the moral qualms I personally experience over abortion have more to do with coercion, as apparently can happen in China.
quote:Right; the Chinese woman gets no choice. The government chooses for her -- exactly what happens to a poor woman without other resources right now in this country when she tries to use her Medicaid to secure an abortion. Our government says "Sorry; you can't use Federal funds for that. Don't have any other funds? Oh, well."
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Now, in the rest of that post, Apocalypso goes on to talk about scarce resources, overcrowding, the whole nine yards. Well, guess why China coerces women into having abortions? The Chinese government was concerned about the same things as Apocalypso and implemented a policy to control population growth. Seems to me like the primary concern is that the woman gets to make the choice whatever it happens to be.
originally posted by Apocalypso:
the moral qualms I personally experience over abortion have more to do with coercion, as apparently can happen in China.
quote:If this is addressed specifically to me, you are not paying attention. I have already stated, at least twice, that I am not making this claim which you continue to impute to me. Please cease and desist. .
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You want to say the prolife offer expires at birth.
quote:As it happens, parents who are themselves happy and satisfied with their lives (a possibility somewhat diminished, perhaps, by being coerced into child-bearing) tend to raise happier, better-adjusted kids.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What I get from all of that is parents should just do whatever they think will make them happy and hope it doesn't negatively impact their children. After all, the children should just be happy they get a chance to live in the first place. They could have been conveniently terminated.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I'm talking about caring for children as it pertains to abortion.
originally posted by Josephine:
Beeswax Altar, I'm still trying to figure out what you mean when you say that people who want infants and young children to receive adequate nutrition, shelter, and medical care, without regard for the details surrounding the child's conception, don't care about the children. That position seems to me to be specifically about the children, and not about anyone else.
quote:In addition, Apocalypso's argument seems to be that killing unborn children should be used if it reduces the amount of suffering, in which case whilst stop with unborn people - why not painlessly euthanase those children on toxic rubbish heaps (for example)?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Killing old people is also one. So is killing a particular race of people, or those of a particular faith. How about killing those with an IQ less than 80?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
... We have a variety of means for preventing unwanted additions to the swelling population; abortion is one of these means. ...
Population control shouldn't be about killing.
quote:Why not do something about the rubbish heaps? Clean water, affordable housing, jobs and the like. Free contraception and sex education. A better life for the kids and their parents which may even reduce the demand for abortions.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In addition, Apocalypso's argument seems to be that killing unborn children should be used if it reduces the amount of suffering, in which case whilst stop with unborn people - why not painlessly euthanase those children on toxic rubbish heaps (for example)?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
If you think the embryo is a person, it's difficult to see how anyone could think that killing that person is ok.
quote:You and BA are both, I think, right about this.
Both sides have a bit of a tendency to jump into the fray as though the other side are approaching with the same set of presumptions. So the pro-choice lot say "you just want to control women's bodies" and the pro-life people say "yes it's unfortunate that she was raped, but that doesn't excuse murder" and they end up talking past each other.
quote:Going back to the question in the opening post, would one not expect people of differing politics to have a range of opinions about what programmes would be effective in doing this, and how much priority they should have vis a vis other calls on public expenditure ? The article linked to does not attempt to describe the policies it refers to in an objective way, so it's hard for someone outside the USA to know exactly what a lot of them are, but one which is stated in a factual way is a proposal to reduce the age limit for offspring to remain on parents' health insurance from 26.
posted by Josephine
And if we (as Christians, as a community, as a society) would rather she not have an abortion, we need to figure out what we can do to help her choose something else.
quote:Access to affordable healthcare is certainly a factor in the decision for many women. Whether for most, I don't know. Has the CDC (or any similar organization) ever done a study to see why women who have an abortion made that choice?
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
The article linked to does not attempt to describe the policies it refers to in an objective way, so it's hard for someone outside the USA to know exactly what a lot of them are, but one which is stated in a factual way is a proposal to reduce the age limit for offspring to remain on parents' health insurance from 26.
