Abortion Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]skor wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
My point is that unless we return to policies that either bring a return of sexual repression to stop unwanted (unmarried) pregnancy or that take us closer to socialism (a repeal of the two year welfare cap, for instance), ending abortion isn’t practical.

It wasn’t an attack on you.

Or we can move forward and give excellent sex education to teenagers. That will make abortion much less needed.

You are correct about the fact that those who are against abortion should be ok with welfare for state’s monetary support of all children in need.[/quote]

Let’s stop the killing, first. Then we will worry about what to do next.
You cannot predict with any accuracy what will happen after wards. Oh you can guess, but you don’t know.

I know this, abortion has nothing, zero, to do with sexual responsibility, repression, or socialism. In fact, thinking there are no consequences for you actions is the most irresponsible thing in the world.

342

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
This is a policy thread, isn’t it? I mean, when men gather to talk about issues, it’s more than just throwing emotionally charged jabs at one another, right? ('Cause that’s how the women do it. All emotion, all the time!)

So sarcasm and attacks aside, Push, what, if any, policy change/s would you support if abortion were to be outlawed? Or do you think that the legality of abortion is the only issue on the table with regard to these potential humans?

One (relatively) small policy change I would like to see implemented that I think would help support the change would be to end compulsory high school and bring back apprenticeships.

Many teenagers are moldering in high schools, bored and resentful, treated like truculent children and ultimately acting like them. Give them a trade and let them be purposeful and thrive. Irresponsible sex and drugs lose appeal to people who are busy and engaged. Life becomes more meaningful in every way.

At age 18, instead of emerging with a D+ average and no clearer goal than “Christ, no more school,” the apprentice would have a valuable trade to ply. Welcome to adulthood.

Another change would be to address the fringe economy. This one is more complicated. Poor people pay more for everything.

They pay $25 to cash their paychecks at the corner store, they pay 50% interest on small loans at the pawn shop, they pay 20% interest on used cars that are falling apart and then remain eternally upside-down in their loans because the cars don’t last as long as the debt.

Pay-by-the-week hotels and apartments, inhabited by people who can’t cobble together downpayments, are exorbitantly priced. For the same monthly rent people could be living in one of the gated communities single professionals enjoy.

But of course, they don’t have first-and-last month’s rent and wouldn’t know where to go with it if they did because they’re entirely local in their orientation.

The complication comes because what legitimate business wants to operate in the barrio/ghetto/trailer park? So the free market births “The House of Usury” and it can charge whatever it wants.

Which, okay, I’m a free market girl married to an industrialist guy, but it keeps people perpetually poor and that has ramifications for everyone, one of which is governmental support for abortion.

Sex ed would doubtless help, but I’m not sure how much. Other countries have success with it, but there are other differences. Sweden and the Netherlands, with their low teen pregnancy rates, are sexually permissive and strongly pro-sexual education, but they’re also socialistic societies with very little cultural diversity. [/quote]

And none of this changes the fact that the “thing” in the uterus is a person and killing it is wrong. 1.2 million a year.
That’s 48 million people since 1973! 48,000,000!

What would we do with an extra 48 million folks around? Who knows, maybe these people would actually sustain themselves versus having to be taken care of…It does happen from time to to time that people mind their own 'P’s and 'Q’s.

You diatribe assumes that all the aborted people would have been losers by default, needing to be taken care of. Never the less, there is an irony that you still have 48 million losers around…They are the mothers who willingly had their children put to death.

343

[quote]pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
This is a policy thread, isn’t it? I mean, when men gather to talk about issues, it’s more than just throwing emotionally charged jabs at one another, right? ('Cause that’s how the women do it. All emotion, all the time!)

So sarcasm and attacks aside, Push, what, if any, policy change/s would you support if abortion were to be outlawed? Or do you think that the legality of abortion is the only issue on the table with regard to these potential humans?

One (relatively) small policy change I would like to see implemented that I think would help support the change would be to end compulsory high school and bring back apprenticeships.

