homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » * offer expires at birth (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: * offer expires at birth
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Note to hosts: I put this in purg, not dh, because I want to discuss programs that provide healthcare, nutrition support, and the like, as they relate to the pro-life movement. I don't want to discuss abortion on this thread. If you don't think that works for purg, that's okay. It can be moved.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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?

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.


*Offer expires at birth

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048

 - Posted      Profile for Jessie Phillips     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not opposed to abortion - however, I fail to see how an acknowledged risk that a child might die shortly after birth can really be used as an argument in favour of having the child killed before birth.

Personally, I'd have thought that the survival prospects of the mother, and any prior children she has, are far more important in weighing up the rights and the wrongs.

[ 13. June 2011, 14:36: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]

Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The difference lies in the assumption implicit in the idea that they are the same that there is a collective duty on society to provide for the needs of its members THAT SOCIETY SHOULD ENFORCE. 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. The pro-life position argues that she has a duty of care to the baby because it is a human being that will only survive if it is in her womb. And note that it requires a positive act to have the abortion - if events are allowed to unfold the child will be born.

By contrast the default position is that society will not provide for the mother and her child. It requires a positive act to force the other individuals in society to give up what is theirs in order to provide for them.

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).

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've encountered the attitude to which Liopleurodon alludes on more conservative Christian discussion boards. Those holding that view see it as being wholly consistent; even when I point out that they are effectively punishing the children for the sins of the parents, they would respond to the effect that that is the parent(')(s)(') responsibility.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048

 - Posted      Profile for Jessie Phillips     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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!

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.

For this reason, if a child died before they were 12 months old, then it would be almost unheard of for the state to take enforcement action against the parents over the matter.

It's only because infant mortality has fallen so far, and because the state started to find itself able to take enforcement action against parents for killing their own children shortly after birth, that the need for abortion arose in the first place. Or so it seems to me. The idea that children under 12 months old should be afforded anything like the same protection by the state that anyone over that age gets, is itself a very recent idea.

Indeed, if children are really "members" of the state in the way that Ender's Shadow suggests - then why aren't they allowed to vote? I think you're overestimating the extent to which children are considered members of the state.

[ 13. June 2011, 14:47: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]

Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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).

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.

The Church (general all encompassing all denominations) has failed to care for those who cannot care for themselves. If we define ourselves as Christian nation (I'm not saying we are, others are) then we have an obligation to ensure proper healthcare and nutrition for children.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe among radical conservatives there's an unspoken hierarchy of importance: female personal responsibility is of higher value than life.

This would make everything Croesos describes consistent. A pro-life organization would not need to endorse contraception, as women have the personal responsiblity not to have sex unless and until certain conditions are met. These conditions include virginity before marriage, a stable functioning marriage, and adequate mental and financial resources for appropriate family planning.

If a woman chooses to have sex (or does not choose and is raped) it is her personal responsibility to bear to term and raise a child. It is nice and better if the biological father accepts some responsibility too, but that does not seem to be in focus.

Logically, if personal responsibility is the measure for all things, why on earth would systemic programs NOT be cut? They diminish the personal responsibility of a mother to support her child, and they attack the personal responsibility of a citizen who should be free to choose to give by charity and not be compelled by the state to give to a collectivist program.

The fact that life requires multiple systems of communal support is merely a complicating factor which does not fit the ideology. Even then, one could argue that a woman has the personal responsibility to locate support through freely-chosen associations: family, friends, people who volunteer for breakfast and literacy programs. Ad hoc, minimal, or crappy programs at least support the ideology of personal responsiblity, however damaging to actual life they may be.

I'm not against personal responsibility; I just don't think it's more important than life, which is why I support the use of my tax dollars to support many collectivist programs including health care.

I suppose it's easier, cheaper, and more fun to just yell at women about their personal responsibility than to undertake the complicated, collective, and costly work of actually trying to support life.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

Not that new. Ancient Athens and ancient Rome both provided a sort of dole to the unemployed and poor citizens.