Now I don't know whether that is a good idea or a bad one in a general sense but I would find it quite easy to believe that it is not a factor in most people's decisions about whether to have an abortion.
quote:Children don't necessarily need to be covered into adulthood. However, adequate treatment of chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes can go a long way to ensuring said children live to reach adulthood. There are a few hospitals in the country that have provided free clinics with complete care for those with chronic conditions (known in hospitals as "frequent flyers") and have found there costs cut in half. So it does pay in very specific instances to provide care for adults.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Certainly I would expect access to affordable healthcare for themselves and babies in the near term to be an important factor. I would be slightly surprised if an equal factor were the question of whether the children would still be covered on their health insurance 26 years later or only for the sake of example 21 years later.
But of course I may be wrong about that, it was just an example of something I thought two people who both cared about children could reasonably disagree about. To say about one of them that their concern for children expires at birth seems unwarranted.
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Certainly I would expect access to affordable healthcare for themselves and babies in the near term to be an important factor. I would be slightly surprised if an equal factor were the question of whether the children would still be covered on their health insurance 26 years later or only for the sake of example 21 years later.
quote:Until it's eliminated or slashed so far that they no longer qualify. You've not been paying attention to what's going on in the several states. Check out Wisconsin and what Walker is doing to Badgercare as a place to start.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pregnant women who can't afford health insurance qualify for Medicaid.
quote:In the article I quoted children at least are denied services - even by providers who are listed as taking Medicaid. I'd imagine this follows through for pregnant women as well as OB/Gyn is a specialist and it's specialists that are denying treatment.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pregnant women who can't afford health insurance qualify for Medicaid.
quote:Where did I ever say that?! My statement was for the children in the study on Medicaid that are now being denied treatment - even for chronic illnesses that can kill them. Read the article that I linked to and at least the sentence that I included from that article that's in italics. Then come back and we'll talk.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Nor would I understand the mentality you mention Niteowl, but I don't think that it's right to call a reduction in the age for children to remain on parent's insurance from 26 to eg 21 as saying 'you are on your own after birth'.
quote:And that would be a non sequitur.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:In the article I quoted children at least are denied services - even by providers who are listed as taking Medicaid. I'd imagine this follows through for pregnant women as well as OB/Gyn is a specialist and it's specialists that are denying treatment.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pregnant women who can't afford health insurance qualify for Medicaid.
quote:I did mention the kids would be forced to get care in the ER - the most expensive care on the planet - if they couldn't get the specialist care they need.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:And that would be a non sequitur.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:In the article I quoted children at least are denied services - even by providers who are listed as taking Medicaid. I'd imagine this follows through for pregnant women as well as OB/Gyn is a specialist and it's specialists that are denying treatment.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pregnant women who can't afford health insurance qualify for Medicaid.
Besides that, the study only addressed Cook County in Illinois and the details of the study seemed a bit suspicious. Even in Cook County, the children still would have gotten care at Emergency Rooms or County Hospitals. If you suspected your 13 year old had a broken arm, wouldn't you go to the ER instead of trying to make an appointment with a specialist?
quote:No problem. I would suggest reading the article I linked to as it's very different from what Josephine linked to. It's strictly with kids. I only mentioned adults because you did - and I specifically mentioned healthy adults could get by with coverage unless catastrophe occurred.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am sorry Niteowl, if you thought I was attributing any opinion about the age limit policy to you. That was not my meaning at all. Probably I should have reused the words expires at birth rather than yours, which I used because I preferred your expression not because I was attributing any opinion to you.
I was simply referring to the article Josephine liked to, which suggested that those supporting a range of policies are people who ceased to care once children were born. I was saying that this did not seem a fair characterisation of one of the policies mentioned there.
Probably I should leave it there as this is obviously a very controversial topic and I am not a very controversial person. I tend to find people on the ship of fools interpret me as arguing with them when I'm not at all, and I can't seem to express myself in a way that avoids this, so I had better return to the sidelines.
quote:I suppose that would be up to the people running Medicaid in Illinois. Democrats from Illinois aren't likely to be prolife stalwarts. So...I'm not sure how the way Democrats in Illinois run Medicaid applies to the subject of the thread.
originally posted by Niteowl2:
I did mention the kids would be forced to get care in the ER - the most expensive care on the planet - if they couldn't get the specialist care they need.
