|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: * offer expires at birth
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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)
Oh come on, Mousethief, do you expect any prolifer to believe you really care about the children after a response like that? 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."
--------------------
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
quote:
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?
I really don't give a flying fuck what 99% of the pro-lifers think about me.
Again this "irresponsibility" red herring. That gets so tiresome.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
So why should they care what you think about them?
Irresponsibility is not a red herring. Most abortions happen because of unwanted pregnancies. Most unwanted pregnancies happen because people were behaving irresponsibility.
I believe that responsible people through a number of reasons can fall on hard times and need support. Several government programs exist to help people like that but much more could be done. In my view, the right wing could care less about those people. 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? And, yes, I've had plenty of opportunity to meet both types.
--------------------
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
quote:
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".
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".
On the other hand, a collection of anecdotes is not the same as data, so maybe all of CB's female acquaintances felt bad not because they had abortions but because they talked to him about it. It does seem to be the common factor.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So why should they care what you think about them?
Ask yourself; you brought it up.
quote:
Most unwanted pregnancies happen because people were behaving irresponsibility.
Proof?
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
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."
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.
We can make the consequences extremely punitive -- in which case, instead of having babies, women will have abortions. Or we can mitigate the consequences as much as we can, "preserving the right to act irresponsibly at all cost," because in doing that, we can be reasonably well assured that women will, in most cases, choose to have babies instead of abortions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
quote:
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.
By subsidizing bad choices?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
By subsidizing bad choices? [/QB]
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.
*expires at birth
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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."
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.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
Ah. As I thought. No Proof. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
By subsidizing bad choices?
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'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
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
[ 14. June 2011, 08:32: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
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.
OK, here's the Liopleurodon Plan. Note that this is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. It doesn't have any other agenda.
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.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
Ah. As I thought. No Proof. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
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.
quote:
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."
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.
quote:
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.
So does adoption.
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.
I said the problem was moral bankruptcy in Western society. Your plan does nothing to address what is in my opinion the root problem.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
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.
OK, here's the Liopleurodon Plan. Note that this is aimed at reducing the number of abortions. It doesn't have any other agenda.
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.
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
So does adoption.
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:
[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.
I said the problem was moral bankruptcy in Western society. Your plan does nothing to address what is in my opinion the root problem.
But banning abortions does?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
If the problem is, in fact, "moral bankruptcy" then frankly I'm not surprised that nobody has a plan for that because if I'm honest I don't really know what "moral bankruptcy" is. If you're saying that people in today's society are completely bereft of any kind of moral instinct or principle whatsoever, this is clearly utter crap. Perhaps you could explain in more concrete terms the sort of behaviour you want to see.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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. I'm willing to put a check on the selfishness of the wealthy. However, irresponsibility is also a problem that must be addressed. The OT passage about leaving the corners of the fields for the poor gets mentioned with some regularity. Note, the poor actually had to go into the field and harvest that food.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Adoption, as noted by Josephine, does not protect a woman's older children from homelessness / other harms if their mother loses her job and home.
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.
In addition, adoption in the US is not necessarily permanent. I've forgotten the source now, but a surprising percentage of adopted children get "returned" to state support when the adoptive parents discover that the child is not what they expected/hoped for, etc.
And lastly, women who have relinquished children for adoption have not been studied nearly as widely as adoptees, but at least one study I read indicates that they suffer far more from depression and other mental health issues, have higher suicide rates, a lowered sense of trust, higher divorce rates (despite lower marriage rates), etc. than the general population. (The study I read, years ago, was before the onset of more "open" adoption schemes; I don't know if that's changed the picture.)
And finally, many children put up for adoption don't get adopted. A single complicating feature -- the presence of a disability (or possible disability), mixed racial heritage, nonwhite heritage (white babies are in much higher demand than non-white), or any "questionable" aspect of the mother's history -- and the baby is very apt to remain in state custody through age 18, with all that implies: frequent moves, risk of abuse, no education post high school, etc.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Still, it goes beyond that. Selfishness is a part of the moral bankruptcy. We now see freedom as the right to be selfish. Poverty is in part a problem because even if people work hard they can't always get out of poverty. The rich want to get richer and richer. Most of them don't care if their getting richer and richer destroys families and communities. Politicians who claim to care about family values, but really only care about getting elected, help the wealthy destroy families and communities.
