Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:58 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
I am sympathetic to that argument. But I would still like to know why anyone else should go along with the blatant propaganda inherent in using the label “pro-life” as nothing more than a synonym for “antiabortion”.
  #152  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:25 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes...and attracting swing voters to our side, even if just for one election, is a MAJOR part of what politics is all about! Lives (and quality of life for millions or even billions) depend on it.
And not repelling other swing voters is another major part of what politics is all about.

You're basically suggesting a presidential candidate should burn an American flag because he would attract the arsonist demographic to his side. But you're ignoring the reality that most arsonists aren't going to be impressed at seeing one flag being burned; they like to see entire building being set on fire. Meanwhile a lot of other people are going to be appalled at a candidate who burns an American flag. So five arsonists are impressed enough to vote for the candidate and five thousand other people decide to vote against him.
  #153  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:27 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
If pro-choice is really about choice, why do supporters fight tooth and nail any legislation that gives legal protection to healthcare workers who oppose abortion and demand they be compelled to participate in abortions? Why should a pharmacist be forced to choose between their career and supplying a drug that is not necessary to save a life? Why should a nurse be forced to choose between her livelihood and refusing to assist in an optional surgery? (not talking about the life of a mother here).
Because it's not their body that's involved so it shouldn't be their choice to make.

If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you might believe blood transfusions are wrong. You have the right to refuse to receive a blood transfusion. But you don't have the right to tell other people they can't have a blood transfusion because you think they're wrong. And that's true even if you're a medical professional.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 05-31-2019 at 09:31 PM.
  #154  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?)
  #155  
Old 06-01-2019, 03:54 AM
Thrull is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A lot of pro-choicers like to argue that if pro-lifers were really pro-life, they'd be supporting babies and single mothers, etc. after birth, not just caring about the fetus' life pre-birth but then ignoring it post-birth.

I fully agree with that - however, just because someone opposes abortion, does not logically mean that they are on the hook to take care of someone after birth. The closest analogy would be PETA. PETA opposes animal experimentation and the killing of animals; however, that does not mean that PETA is ethically obligated to feed, care for, and host all the animals that would be released if the farmers and animal-experimenters really were to release the animals. The ethical obligation of PETA, from their perspective, is simply to stop the "animal abuse." What happens after the abuse or killing is ceased, is not their responsibility.


Again, I fully agree that pro-lifers should do more to care for mothers and post-birth babies, but the idea that if you speak out against something you consider wrong, means you are therefore obligated to do Thing A, Thing B, Thing C, etc. in caring and responsibility doesn't make sense. That would be like saying that you can't object to your neighbors abusing their kids if you aren't willing to rear and raise their kids yourself.
As a general rule, you're right. Being pro-life doesn't necessitate that you have to support either babies or mothers. However, a good deal of the argument from pro-lifers is that life is sacred. This would imply that they believe all life is sacred not just fetal life. That being the case, one has to wonder why they feel they don't have to support women and babies. If it's sacred one would argue they have to be as supportive to those groups as they are to fetuses.
  #156  
Old 06-01-2019, 08:41 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?)
The majority of meat-eaters eat meat because they think it's delicious and more satisfying than a plate full of greens.

No one is eating meat because they'd literally die without it (though I suppose there are some folks who think that's what would happen to them).

And no one is eating meat because being a vegetarian would totally upturn their life by causing them to lose employment, housing, friends and family, and school opportunities.

No one is eating meat because they've already got a big household to support and they just can't afford another celery-eater.

But I would protest a federal law banning meat. Why? Because I don't want to live in a society where I have to be paranoid about being caught with "contraband" in my lunch pail. There are also ways to allow people to consume animal flesh ethically and sustainably. If I want to eat the vermin that wreck havoc in my backyard garden, by golly, I should be able to do that. Fuck what some anemic pretentious vegan might think.
  #157  
Old 06-01-2019, 09:23 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
But should a 70% majority have the right, ethically speaking, to make that the law? I assume there are some cases where you might oppose a bill, and if it becomes law you seek its repeal, but you would not claim it was fundamentally undemocratic for an overwhelming majority to exert its power in that way. I am wondering if a law against eating meat would be like that.
  #158  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:00 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But should a 70% majority have the right, ethically speaking, to make that the law? I assume there are some cases where you might oppose a bill, and if it becomes law you seek its repeal, but you would not claim it was fundamentally undemocratic for an overwhelming majority to exert its power in that way. I am wondering if a law against eating meat would be like that.
If a 70% majority voted to re-enslave the12% of the population with slave ancestors, wouldn't you call this "undemocratic"?