There have been recent cuts in rates paid to doctors who accept Medicaid and there have been reports of docs no longer accepting Medicaid patients or denying certain types of patients or treatments. Instead of paying high rates to ER's and contributing to the log jam there, why not just the docs more money? You'll still save money in the long run.
quote:The study was specifically Illinois, but the problem isn't. It's also happening here in California - which I also mentioned - and I imagine other states as the rates doctors are paid have been cut dramatically. Doctors are bailing and those that are still in the program are refusing to see Medicaid patients with chronic illnesses in their practice. This forces those patients into the ER, for which the taxpaying public will pay for through higher medical costs and insurance premiums, when there is a crisis, which with asthma and diabetes can easily be fatal. This isn't rocket science Beeswax.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I suppose that would be up to the people running Medicaid in Illinois. Democrats from Illinois aren't likely to be prolife stalwarts. So...I'm not sure how the way Democrats in Illinois run Medicaid applies to the subject of the thread.
originally posted by Niteowl2:
I did mention the kids would be forced to get care in the ER - the most expensive care on the planet - if they couldn't get the specialist care they need.
There have been recent cuts in rates paid to doctors who accept Medicaid and there have been reports of docs no longer accepting Medicaid patients or denying certain types of patients or treatments. Instead of paying high rates to ER's and contributing to the log jam there, why not just the docs more money? You'll still save money in the long run.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QB] What goal shifting?[QB]
quote:As you read the OP, I'm sure you noticed that I called the article a "bit of polemic." I wasn't interested in defending it. I simply used it as a jumping-off point for the conversation here.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did you read the article in the OP? I've maintained the article was a load of bullshit.
quote:I'm on Medi-Cal/Medicaid. Many doctors had bailed out long before the last few rounds of budget cuts. And many of those who remain will only take Medi-Cal patients who also have Medicare. Medicare pays more (and more quickly IIRC). Even before all these cuts, Medi-Cal paid so little for office visits, was so recalcitrant, and took so long that some docs didn't even bother to bill them. Fortunately, I do have Medicare. (Possible cuts there are a whole 'nother Oprah.)
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It's also happening here in California - which I also mentioned - and I imagine other states as the rates doctors are paid have been cut dramatically. Doctors are bailing and those that are still in the program are refusing to see Medicaid patients with chronic illnesses in their practice. This forces those patients into the ER, for which the taxpaying public will pay for through higher medical costs and insurance premiums, when there is a crisis, which with asthma and diabetes can easily be fatal. This isn't rocket science Beeswax.
quote:So?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pregnant women who can't afford health insurance qualify for Medicaid.
quote:What do you mean "even"?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even some of the Republicans are prochoice.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed they are. Those circumstances are rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
quote:I know a fair number of people who describe themselves as pro-life who could equally well be described as pro-choice, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" seem to me to be shibboleths that identify you as "one of us" or "one of them" rather than anything that accurately describes a political position.
Minus those exceptions, the nation as a whole is split evenly on the right to choose with 68% of Republicans describing their views as pro-life.
quote:Go ahead and look at any state in the union. Doesn't matter whether run by Dems or GOP. Facts are Medicaid rates have been cut, docs are either dumping those patients or not taking those with chronic conditions. You must not be close to being a rocket scientist as you aren't getting even the simplest of facts, instead choosing partisanship as an argument. As long as you want to play that game there is no talking to you.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Jerry Brown. But, California is another state run by Democrats. Even some of the Republicans are prochoice. Californians also have no clue what they really want and vote accordingly. Voter fickleness leads to economic chaos. How does this prove that prolifers don't care about children and the offer of life expires at birth? You've got a rather limited study and personal experiences that suggest Medicaid dollars in states run by prochoice politicians aren't spent efficiently.
quote:To be strictly fair the constitution of California with its weird system for the raising of taxes (requiring a two thirds majority to do so) means that if a sufficiently large group is playing hardball, then nobody runs the place. Every collection has its pathological example - California is it in terms of constitutional strangeness.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Jerry Brown. But, California is another state run by Democrats.
quote:Tell me about it. I self-identify as pro-choice, and when we discovered our third baby was going to have an "alternative lifestyle" due to gross skeletal abnormalities, I exercised my choice and chose to continue with the pregnancy. One of the hospital doctors told me that I was pro-life; as soon as I chose not to abort, according to him, I ceased to be pro-choice. According to him "pro-choice" meant having the right to choose an abortion, not the right to choose not to abort. According to him, by making a choice, I had ceased to be pro-choice!