That's before we even get to messages embedded in pop culture.
In a nutshell, that's what I mean by moral bankruptcy.
quote:
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.
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.
I thought this was about right to lifers who didn't care about children? I'm seeing a ton of evidence on this thread suggesting that its not just right wingers who don't care about the children. Both sides should be honest and admit the children are really of secondary importance to them.
[ 14. June 2011, 13:56: 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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
As far as Josephine's hard case, she is of course benefiting from that principle that hard cases make bad law. One can always construct a scenario where abortion seems the best way out - though it is important to note here that there is an implicit assumption that the unborn child doesn't have which we should be defending. However it is interesting to note that the UK - where a woman in her scenario would not be sacked because of pregnancy (or would get LOTS of money if she could prove that she was) - has a similar rate to the US one (see here). It's also only fair to comment that pro-life groups do routinely provide meaningful support to women considering an abortion as a supplement to what the state offers, and part of the model of most pro-lifers would be to point to that as the right source for people to turn to, rather than the state. At which point we come down to the usual debate about the relative roles of state and private provision - and, of course, the observation that left wing voters give less to charity.
--------------------
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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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.
Whoa. Can we unpack this a little?
A married woman has two kids. Her husband leaves her, disappears, provides no support. She ends up on welfare, or working 3 PT jobs, etc. This woman knows full well that her whole family will do better if she re-marries, has a working partner and a second role-model (beyond herself) for her kids.
She therefore seeks to meet potential mates. And she's doing so from a really poor position: she's been rejected already, her self-esteem is probably wounded; she's financially compromised, and so can't avail herself of settings/activities where money's needed to gain access; she's worn out, depressed, stressed, etc., and in short, desperate.
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:
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.
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?
So, if we ARE all in this together, perhaps it makes sense to ensure that any child, regardless of the circumstances of its birth, has a decent shot at becoming the working, taxpaying, voting citizen who benefits all of society, rather than fussing ourselves over whether or not any given woman's kids have different fathers, should have been seeking a new partner at the country club or Chamber of Commerce meeting she couldn't afford to attend, and failed, sans medical insurance or disposable income, to equip herself with a diaphragm & spermicide, etc.?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Enders Shadow
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.
[ 14. June 2011, 14:20: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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?
Ask Joesphine...she introduced the hypothetical woman in the first place.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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!
Its also been shown in the USA - I don't know about other countries - that people who practice a religion, almost any religion, give more than those who don't. I read one article that claimed that charitable giving varied almost in proportion to the number of times someone went to church in a year, which seems extreme.
Women give more than men as far as I know, single people more than married, and older more than younger.
So the archetypal charitable giver would be a deeply religious elderly poor widow.
Somehow that isn't surprising!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
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. ...
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
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...
quote:
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.
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. ...
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Did one of the programs the OP article complains were being cut cover cases like that?
If so, which one?
--------------------
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
Besides, abandoning an underage child is already a crime.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm pleased to see the abortion discussion moving beyond the usual practice of discussing only abortion in isolation and into the broader social context.
I've been fascinated to see the comparison between Canada and the USA on this, because there is no abortion law at all her, it is totally a medical and social decision. And the abortion rate is lower in Canada. We have thought, as the OP premise suggests, that better social support in terms of money to single moms via government programs is the main reason. Probably it is true.
The statements about "giving to the poor" reflects individual donations doesn't it? This may be directed appropriately to alleviate social problems or piecemeal at particular segments or persons. While it is a good to have individual donations, it is certainly better that taxation cover basic social welfare, including support for those accidentally pregnant, and whatever choices they make, and it is through this public funding that abortion becomes less chosen.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Once more, with feeling: ickyness does not correlate with rightness / wrongness.