I agree that a 70% majority voting for a meat ban wouldn't be undemocratic. But a 70% majority voting to take bodily autonomy rights away from 50% of the population would be, IMHO.
  #159  
Old 06-01-2019, 12:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?)
It would not be wrong for them to push for such a ban, but that doesn't mean that it would go through.

Most likely what would happen would be that there would be first a removal of the subsides that our tax dollars got to to make meat cheaper. Then maybe add on some excise taxes to offset the greenhouse emissions created by our four legged meat factories.

An outright ban would take more than 70%.
  #160  
Old 06-01-2019, 12:30 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 524
Unfortunately, it would be democratic. That's why you need, and we have, a constitutional democracy and not an unlimited one.

Even a constitution providing minority rights isn't a perfect protection, of course, because people can decide to change a constitution; and if no method is provided to change it, they can destroy the whole thing. There is no such thing as a perfect protection, against slavery or against anything else. But a constitution, or at least one with the equivalent of a Bill of Rights in it, is supposed to make it considerably more difficult to remove or ignore minority rights than a purely democratic system would allow.

ETA: if you remove subsidies, bear in mind you're also removing them for the corn and soybeans that provide a whole lot of the products most vegetarians in this society are eating.

Last edited by thorny locust; 06-01-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #161  
Old 06-01-2019, 06:47 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Keep in mind that the 70 percent we're talking about is for a ban on elective second and third trimester abortion. It would not touch the first trimester, where about 90 percent of elective abortions already occur. I think the argument about "bodily autonomy" becomes much weaker when you account for that.
  #162  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:03 AM
Tomyros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Down under the mob up top
Posts: 3
Everyone talks of the fetus as being the only victim of an unplanned pregnancy. Try looking into the eyes of a mother whose 13 year old daughter was raped by her 17 year old son and tell me abortion is always wrong.

Mother sees the whole disintegration of their life. Son faces the weight of the law and is on suicide watch. Daughter sees nothing past "Does it hurt when the baby comes out" Father disowns son one day and supports him the next which is his form of denial.

After discussing it with all the family, they choose to end the pregnancy. Adoption is less easy when there is incest involved. The girl was upset as she would miss out on all the 'girly' times with her peers. Mother worried about leaving a 13 year old to care for the baby alone while she worked.

Thank Heavens my State went through this in the 1970s and free abortions have eliminated the back street operators with their deaths and maimed for life statistics. Children at school are gradually introduced to 'relationship' classes where they learn respecting themselves and others. The anatomy and physiology comes into it as well.

Women seeking abortions numbers have dropped (although I can't quote statistics),
We look to USA , the land of Nobel prize winners. leaders in so many fields and say "What were they thinking?"
  #163  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:57 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Why do so many arguments supporting abortion seem to be based on an assumption that all children from unplanned or unwanted pregnancies will have a life of misery so that they should be aborted to prevent that?
I think that you're not actually listening to the arguments.

I am certain that there are many, many people who have wonderful lives even though they were originally unwanted and many, many women who ended up being fulfilled by being mothers and had trouble free pregnancies even though that was among their original concerns. However, there are also many, many who have not and did not. In hindsight, we can know what will happen - but before that, the argument is that the person best placed to make that decision isn't me, sitting at my computer (or you), it is the person who is closest to the situation and can talk.

As far as adoption -there are over 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted in the US right now. "Giving up a baby for adoption" doesn't mean a great home; it is, at best, a crap shoot given the issues with the foster care system.

Again, go back to my previous post - lets see more work on the demand side. Increase taxes going to social services so that foster care is fully funded and the prospective mother can/will envision their child being fully supported rather than the current nightmare stories out of foster care. Increase support for babies and mothers (e.g., the title of this thread) so that when she imagines raising a child, it doesn't look like misery to her. I'm not the person you should be trying to convince. She is. Social support for mothers, babies, and children go a long way in that convincing.

Last edited by amarinth; 06-02-2019 at 12:58 PM. Reason: ETA: punctuation
  #164  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:36 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because it's not their body that's involved so it shouldn't be their choice to make.

If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you might believe blood transfusions are wrong. You have the right to refuse to receive a blood transfusion. But you don't have the right to tell other people they can't have a blood transfusion because you think they're wrong. And that's true even if you're a medical professional.
A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn't preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees' beliefs and have another nurse work. But that's not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse's career than let her/him practice her/his religion.