Many teenagers are moldering in high schools, bored and resentful, treated like truculent children and ultimately acting like them. Give them a trade and let them be purposeful and thrive. Irresponsible sex and drugs lose appeal to people who are busy and engaged. Life becomes more meaningful in every way.

At age 18, instead of emerging with a D+ average and no clearer goal than “Christ, no more school,” the apprentice would have a valuable trade to ply. Welcome to adulthood.

Another change would be to address the fringe economy. This one is more complicated. Poor people pay more for everything.

They pay $25 to cash their paychecks at the corner store, they pay 50% interest on small loans at the pawn shop, they pay 20% interest on used cars that are falling apart and then remain eternally upside-down in their loans because the cars don’t last as long as the debt.

Pay-by-the-week hotels and apartments, inhabited by people who can’t cobble together downpayments, are exorbitantly priced. For the same monthly rent people could be living in one of the gated communities single professionals enjoy.

But of course, they don’t have first-and-last month’s rent and wouldn’t know where to go with it if they did because they’re entirely local in their orientation.

The complication comes because what legitimate business wants to operate in the barrio/ghetto/trailer park? So the free market births “The House of Usury” and it can charge whatever it wants.

Which, okay, I’m a free market girl married to an industrialist guy, but it keeps people perpetually poor and that has ramifications for everyone, one of which is governmental support for abortion.

Sex ed would doubtless help, but I’m not sure how much. Other countries have success with it, but there are other differences. Sweden and the Netherlands, with their low teen pregnancy rates, are sexually permissive and strongly pro-sexual education, but they’re also socialistic societies with very little cultural diversity.

And none of this changes the fact that the “thing” in the uterus is a person and killing it is wrong. 1.2 million a year.
That’s 48 million people since 1973! 48,000,000!

What would we do with an extra 48 million folks around? Who knows, maybe these people would actually sustain themselves versus having to be taken care of…It does happen from time to to time that people mind their own 'P’s and 'Q’s.

You diatribe assumes that all the aborted people would have been losers by default, needing to be taken care of. Never the less, there is an irony that you still have 48 million losers around…They are the mothers who willingly had their children put to death.[/quote]

“You diatribe”? LOL. You must be pretty sensitive if you think the above is a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

I assume nothing about anyone’s status as “loser,” about which I am frankly uninterested. What I assume, based upon fairly clear evidence, is that the parents of said “aborted people” didn’t want them for one reason or another. I can speculate as to the reasons, which I have done. Not enough money, not enough drive, not enough reason to want that which they don’t seem to consider a person.

I also assume, based again on what I think is rather irrefutable evidence, that the aborted persons in question would be infants upon birth, should that birth come about. As such, I think perhaps you are being overly optimistic when you say “maybe these people would actually sustain themselves versus having to be taken care of…It does happen from time to to time that people mind their own 'P’s and 'Q’s.” And people say I’m a starry-eyed dreamer! Do you have any income-producing ideas for the infants you hope will soon be joining us?

344

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Do you have any income-producing ideas for the infants you hope will soon be joining us?

[/quote]

You’re right. We’d better kill them off before they get the chance to do that.

345

[quote]Cortes wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Do you have any income-producing ideas for the infants you hope will soon be joining us?

You’re right. We’d better kill them off before they get the chance to do that.[/quote]

Or perhaps find a way to support them until they are old enough to do so for themselves.

But either way, you know? As I said, policies will need to be adjusted. Or not, and things can remain as they are.

346

[quote]Cortes wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Do you have any income-producing ideas for the infants you hope will soon be joining us?

You’re right. We’d better kill them off before they get the chance to do that.[/quote]

I know, I know!

Let’s get rid of the child labor laws. I’m sure that a two or three year old can start earning their way.

347

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
pat wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
This is a policy thread, isn’t it? I mean, when men gather to talk about issues, it’s more than just throwing emotionally charged jabs at one another, right? ('Cause that’s how the women do it. All emotion, all the time!)