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.
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
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?
WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
[Tangent]
quote:
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.
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.
[/Tangent]
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
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?
WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
So, all the government offers underage pregnant girls abandoned by their parents is WIC?
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
The whole idea that "we're not going to help you take care of your baby because you wouldn't have gotten pregnant if you weren't irresponsible" just doesn't set well with me. For one thing, punishment isn't a particularly effective tool for building pro-social, appropriate, desirable, moral behavior.
Punishment can be used to deter undesirable behavior. But it's a tricky tool. Yes, people want to avoid punishment. But they may not avoid punishment by avoiding the behavior you're targeting. If young women know that the punishment for having sex is having a baby, that doesn't mean they won't have sex. It's just as likely to mean they'll have an abortion. I suppose it depends on which behavior you're really targeting -- irresonsible sex, or abortion.
And I'd genuinely worry that focusing on parental responsibility could backfire in a big way in a few years, and lead to a major increase in abortions. Once we're able to identify genetic anomalies in the womb, will parents who choose to have a child with Down syndrome, or autism, or some rare recessive disorder that you and I have never heard of, be considered "irresponsible"? If we're all in it together, you could argue that they're responsible for not wasting resources by bringing such a child into the world. If they choose to bring it into the world, they're on their own.
If you believe that we all, as a community, should ensure that children receive decent food and housing and medical care and education, whether their parents are model citizens or bums, then then we'll fund the programs necessary to do that. If we don't believe that, if we believe it's up to the parents alone, and if the parents can't or won't do it, it's just too bad, then I think we will have many more abortions.
I haven't yet seen any evidence to the contrary.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Once more, with feeling: ickyness does not correlate with rightness / wrongness.
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.
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.
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.
The anti-abortion lobby major on the much rarer late cases, and don't point out that these are actually rare, not the norm for an abortion, and most abortions are relatively minor procedures medically.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
This thread started out with the claim that because some prolifers supported cutting some programs that in fact they didn't care about children. After all, if WIC is cut by 10%, children will obviously starve to death in droves. I'm not sure how we got from there to here.
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.
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. At some point, a long term solution to the problem will mean finding a better way to meet the needs of children with irresponsible and bad parents without condoning the behavior of bad parents. Unfortunately, that solution will probably be condescending at best and possibly mean to the bad parents. It would be nice if those parents would then use their freedom of choice not to put themselves, their children, and the rest of society in a bad situation.
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. 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. However, in theory, everybody claims to care about children. So, here we are...
--------------------
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
quote:
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.
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.
Now imaging "D&C"ing that. Not "icky"? Are you serious?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
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?
WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
So, all the government offers underage pregnant girls abandoned by their parents is WIC?
Yes, that's exactly what I said. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Proof?
Well, we kind of know where babies come from and how to prevent pregnancies now don't we?
Ah. As I thought. No Proof. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
We don't know where babies come from? We don't know how to prevent pregnancies?
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:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
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?
WIC, the federal food aid program for women, infants and children.
So, all the government offers underage pregnant girls abandoned by their parents is WIC?
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:
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.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) is a government program to make sure that poverty-level women who are pregnant are able to purchase the food that they need to have a healthy pregnancy and raise a healthy infant. WIC starts during the pregnancy and ends when the child turns 3 (I believe).
It is not a cash program. Women (who have to turn up for appointments that include health checks and counseling) get vouchers for milk, formula, etc. If the vouchers are for a child, the child must attend with the mother.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
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.
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.
Now imaging "D&C"ing that. Not "icky"? Are you serious?
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
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.
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).
No one on this thread has claimed that millions of American children will starve to death. But children will certainly die, some of them because their mothers will not be able to provide for them, some of them because their mothers won't get decent nutrition during pregnancy. If you want to know whether or not WIC is worth what we pay for it, you can read this evaluation by the Early Childhood Research Collaborative (pdf).
I think Chesterbelloc is right: abortion is icky. I think depriving millions of pregnant women and small children of good nutrition is pretty fucking icky too.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