I know a fair number of people who describe themselves as pro-life who could equally well be described as pro-choice, and I'm sure the reverse is true as well. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" seem to me to be shibboleths that identify you as "one of us" or "one of them" rather than anything that accurately describes a political position.
quote:American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
quote:Ha ha I wouldn't put it past them.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
quote:only if they're on welfare...
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
quote:He didn't say that they plan to do it, but that they accept it. As in, in the past. In Noah's flood. Get it? get it?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:American Republicans have plans to drown all the children in a world wide flood!
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I suspect that most prolife, American, republicans see nothing hypocritical in beleaving that drowning all the children in a world wide flood is just and right.
quote:My God. I can't imagine.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I know four people who have had late abortions of wanted babies. (Three personally, one the daughter of someone I knew personally.) It's a horrendous situation. None of them stopped loving their babies despite aborting them. None of them could see any prospect of a good life for their babies. I have no doubt that all four ended their pregnancies unselfishly, because they felt that not living was the best thing for their baby.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:What does that have to do with anything on this thread?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Because all Republicans but no Democrats are biblical literalists?
I beg to differ.
quote:You just. don't. get. it. It's not about making blanket rules. It's about each woman having to make a terrible decision. See birdie's post.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, let's come up with a list of birth defects or illnesses that make it in the best interest of the child to be aborted. Then, we can abort all babies that are known to suffer from those conditions.
quote:If you'll just admit you would sacrifice two children you already have to give birth to a third, then I'll be happy to drop the whole thing.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...I get it.
If you'll all admit with Apocalypso, that you don't really care anymore about the children than those prolifers condemned in the OP, I'll be happy drop the whole thing.
quote:No it doesn't. They are going to tax you to pay for medical care and welfare for the kids the right-wingers are happy to watch starve on street corners once they are born.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Fortunately, the prochoice offer expires at birth.
quote:Did you read what North East Quine and Birdie posted? Because this is one of the crassest replies I've yet to see to posters who have shared with you what it's like to actually face these decisions as a mother. I daresay there is plenty crassness and silliness on the thread to go round, but attempting some kind of empathy when addressing the thoughtful posts of people who have bothered to share with you some of the most painful experiences of their lives would be nice.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh...I get it.
If you'll all admit with Apocalypso, that you don't really care anymore about the children than those prolifers condemned in the OP, I'll be happy drop the whole thing.
quote:I wouldn't have posted again on this thread.
originally posted by RuthW:
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
quote:We had two diagnoses; one at 20 weeks which would have meant our child would grow up to have an "alternative lifestyle" - gross skeletal deformity, but people with that condition have gone on to have good lives; marriage, children, careers, paralympic swimmers. However each scan showed that our baby was towards the severe end of the condition and at 34 weeks the diagnosis changed to the "thanatophoric" form of the condition i.e. inevitably fatal. And our baby did, in fact, die in utero at days short of 40 weeks.
What about the people already living with those defects or illnesses?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Because making an effort to respond thoughtfully to other thoughtful posts is a way to improve the debate for everyone, and it can help to develop empathy on these issues beyond knee-jerk attacks, as I found from considering the heart-breaking experiences of people who don't share my views for whom the loss of even very early pregnancies was a tragedy. That really made me think about how these issues can be approached to take account of their feelings too. It can move us beyond our own comfort zones and open us up to some understanding of others who believe differently or give us new perspectives on what it's like really to face those situations.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Josephine started this thread with crassness.
Why expect something more on day 8 and page 5?
For what it's worth...if RuthW had left this part out her post...
quote:I wouldn't have posted again on this thread.
originally posted by RuthW:
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
quote:I don't see how why you think what I posted was crass. But I will rephrase.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Josephine started this thread with crassness.
Why expect something more on day 8 and page 5?
For what it's worth...if RuthW had left this part out her post...
quote:I wouldn't have posted again on this thread.
originally posted by RuthW:
And as far as I'm concerned, that people who want their babies can bring themselves to abort them totally puts paid to the idea that life is always necessarily the best thing.
quote:If we're talking (as I think we are) about babies who are only going to suffer and then die soon after birth, whatever we do, I personally have no problem with legalised euthanasia for them, before or after birth.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For me, though, such an argument would be pro-infanticide as well as pro-abortion: if life is so bad that death is the kinder option before birth then why not afterwards too?