The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly.
  #165  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
And if all the nurses in a conservative county refuse to assist in them? (Perhaps, in some cases, not personally having a problem with it, but not wanting to be ostracized.) All the pharmacists in a hundred mile radius refuse to fill birth control prescriptions? What then?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-02-2019 at 10:03 PM.
  #166  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:35 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Let's take away the labels of "murder" and "pro-life" and look at it for what it is.

The argument is that a person might take action X which will save them a lot of money in the long run. Therefore if someone supports a law which makes it illegal for a person to take action X, then that person is responsible for paying the first person the money that they lose in the long run.

I'm not sure why it matters if X is already illegal and the second person supports keeping the law, or if X is now legal but the person supports changing the law. The money is lost in any event. It matters not if we call X "murder" or "non-murder" and it doesn't matter if we call those opposed to X "pro-life" or "anti-choice."

So, IMHO, if the argument is that a person who prevents someone from having an abortion and this costs the person money, then the first person must pay the money, I'm not seeing why that shouldn't apply more generally to any law which costs a person money.
In the case of “applying more generally to any law which costs a person money,” isn’t there a principle about recompense due to someone adversely affected by “takings,” I believe it’s called?
  #167  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:07 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn't preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees' beliefs and have another nurse work. But that's not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse's career than let her/him practice her/his religion.

The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly.
Do you have a problem with the hospital being required to be able to provide one? If not, do you have a problem with the hospital asking in the interview if they have any objections to any of the procedures performed by the hospital, and use their refusal as a reason to not hire them?

I have no problem if the hospital wants to make accommodations with its employees, that's up to the administrators of that hospital. But, that would be up to the hospital to determine whether or not those accommodations would be reasonable for them to make.
  #168  
Old 06-03-2019, 06:03 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn't preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees' beliefs and have another nurse work. But that's not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse's career than let her/him practice her/his religion.

The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly.

They can be nurses in schools, or old folks home - sure to not have to do no 'bortions there. But that'd be inconvenient to them, wouldn't it ? Probably pays less too, so, that's a big no from the choir.

If their religion is so near and dear to their heart, they can join a fucking convent. Abortions being legal isn't exactly a newfangled gizmo. They knew going in what they were going to be asked to do. They didn't care, or expected special treatment. Now watch them climb on the cross they made for themselves.

Besides, how would you react to a nurse getting her career "destroyed" because she didn't want to participate in treating a gay patient ? A black patient ? I mean, shouldn't we cater to the whims of the haters ? Is it so big an ask to let people practice his/her racism ? It's not preventing black people from getting help, there's other nurses surely, what's the big deal ? I mean we surely couldn't FORCE that person to treat non-whites, that'd be very wrong.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 06-03-2019 at 06:04 AM.
  #169  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:13 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
They can be nurses in schools, or old folks home - sure to not have to do no 'bortions there. But that'd be inconvenient to them, wouldn't it ? Probably pays less too, so, that's a big no from the choir.

If their religion is so near and dear to their heart, they can join a fucking convent. Abortions being legal isn't exactly a newfangled gizmo. They knew going in what they were going to be asked to do. They didn't care, or expected special treatment. Now watch them climb on the cross they made for themselves.

Besides, how would you react to a nurse getting her career "destroyed" because she didn't want to participate in treating a gay patient ? A black patient ? I mean, shouldn't we cater to the whims of the haters ? Is it so big an ask to let people practice his/her racism ? It's not preventing black people from getting help, there's other nurses surely, what's the big deal ? I mean we surely couldn't FORCE that person to treat non-whites, that'd be very wrong.
Do you know of any nurse who has refused to treat any of these? If not, it's a strawman. There'a huge difference between bigotry and refusing to end a human life for no good reason.
But now, believing all human life is sacred is HATE? You don't know anything but what you get from pro-abortion media and "activists."
  #170  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:15 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Do you have a problem with the hospital being required to be able to provide one? If not, do you have a problem with the hospital asking in the interview if they have any objections to any of the procedures performed by the hospital, and use their refusal as a reason to not hire them?

I have no problem if the hospital wants to make accommodations with its employees, that's up to the administrators of that hospital. But, that would be up to the hospital to determine whether or not those accommodations would be reasonable for them to make.
Do you have a problem with hospitals that refuse to do abortions except to save the life of the mother?
  #171  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:16 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And if all the nurses in a conservative county refuse to assist in them? (Perhaps, in some cases, not personally having a problem with it, but not wanting to be ostracized.) All the pharmacists in a hundred mile radius refuse to fill birth control prescriptions? What then?
Good luck finding that geographical fantasy land.
  #172  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:01 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
I think that you're not actually listening to the arguments.