So sarcasm and attacks aside, Push, what, if any, policy change/s would you support if abortion were to be outlawed? Or do you think that the legality of abortion is the only issue on the table with regard to these potential humans?

One (relatively) small policy change I would like to see implemented that I think would help support the change would be to end compulsory high school and bring back apprenticeships.

Many teenagers are moldering in high schools, bored and resentful, treated like truculent children and ultimately acting like them. Give them a trade and let them be purposeful and thrive. Irresponsible sex and drugs lose appeal to people who are busy and engaged. Life becomes more meaningful in every way.

At age 18, instead of emerging with a D+ average and no clearer goal than “Christ, no more school,” the apprentice would have a valuable trade to ply. Welcome to adulthood.

Another change would be to address the fringe economy. This one is more complicated. Poor people pay more for everything.

They pay $25 to cash their paychecks at the corner store, they pay 50% interest on small loans at the pawn shop, they pay 20% interest on used cars that are falling apart and then remain eternally upside-down in their loans because the cars don’t last as long as the debt.

Pay-by-the-week hotels and apartments, inhabited by people who can’t cobble together downpayments, are exorbitantly priced. For the same monthly rent people could be living in one of the gated communities single professionals enjoy.

But of course, they don’t have first-and-last month’s rent and wouldn’t know where to go with it if they did because they’re entirely local in their orientation.

The complication comes because what legitimate business wants to operate in the barrio/ghetto/trailer park? So the free market births “The House of Usury” and it can charge whatever it wants.

Which, okay, I’m a free market girl married to an industrialist guy, but it keeps people perpetually poor and that has ramifications for everyone, one of which is governmental support for abortion.

Sex ed would doubtless help, but I’m not sure how much. Other countries have success with it, but there are other differences. Sweden and the Netherlands, with their low teen pregnancy rates, are sexually permissive and strongly pro-sexual education, but they’re also socialistic societies with very little cultural diversity.

And none of this changes the fact that the “thing” in the uterus is a person and killing it is wrong. 1.2 million a year.
That’s 48 million people since 1973! 48,000,000!

What would we do with an extra 48 million folks around? Who knows, maybe these people would actually sustain themselves versus having to be taken care of…It does happen from time to to time that people mind their own 'P’s and 'Q’s.

You diatribe assumes that all the aborted people would have been losers by default, needing to be taken care of. Never the less, there is an irony that you still have 48 million losers around…They are the mothers who willingly had their children put to death.

“You diatribe”? LOL. You must be pretty sensitive if you think the above is a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

I assume nothing about anyone’s status as “loser,” about which I am frankly uninterested. What I assume, based upon fairly clear evidence, is that the parents of said “aborted people” didn’t want them for one reason or another. I can speculate as to the reasons, which I have done. Not enough money, not enough drive, not enough reason to want that which they don’t seem to consider a person.

I also assume, based again on what I think is rather irrefutable evidence, that the aborted persons in question would be infants upon birth, should that birth come about. As such, I think perhaps you are being overly optimistic when you say “maybe these people would actually sustain themselves versus having to be taken care of…It does happen from time to to time that people mind their own 'P’s and 'Q’s.” And people say I’m a starry-eyed dreamer! Do you have any income-producing ideas for the infants you hope will soon be joining us?

[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of this definition:
A prolonged or exhaustive discussion. We’ll call it a monologue if you please, or just a plain long forum post.

Somebody born in 1973 would be 35 years old…I think they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Aside from that, by your logic. It ok to kill a person if they are unwanted, if the infrastructure cannot support them, if the people who fucked do not have enough money, etc. Sorry, I may be a bleeding heart, but none of the above mentioned reasons is above the value of a human life.
You can speculate all you want, but facts are facts. Abortion is the killing of a human life and 48 million human lives have been killed for one reason or another, but none of them good enough to justify the killing.