Rome by handing out bread (& circuses!), Athens by the Cunning Plan of drafting them into the legislature and paying them a wage for turning up to vote. I wonder what your modern-day conservatives would think of that?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ES: I think we'd all love to live in a world in which pregnancy only occurred in the best possible circumstances but the fact is that whatever culture you live in, whatever the moral ideals, there will be some women and girls who become pregnant and have nobody to help them. This has always been the way, in every single society, and women who have already been through a lot of abuse are particularly at risk. If you are serious about every foetus having a right to life, you need to take this reality into account. If you allow the plight of these women to become completely impossible, more abortions will happen, more babies will be abandoned and more women will be driven into dire situations like prostitution.* It's all very well saying "she should have kept her clothes on" but that's not the world we live in, and never has been. Even where it all seemed perfect at the point of conception, things can go wrong. I have one friend whose husband walked out on her and her baby son with no warning. I have another friend whose husband suddenly, completely unexpectedly turned violent during her pregnancy and she had to leave for her own safety. In both cases, they had the support to cope. What if they hadn't?

*In many times and places the only way of feeding your kid without outside help.

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

And, supporters of legalized abortion want to kill as many babies as possible.

[ 13. June 2011, 15:09: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

This, on the other hand, is more or less the right answer.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

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...

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.

An analogy: one can consistently believe it to be an absolute moral duty attempt to outlaw the direct involutary "euthanising" of tramps/hobos/street-people without also accepting that one has a duty to sustain a particular kind of funding program to support their welfare.

Even if you think we ought to support particular schemes for thier upkeep, if I fail to contribute to a particular welfare program for such people I am far less morally culpable than someone else who just offs them to clear the streets, no?

I note in passing that I fully endorse programs such as that run by the Sisters of the Gospel of Life who promise to support the mother financially so that the abort/keep choice need not be made on an economic basis.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Given that distinction, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe such a position as "anti-abortion" rather that "pro-life"?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But it's these conditions that drive so many women to have abortions in the first place. Knowing that the child is going to live a life of dismal poverty, very possibly dying young from some chronic disease that the mother can't afford to treat, and so forth. The "inconvenience" slander is blinkered.

It would be like seeing a man about to jump to his death from a bridge and coming behind him and whispering that his life is not worth living and nobody gives a crap about him and he might as well jump, and then blaming him and him alone for jumping. The anti-support pro-lifers set up the situation in which abortion can be seen by the pregnant woman as the least-worst option. The anti-contraception ones even more so.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a very conservative friend (it's a difficult friendship for me, though now a long distance one for the last seven years)who is essentially a single issue voter -- position on abortion is her litmus test. She is also an extreme political-economic conservative who is basically anti-welfare. I don't know how she justifies these positions and frankly I do everything I can to avoid engaging in political discussion with her. What I do perceive is that the underlying dynamics which infuse her conscious attitudes about a whole range of things include a repressive personality style, excessive use of denial as a defence mechanism, in turn lending to over-optimistic attitudes and pollyanna views, yet at the same time an apparent envy and resentment focused on other people somehow "getting away" with things or beating the system, e.g. she'd rather have a sizeable national sales tax/VAT in the US rather than an income tax, specifically so that drug dealers and other criminal elements wouldn't be able to avoid paying taxes. She pours psychological energy into neutralising the expression of both sexuality and aggression, while insightlessly acting-out and attitudinally manifesting her hostility in other respects. I doubt that she is unique in these factors amongst a particular subset of political conservatives who are opposed vigorously both to abortion and to post-natal social measures intended to secure the welfare of disadvantaged children.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, the choice isn't between abortion or the child being raised in dismal poverty. Adoption is always an option. Because it is, a person opposed to legalized abortion can support the elimination of the programs mentioned in the OP and still claim to be pro-life.

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.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

I repeat - there is a coherent position of political philosophy that endorses the 'abortion should be a criminal offence but the state has no duty to provide for the poor' position. You can challenge its morality / desirability etc. But you can't deny that it is coherent.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But you can't deny that it is coherent.

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.

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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've yet to see anybody promoting a government policy that will even make the problem better...

Leave a bin containing free condoms with explanatory leaflets in every public place frequented by people of childbearing age. Including schools and universities.

After a few weeks kids will get bored with using them as balloons or pulling them over their heads. And then no-one will be able to use lack of condoms as an excuse not to use contraception ever again.