I am certain that there are many, many people who have wonderful lives even though they were originally unwanted and many, many women who ended up being fulfilled by being mothers and had trouble free pregnancies even though that was among their original concerns. However, there are also many, many who have not and did not. In hindsight, we can know what will happen - but before that, the argument is that the person best placed to make that decision isn't me, sitting at my computer (or you), it is the person who is closest to the situation and can talk.

As far as adoption -there are over 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted in the US right now. "Giving up a baby for adoption" doesn't mean a great home; it is, at best, a crap shoot given the issues with the foster care system.

Again, go back to my previous post - lets see more work on the demand side. Increase taxes going to social services so that foster care is fully funded and the prospective mother can/will envision their child being fully supported rather than the current nightmare stories out of foster care. Increase support for babies and mothers (e.g., the title of this thread) so that when she imagines raising a child, it doesn't look like misery to her. I'm not the person you should be trying to convince. She is. Social support for mothers, babies, and children go a long way in that convincing.
There are far more parents on adoption waiting lists than children up for adoption.
62% of infants up for adoption are adopted within a month, but only 4% of women with unwanted/unplanned pregnancies give the child up for adoption. If more women would give their child for adoption, more babies would be adopted by families on waiting lists.
Foster care is not equivalent to adoption. Many children in foster care cannot be adopted because parents have not lost or given up custody rights. Children in foster care have baggage that not all adoptive parents want to take on. Adopting a teenager has far different issues than adopting a baby.
Then there's the issues of trans-racial adoptions. There are more African American children in foster care, waiting for adoption. They are often 6 years old or older. I don't see the African American community stepping up to adopt those children, but I do know of families that were denied adoption of African American children because they were white and wouldn't know how to raise the child. There are stories of white families being denied the adoption of Native American children because of Indian Child Welfare laws, as if sending a child to live with a non-family total stranger would be better than being adopted by foster parents.
We would have lived to adopt a child, but the cost is also prohibitive. My best friend and her husband adopted a baby. They had to practically rebuild their house to get approval from the state. We could never afford that.\

Some information about adoption:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-ruining-lives

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Now, share with me the source that says that the majority of adoptions are so bad that the child would have been better off dead.
  #173  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:13 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
There are far more parents on adoption waiting lists than children up for adoption.
62% of infants up for adoption are adopted within a month, but only 4% of women with unwanted/unplanned pregnancies give the child up for adoption. If more women would give their child for adoption, more babies would be adopted by families on waiting lists.
True for 'more,' but only for limited values of 'more.' The 'adoption statistics' link says that in the U.S., there are 135,000 adoptions per year, and 1,300,000 abortions each year.

I realize, having been there, that there are always parents on the waiting list who want to adopt but haven't found a child yet that they can adopt.

But 1,165,000 of them? I don't think so. And once the backlog is taken care of, if all the women considering abortions decide to give birth and give up their babies, there's 1,300,000 to adopt the next year. And the year after. And the year after that.

Better start building orphanages.
  #174  
Old 06-04-2019, 02:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Good luck finding that geographical fantasy land.

We had something like this for blacks in the Deep South until federal troops busted it up. What a shocker that it’s the same region pulling this crap now.
  #175  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:09 PM
Bruce Wayne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Besides, how would you react to a nurse getting her career "destroyed" because she didn't want to participate in treating a gay patient ? A black patient ? I mean, shouldn't we cater to the whims of the haters ? Is it so big an ask to let people practice his/her racism ? It's not preventing black people from getting help, there's other nurses surely, what's the big deal ? I mean we surely couldn't FORCE that person to treat non-whites, that'd be very wrong.
Women seeking abortions are not a protected class.
  #176  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:28 AM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Some information about adoption:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-ruining-lives

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Now, share with me the source that says that the majority of adoptions are so bad that the child would have been better off dead.
Your own cite confirms my earlier figure - there are over 100,000 children available for adoption.