348

[quote]pat wrote:

I was thinking more along the lines of this definition:
A prolonged or exhaustive discussion. We’ll call it a monologue if you please, or just a plain long forum post.

Somebody born in 1973 would be 35 years old…I think they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Aside from that, by your logic. It ok to kill a person if they are unwanted, if the infrastructure cannot support them, if the people who fucked do not have enough money, etc. Sorry, I may be a bleeding heart, but none of the above mentioned reasons is above the value of a human life.
You can speculate all you want, but facts are facts. Abortion is the killing of a human life and 48 million human lives have been killed for one reason or another, but none of them good enough to justify the killing.[/quote]

I’ll keep this short so as not to exhaust you.

So, you really aren’t interested in a policy discussion about ending abortion, and how our society could accommodate the change? You’re really just after stating your opinion, which is emotion-based? Okay! I’ll do that, too. (It should be pretty brief.)

Here goes: Eh. I don’t really care that much. I’d be fine with outlawing abortion as long as something even more distasteful didn’t follow, like millions of abused or hungry sentient beings. ~shrug~

349

[quote]Christine wrote:
Cortes wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Do you have any income-producing ideas for the infants you hope will soon be joining us?

You’re right. We’d better kill them off before they get the chance to do that.

I know, I know!

Let’s get rid of the child labor laws. I’m sure that a two or three year old can start earning their way.[/quote]

Now, there’s the spirit! And hey, in thirty-five years, they’ll be thirty-five years old. I would hope that by then no one is treating them like a burdensome child!

351

You all realize, don’t you, that I can’t actually end abortion? No matter how many times anyone insists in this thread that that’s the only consideration. So there’s probably time to think about the future of any fetuses impacted by a change in the law.

What’s funny is that I’m not even trying to convince any of you to change the way you think. I’m asking you to tell me how it could work, to reassure me that it won’t be a nightmare I’ll have to clean up in my capacity as a social worker, that you’re willing to stand behind your belief in the sanctity of human life.

But instead you’re snarling at me (the general you) that I’m a murderer and that these children should somehow practice responsibility (because some of them would be 35 yrs. old now?). It’s like your angry sound bites are getting all mixed up.

Since when does repeating oneself constitute a debate?

353

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
You all realize, don’t you, that I can’t actually end abortion? No matter how many times anyone insists in this thread that that’s the only consideration. So there’s probably time to think about the future of any fetuses impacted by a change in the law.

What’s funny is that I’m not even trying to convince any of you to change the way you think. I’m asking you to tell me how it could work, to reassure me that it won’t be a nightmare I’ll have to clean up in my capacity as a social worker, that you’re willing to stand behind your belief in the sanctity of human life.

But instead you’re snarling at me (the general you) that I’m a murderer and that these children should somehow practice responsibility (because some of them would be 35 yrs. old now?). It’s like your angry sound bites are getting all mixed up.

Since when does repeating oneself constitute a debate?
[/quote]

I don’t presume to speak for Emily, but the issue for me is not, what do we do for these people after we outlaw abortions.

The issue is that the societal problems you have mentioned cause people to get abortions. Even if we outlawed abortion tomorrow people who aren’t ready to have children, either financially or emotionally will still get knocked up, and will still want to get rid of their un-born children.

The difference will be that rather than having a safe legal clinic to go to, they will either go to a back alley doctor, or jam a coat-hanger into themselves, or OD on Asprin, or god knows what else.

The choice is between legal abortions and illegal abortions, not between abortion or no abortion.

For the record I am against late-term abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother.

354

[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
You all realize, don’t you, that I can’t actually end abortion? No matter how many times anyone insists in this thread that that’s the only consideration. So there’s probably time to think about the future of any fetuses impacted by a change in the law.

What’s funny is that I’m not even trying to convince any of you to change the way you think. I’m asking you to tell me how it could work, to reassure me that it won’t be a nightmare I’ll have to clean up in my capacity as a social worker, that you’re willing to stand behind your belief in the sanctity of human life.