Also rubber manufacturers will be very happy.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

She's not getting any prenatal care. If she carries the pregnancy, she'll have to go to the ER for delivery once she's already in labor, since she can't make the upfront payment the doctor and hospital will require. And then she'll have a huge bill, and will have to decide between paying that and buying food and clothing for her children. Not to mention daycare while she's at work. But work won't be a problem -- if she takes time away from work to give birth, she'll lose all three jobs anyway. If she loses all three jobs, she'll lose the apartment where she and her two children live.

This is reality for many women. Saying that she could put the baby up for adoption doesn't help. If she keeps the baby, she and her three children face dismal poverty.

I think abortion is evil. But I understand what would make a woman decide it is the least evil of the choices she faces.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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:
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.

Except we're not talking about government provision of contraception, just the pro-life* movement's general opposition to it even being available.


*Offer expires at birth

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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?

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Depends on what you see as the problem. I believe the underlying problem is moral bankruptcy. Passing out free condoms does nothing to fix that.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.


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.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But you can't deny that it is coherent.

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.

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.

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.

If one is serious about eliminating abortion, birth control must be a part of the equation. In a perfect world there would be stable families with sufficient income. We don't live in a perfect world and people are going to have sex: single and married people who cannot afford children are going to sex. Prenatal care should be provided for women who cannot obtain insurance and who cannot afford health care. This cuts costs in the future as it prevents birth defects and other problems that cost a lot of money down the line. In the case of the poor, or even in adoptions where care is subsidized by the state, end up costing the taxpayer. Laying off the costs of the uninsured individual who cannot afford coverage or health care for the child will cost the taxpayer in higher premiums and higher medical costs when bills are defaulted on.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

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.

But classing someone who thought that people ought not to have abortions and who at the same time nevertheless thought that any one particular publicly funded program to support those who have to care for children was not prudentially justifiable as either plain inconsistent or as a hypocrite does not strike me as reasonable. There can be all sorts of reasons why particular child-support programs could be or appear to a person to be deficent or otherwise undesirable.

Of course, some people are just hypocrites on this issue, caring less about people than striking the right ideological pose. But the vast majority of pro-lifers I know are just that - i.e., for people having the chance to enjoy decent lives - not merely anti-abortion.

But having a decent stab at a decent life begins with not having the very life itself stabbed out of you in the womb. People who can grasp that first vital principle but who fail to follow through on what would make for a good life and what social arrangements would be best to support those lives may still not be wrong about that principle merely because of their failure to think out the follow-through.

The impulse to protect life from and at the earliest stage is, as far as I'm concerned, good in itself - prima facie, a sign of intuitive moral decency.

[ 13. June 2011, 18:38: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I expect there is a pond difference for the politics of pro-lifers in the UK and US respectively, with the ones in the US being more the type who make a fetish of the foetus but seem to care not a fig what happens to the kid once it's born.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You can't have it both ways.

The point is either to have an honest conversation about the issue or to characterize the opinions of those who disagree with you in a way that makes you feel better than they are. Chesterbelloc and Enders Shadow are responding in the same vein as the OP article and Alogon's subsequent posts. Forget Dead Horses. If the point is for both sides to feel holier-than-thou, they can both talk past each other in Hell.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

Except we're not talking about government provision of contraception, just the pro-life* movement's general opposition to it even being available.

I've NEVER come across that sort of attitude, except perhaps in the Republic of Ireland, and it is inconsistent with the libertarian, pro-choice position to which I am referring. That such exist is, of course, less coherent, which was the basis of this debate. I'm arguing - and only arguing - that an anti-abortion position is entirely consistent, as a political philosophy, with a rejection of state support for children etc. I'm not arguing this is a Christian position. I'm not suggesting it's my position. I'm merely responding to the initial OP which failed to see how such a view could be held.

And the core issue is, and remains, whether you believe the state is there to punish evil, or to protect, pro-actively, those subject to the effects of evil. The historical view of our societies was the former. It's no longer fashionable. That doesn't make the historical view wrong - indeed the GDP available in the past makes the expenditures of the modern welfare state inconceivable. But that's the core question. 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.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Then I'm Donne for - but I'm more shaped by (if not yet like) Chesterton.
quote:
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.