And again, I'm not the person that needs to be convinced - as I'm not pregnant. The women that could be convinced are imagining two futures - one where the pregnancy comes to term and one where it doesn't. Right now, for many of them, the one where it doesn't looks better. It seems to me that "the baby won't completely derail your education and career!" "You won't have to live in your car or on the street!" "The child won't be abused or neglected!" and "Don't worry about pre- and post-natal healthcare costs!" are more compelling cases than "It's black people's fault!" "'Cultural Genocide' isn't really as bad as it sounds!" (YMMV of course)

Again, if someone wants to end abortion, it would behoove them to look into the reasons why someone would choose to have one and look to mitigate those.
  #177  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:32 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
If pro-choice is really about choice, why do supporters fight tooth and nail any legislation that gives legal protection to healthcare workers who oppose abortion and demand they be compelled to participate in abortions? Why should a pharmacist be forced to choose between their career and supplying a drug that is not necessary to save a life? Why should a nurse be forced to choose between her livelihood and refusing to assist in an optional surgery? (not talking about the life of a mother here).
Pro-choice really is about choice, as your own post re-enforces: if your religious dogma prevents you from doing your job, you have the choice to get a different job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
Do you know of any nurse who has refused to treat any of these? If not, it's a strawman. There'a huge difference between bigotry and refusing to end a human life for no good reason.
But now, believing all human life is sacred is HATE? You don't know anything but what you get from pro-abortion media and "activists."
Discrimination prevents LGBT people from accessing health care.

Pediatrician refuses to treat 6 day old baby because of lesbian parents.

Robert Eads, a transexual man, died of ovarian cancer because no doctor in his area would treat him.

And, of course, racial segregation in the US.
  #178  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:35 AM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
True for 'more,' but only for limited values of 'more.' The 'adoption statistics' link says that in the U.S., there are 135,000 adoptions per year, and 1,300,000 abortions each year.

I realize, having been there, that there are always parents on the waiting list who want to adopt but haven't found a child yet that they can adopt.

But 1,165,000 of them? I don't think so. And once the backlog is taken care of, if all the women considering abortions decide to give birth and give up their babies, there's 1,300,000 to adopt the next year. And the year after. And the year after that.

Better start building orphanages.
There's a weird worldview that believes human behavior won't change despite change of circumstances. People behave differently when they know they have there are possible unpleasant consequences for certain behaviors or situations. Before 1973, there weren't millions of illegitimate children born every year, and there weren't millions of back-alley abortions. Fewer people chose to indulge in behavior that produced unwanted pregnancies, and if a child was conceived, some people got married and some gave the child up for adoption.
  #179  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:38 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
There's a weird worldview that believes human behavior won't change despite change of circumstances. People behave differently when they know they have there are possible unpleasant consequences for certain behaviors or situations. Before 1973, there weren't millions of illegitimate children born every year, and there weren't millions of back-alley abortions. Fewer people chose to indulge in behavior that produced unwanted pregnancies, and if a child was conceived, some people got married and some gave the child up for adoption.
OK, so you're NOT saying adoptions can be an alternative to more than a small fraction of abortions.

Just want to ascertain what you're really claiming here.
  #180  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:50 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
OK, so you're NOT saying adoptions can be an alternative to more than a small fraction of abortions.

Just want to ascertain what you're really claiming here.
I'm saying that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies if there is no easy way out of one.
  #181  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:33 PM
carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
I'm saying that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies if there is no easy way out of one.
This has never been true in all of human history.
  #182  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:47 AM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
There's a weird worldview that believes human behavior won't change despite change of circumstances. People behave differently when they know they have there are possible unpleasant consequences for certain behaviors or situations. Before 1973, there weren't millions of illegitimate children born every year, and there weren't millions of back-alley abortions. Fewer people chose to indulge in behavior that produced unwanted pregnancies, and if a child was conceived, some people got married and some gave the child up for adoption.
There's a weird worldview that believes making abortions illegal means that there won't be any abortions, and that making sex risky means that people will just stop having sex.


https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/...st-be-prologue

Quote:
In the 1960s, researchers from Princeton University estimated that almost one in three Americans (32%) who wanted no more children were likely to have at least one unintended pregnancy before the end of their childbearing years; more than six in 10 Americans (62%) wanting children at some point in the future were likely to have experienced at least one unintended pregnancy.
[ . . . ]
Women with financial means had some, albeit very limited, recourse to a legal abortion
[ . . . ]
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll.
  #183  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:15 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticKnot View Post
A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn't preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees' beliefs and have another nurse work. But that's not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse's career than let her/him practice her/his religion.
The nurse is destroying her own career by refusing to do her job.

Will any excuse do, in your eyes, or does the nurse have to be appeasing specific imaginary beings? What if a nurse refuses to assist in abortions because it may anger Santa Claus or Tolkien's elves?

Quote:
The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly.
It's not, but even if it were, that shouldn't bother you; you're totally cool with forcing women to do things unwillingly. Having a child springs to mind.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017