But instead you’re snarling at me (the general you) that I’m a murderer and that these children should somehow practice responsibility (because some of them would be 35 yrs. old now?). It’s like your angry sound bites are getting all mixed up.

Since when does repeating oneself constitute a debate?

This may sound snide but is not intended to be. In a non-snarling manner…you can’t worry as much about your “nightmare…as a social worker” and place it as a priority above the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that that child possesses.

You’re getting the cart before the horse. You DO the right thing FIRST and then you make the best of the situation.

[/quote]

You can’t dictate that everyone do the right thing by Push’s code of conduct.

In the meantime, since getting an abortion is currently legal, why not discuss some possible solutions to Emily’s concerns.

356

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

I don’t presume to speak for Emily, but the issue for me is not, what do we do for these people after we outlaw abortions.

The issue is that the societal problems you have mentioned cause people to get abortions. Even if we outlawed abortion tomorrow people who aren’t ready to have children, either financially or emotionally will still get knocked up, and will still want to get rid of their un-born children.

The difference will be that rather than having a safe legal clinic to go to, they will either go to a back alley doctor, or jam a coat-hanger into themselves, or OD on Asprin, or god knows what else.

The choice is between legal abortions and illegal abortions, not between abortion or no abortion.

For the record I am against late-term abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother. [/quote]

I envision dead babies in back alley dumpsters, too. I envision babies pouring into hospitals with failure to thrive syndrome, which leaves children mentally retarded, as does fetal alcohol syndrome, the incidence of which would rise. The number of physical abuse cases would rise so as a consequence the crime rate would also as the resented kids aged.

None of that would be my watch except possibly the last point. I’m concerned about “nightmares” because they are comprised of hurt people. Why is my concern for the living child somehow less noble than your concern for the as-yet-unborn child, Push? That doesn’t seem silly to you? I’m not talking about social services. I’m talking about people. These kids you find so precious…you can coldly say you don’t give a shit what happens to them once you’ve had your moral victory?

Why on earth would you snarl (yes, snarl) at me about doing the right thing? You can’t even be bothered to consider the costs of the policy you say is good and right. What is it worth to you? Very little it would seem.

I’m not asking how many unborn babies you’re going to adopt. I’m more likely to adopt unwanted children than you are (which is ironic, isn’t it, given the tone of this discussion?). I’m asking if there are ANY policies you would support that would support this policy change you seek.

357

So Em, am I right in assuming that you support ending abortion only after the problems that necessitate it are resolved?

359

What policies could be implemented…?? Push, I’ve already told you that I think either sexual permissiveness needs to be more restricted or welfare needs to be less restricted, either of which I’m happy to discuss. Then I went on to mention a couple of very specific policies that I thought might help make ending abortion easier for society (a move away from compulsory high school and oversight of the fringe economy). Is my mic not turned on? (Hello? Hello? Testing!)

I’m not losing a “debate.” We’re not having a debate. A debate has discussion points and levels of complexity. I’ve asked you over and over again to clarify your position, if indeed you have one more developed than, essentially, “those people who oppose my one salient point are bad.”

You make the mistake of assuming that I am as wedded to my position (pro-abortion) as you are to yours and as emotionally invested in winning. Not so. I frankly find abortion distasteful, almost – but not quite – to the point of moral repugnance. But I have other, what I consider to be practical, concerns. These are concerns I believe are shared by probably half the people who support legalized abortion. True feminists, who can only shrilly repeat their one salient point, the inviolability of the female body, are pretty rare, in my experience. Most people just want policies that reduce harm.

In my opinion infanticide, the killing of sentient beings, is what will result should abortion be outlawed without further action to support the change. As such, I consider abortion the lesser of two evils.

360

[quote]Makavali wrote:
So Em, am I right in assuming that you support ending abortion only after the problems that necessitate it are resolved?[/quote]

Correct.