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.

So I'm not apologising for the starkness of my expression there - any more that I expect my opponents to do when putting the other case. Let us all be honest.

If anyone who reads what I wrote feels badly about what I wrote because they have had some direct personal experience of abortion I do apologise for any unnecessary distress caused - but 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.

We don't feel bad if by talking about the horrible wrongness of murder we make people who have been complicit in acts of murder feel bad - because we're meant to feel bad about murder. For anti-abortionists like me, the same applies for abortion.

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. If the stuff that's involved in terminating a pregnancy is not morally wrong, why shrink from a description of it (and please note that I didn't provide anything like a graphic one)? I've done pretty terrible things myself, but no part of my coming to terms with what I've done has been by other people cautiously not mentioning that they hold such generic acts to be deeply wrong, just in case I happened to have committed them. The same would apply a fortiori for acts which were not in fact wrong in themselves.

Ok, I've got shunted into a sidetrack here. Sorry 'bout that.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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".

There is a logically coherent position that holds:

1) The role of the state is to punish criminals
2) Abortion is murder

Therefore abortion should be illegal. That doesn't mean that opposition to abortion is 'motivated by love of liberty'. It doesn't have anything to say on the idea that 'contraception is abortion'. I'm guessing you are referring to IUDs - which it is possible to argue are a form of abortion. But that's not the same as all contraception. Regardless of that, the above premises lead to that conclusion. It's logically coherent. It's unfashionable - but it's logically coherent. It explains the attitude of an element in the pro-life movement. Which is what the OP was asking about.

--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.

Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

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".

To drag this back to the OP, you don't need to have a worked out idea about what precise kind of post-natal support for mothers is best all round to know the harm that abortion can do to women as well as prenates. So opposing the epidemically widepsread practice of abortion in one of the world's most economically well-developed countries whilst not thinking the general taxpayer has a particular fiscal duty to support mothers to a particular suggested level is not necessarily to be a hypocrite or a moron.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

And precisely has said this? It certainly isn't me or anyone else on this thread.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Adoption?

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
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.

And precisely has said this? It certainly isn't me or anyone else on this thread.
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?

quote:
Beeswax Altar said:
quote:
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.

Adoption?
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. [Disappointed]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I think this is a good and active discussion, it just seems too DH for Purgatory. So I'll send it where it can roam more freely. Hang on...

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Tom. I thought it might end up moving. I really do want to talk about social supports for low-income women and children. But we can do that here, too.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.

Adoption?
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.

She may well believe that abortion is evil. But she may not see that she has any choice.

If you are truly pro-life (and not just anti-abortion or anti-sex or anti-woman), then it seems to me that you would want to help her choose to keep her baby alive, whatever it takes. Even if it means paying more taxes, and funding healthcare and childcare and job training. That's going to cost you something -- but that's okay, isn't it, if what comes of that is saving these innocent lives?

I understand the idea that someone who wants to take care of mothers and babies might oppose the details of this program or that subsidy -- but it doesn't seem to me that they oppose the details of a particular program. The people I know on the religious right tend to oppose any and all such programs. They don't seem to connect healthcare and childcare and job training with keeping babies alive. They don't see how they're related.

I think Liopleurodon may have it right.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.

Adoption?
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.

She may well believe that abortion is evil. But she may not see that she has any choice.

If you are truly pro-life (and not just anti-abortion or anti-sex or anti-woman), then it seems to me that you would want to help her choose to keep her baby alive, whatever it takes. Even if it means paying more taxes, and funding healthcare and childcare and job training. That's going to cost you something -- but that's okay, isn't it, if what comes of that is saving these innocent lives?

I understand the idea that someone who wants to take care of mothers and babies might oppose the details of this program or that subsidy -- but it doesn't seem to me that they oppose the details of a particular program. The people I know on the religious right tend to oppose any and all such programs. They don't seem to connect healthcare and childcare and job training with keeping babies alive. They don't see how they're related.

I think Liopleurodon may have it right.
quote:
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.
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.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools