Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-28-2019, 06:58 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Yes, of course. The GOP sucks. No dispute about that. But Democrats can put themselves in a stronger electoral position if they are a little more open to restrictions on later abortion, while adamantly standing up for the right to first trimester abortion. Kirsten Gillibrand has flatly declared that people who support any restrictions at all should not be welcome in the party. Bad move.
  #102  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:02 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,808
Think of it like this -

if you want to decrease (or increase) use of a service, you can work on the supply side of the equation or you can work on the demand side of the equation. You are more likely to be successful if you address both.

Many "pro-life" advocates target all of their energy on the supply side. If no one is around to provide an abortion, then it will become more difficult to have one. However, it seems that if someone's true goal was to eliminate abortions, they would also work toward a world where no one (or at least substantially fewer women) wanted to have one. To me, that includes reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through better and cheaper access to birth control (exceedingly few non-pregnant women have abortions). My guess is that a woman who was less worried about economic catastrophe after having a child (due to the very real costs of child rearing) would be more likely to elect to keep her child - so, lessening the economic burdens would likely result in lowering the abortion rate. &tc. &tc.

When I do run across someone whose policies don't do anything to reduce the number of desired abortions (and in some cases actually will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and more women who might consider the benefits of an abortion), I have to wonder what their underlying motives really are when they fight against reproductive rights.
  #103  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:18 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, of course. The GOP sucks. No dispute about that. But Democrats can put themselves in a stronger electoral position if they are a little more open to restrictions on later abortion, while adamantly standing up for the right to first trimester abortion. Kirsten Gillibrand has flatly declared that people who support any restrictions at all should not be welcome in the party. Bad move.
How about going with principle? How about doing what's right instead of following polls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
When I do run across someone whose policies don't do anything to reduce the number of desired abortions (and in some cases actually will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and more women who might consider the benefits of an abortion), I have to wonder what their underlying motives really are when they fight against reproductive rights.
Yep, exactly.

Incidentally, Canada has no abortion laws at all, and due to relatively sane social policies the abortion rate of 13.7 per 1000 circa 2010 is significantly lower than in the US in the same period (19.6 per 1000) and is roughly in line with the UK and Australia (both at 14.2).

ETA: Forgot the link: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/w...on_statistics/

Last edited by wolfpup; 05-28-2019 at 07:20 PM.
  #104  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:20 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sixty percent of Americans believe it is the government's responsibility to make sure everyone has health care: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...esponsibility/

Sixty percent also believe rich people are undertaxed:
https://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

54 percent believe either "Abortion should not be permitted" or "Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now." This was even after the recent abortion "heartbeat laws" were passed: https://www.pollingreport.com/aborti...PRQ-D33Q6DO94U

These kinds of views are nowhere near as mutually exclusive as many people seem to imagine. And the sizable group that holds these views simultaneously is disproportionately likely to be decisive in battleground elections.


Quote:
Generally
available: 44%

Available
under
stricter limits : 34%

Not
permitted : 20%

Unsure/
No answer : 2%

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-28-2019 at 08:21 PM.
  #105  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:31 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
OK, for a more serious answer : you're barking up the wrong tree, pilgrim. Quoth Clint Eastwood, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". It's not about who's entitled to what. It's about if you don't provide a safety net, if you don't provide help to the people who need it, you're hurting yourself and your own kids in the long run (nevermind hurting them in the shortest of runs, I surmise you don't give a shit).

Your "no abortion but I won't pay shit for SHIT !" ideas inevitably result in a) more healthcare costs b) more crime c) more drug use d) more crime as a result of drug use. Dysfunctional homes result in dysfunctional children, and antisocial politics harm the fabric of society. I know, weird, right ? Who woulda thunk. And since anti-abortion policies demonstrably saddle poor families with more, long term, unmitigatable financial burdens (because the historical practice of exposure isn't OK any more ; and foster care is its own brand of hell... but not free hell) then they must, perforce, also result in higher social expenditures. That is, if you're at all invested in keeping a functional society long term. I know that's falling out of fashion compared to "fuck it, I want all the money now and après moi le déluge". But then again that's why I'm heavily investing in guillotine futures.



Or, in other words, no man is an island yadda yadda.
I understand all that, but it just seems as if this debate is for another thread. I simply do not see how an attitude of "You shouldn't be permitted to murder you child" (as that is what the pro-life side believes is happening) equals I must now pay more to care for that child that I stopped you from murdering. Whether we should have a social safety net and more accurately, the extent of that safety net is for another thread.

Taken to its logical conclusion, a lot of people would be on the hook for paying for a lot of things.
  #106  
Old 05-28-2019, 08:42 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,273
If you call yourself Pro-life and you are:

anti abortion
anti death penalty
pro gun control
pro universal tax-based health care
pro tax-based support networks
and anti proactive war

then, respect.

Otherwise, cool it with the patting yourself on the back. It ain't fooling anyone.
  #107  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:06 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If you call yourself Pro-life and you are:

anti abortion
anti death penalty
pro gun control
pro universal tax-based health care
pro tax-based support networks
and anti proactive war

then, respect.

Otherwise, cool it with the patting yourself on the back. It ain't fooling anyone.
This has been stated in this and other threads. "Pro-life" is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person's overall moral philosophy anymore than "pro-choice" is.

As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion?
  #108  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:09 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If you call yourself Pro-life and you are:

anti abortion
anti death penalty
pro gun control
pro universal tax-based health care
pro tax-based support networks
and anti proactive war

then, respect.

Otherwise, cool it with the patting yourself on the back. It ain't fooling anyone.
Add anti-police brutality to the list.
  #109  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:19 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, of course. The GOP sucks. No dispute about that. But Democrats can put themselves in a stronger electoral position if they are a little more open to restrictions on later abortion, while adamantly standing up for the right to first trimester abortion. Kirsten Gillibrand has flatly declared that people who support any restrictions at all should not be welcome in the party. Bad move.
It would be a terrible strategy. Democrats wouldn't gain pro-life voters; they'll never be able to find a more pro-life position than the one the Republicans have already established. And they would lose pro-choice voters.
  #110  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:25 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This has been stated in this and other threads. "Pro-life" is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person's overall moral philosophy anymore than "pro-choice" is.
"Pro-life" is absolutely a commentary on a person's moral stance, as it means that they're willing to suppress the principles of reason and give primacy to their religious beliefs or other unscientific superstitious claptrap as the basis for the law of the land, despite all the societal damage that it obviously causes. It's no different than the ideas underlying Sharia law, or the basis of any other theocracy.

As I said earlier, Canada abolished all legal restrictions on abortions decades ago, yet has a structurally healthier society with a substantially lower abortion rate than the US yet with better health care and social services for actual children. So which approach to abortions leads to the more moral outcomes?
  #111  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:31 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This has been stated in this and other threads. "Pro-life" is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person's overall moral philosophy anymore than "pro-choice" is.

As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion?
Pro choice is also on the nose, as a general label for their group.
  #112  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:50 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Pro choice is also on the nose, as a general label for their group.
I have no problem with the label. But the "choice" that they are "pro" is the choice for women to have legal abortions and nothing more. The label doesn't mean that they are in favor of a woman choosing to carry a concealed weapon or to use recreational drugs. It is abortion related only and it would be unfair for someone to say that they are not really pro-choice if they do not support the latter.

That is my problem with the "how can you say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty?" arguments. The label is not universal.
  #113  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:14 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I understand all that, but it just seems as if this debate is for another thread. I simply do not see how an attitude of "You shouldn't be permitted to murder you child" (as that is what the pro-life side believes is happening) equals I must now pay more to care for that child that I stopped you from murdering. Whether we should have a social safety net and more accurately, the extent of that safety net is for another thread.

Taken to its logical conclusion, a lot of people would be on the hook for paying for a lot of things.
Well, that is the point in more civilized developed nations. There are a lot of reasons why a woman can end a pregnancy and taking one big reason away, like the one a woman with very little economical or family support has, does help with the issue when most people still think that even if abortion is a right, it should be rare.
  #114  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:35 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post

GIGO, are you under the impression that what you posted contradicted me somehow?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
How about going with principle? How about doing what's right instead of following polls?

That's terrible political strategery, that will usually get you further from your goal rather than closer. But in this case, it's not relevant to me, because I believe protecting the right to first trimester while banning it thereafter IS the right thing on principle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It would be a terrible strategy. Democrats wouldn't gain pro-life voters; they'll never be able to find a more pro-life position than the one the Republicans have already established. And they would lose pro-choice voters.

Did you actually read what I proposed? Gallup consistently finds that <30% support abortion being legal in the second trimester (not third, second). That means a lot of Democrats are already in that camp. Others may uneasily vote Republican, but would happily vote Democratic if our brand was only to camp out in the first trimester and guard that like a fortress.

And we'd lose pro-choice voters to...whom?
  #115  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:04 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That's terrible political strategery, that will usually get you further from your goal rather than closer. But in this case, it's not relevant to me, because I believe protecting the right to first trimester while banning it thereafter IS the right thing on principle.
You can believe whatever you want, as is your privilege, but the balance that always has to be struck in a representative democracy is between leadership toward doing what is right versus blindly following polls, especially when it comes to matters of fact rather than opinion or religious superstition. The facts in this case relate to the kinds of societies that result and the tangible impacts on real people of various forms of abortion prohibitions. These are things that can actually be empirically studied around the world. In the face of empirical evidence "beliefs" are worthless.
  #116  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
That was a super quick pivot from "let's do what's right instead of following polls".

The abortion issue is really almost the prototypical issue where you can't establish any position as empirically "right". It's a value judgement about which tradeoffs people feel outweigh others.
  #117  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:12 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Did you actually read what I proposed? Gallup consistently finds that <30% support abortion being legal in the second trimester (not third, second). That means a lot of Democrats are already in that camp. Others may uneasily vote Republican, but would happily vote Democratic if our brand was only to camp out in the first trimester and guard that like a fortress.
But people who are somewhere in the middle of the abortion issue aren't likely to vote based on a candidate's position on abortion. Some people will only vote for candidates who promise to stop all abortions and some people will only vote for candidates who promise to protect full abortion rights. But nobody is saying "I only vote for candidates who seek out a position in the middle." People who are one-issue voters don't have moderate views on the issue in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And we'd lose pro-choice voters to...whom?
To "Fuck both parties. I'm staying home on Election Day."
  #118  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:15 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The abortion issue is really almost the prototypical issue where you can't establish any position as empirically "right". It's a value judgement about which tradeoffs people feel outweigh others.
I agree. I'm pro-choice because I'm not sure what the correct answer is. So I feel it's an issue where individuals need to decide for themselves. I don't feel there's an obvious answer that everyone should have to follow.
  #119  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:47 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But people who are somewhere in the middle of the abortion issue aren't likely to vote based on a candidate's position on abortion. Some people will only vote for candidates who promise to stop all abortions and some people will only vote for candidates who promise to protect full abortion rights. But nobody is saying "I only vote for candidates who seek out a position in the middle." People who are one-issue voters don't have moderate views on the issue in question.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. There are many other kinds of voters besides one-issue voters. If both parties represent an individual's views poorly/incompletely, a shift in an issue, or in multiple issues, can sway such individuals without their needing to be super dedicated one-issue voters. Otherwise, how do you explain the people who shifted from Bill Clinton, to George W. Bush, to Barack Obama, to Donald Trump?


ETA: I also believe it is hard for people on one end or the other of this issue to understand that there are many of us who really do lament how extreme BOTH sides are. I'm not "in the middle" because I'm just "eh, whatever" about this issue. I think telling a woman she can't use a morning after pill, or go immediately to the clinic to expel the zygote as soon as she discovers it, is heartless and cruel. I also think later term abortion (once the baby has a recognizably human babyface) is heartless and cruel. The people who push for an uncompromising position at either end arouse my ire.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-29-2019 at 12:50 AM.
  #120  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:57 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That was a super quick pivot from "let's do what's right instead of following polls".
Where did you see a "pivot"? That was a restatement of the same principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The abortion issue is really almost the prototypical issue where you can't establish any position as empirically "right". It's a value judgement about which tradeoffs people feel outweigh others.
Ultimately, sure, that's what it amounts to. But the objective part comes in observing the outcomes of different strategies, and then making value judgments based on factual data. If a particular strategy with the least abortion restrictions (none at all, in fact, as in my recent example) results in (a) fewer abortions, and (b) better health care and social support for actual children, it's hard to argue that this is not a preferred strategy. The second point is that when dealing with an issue which is extremely personal and entails moral ambiguity, you would think that this is the last place you'd want inflexible government regulations intruding, yet the "minimal government" and "maximum freedom" crowd is precisely the political sector clamoring for the strictest abortion laws. Their stance is neither rationally nor morally supportable. There's a reason that anti-abortion campaigns rely entirely on appeals to emotion instead of facts.
  #121  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:05 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
If a particular strategy with the least abortion restrictions (none at all, in fact, as in my recent example) results in (a) fewer abortions, and (b) better health care and social support for actual children, it's hard to argue that this is not a preferred strategy.

It's actually not hard to argue against it. First, there is no reason to believe my proposal would result in "(a) fewer abortions, and (b) better health care and social support for actual children" than just being laissez faire.

But let's say it somehow did work that way. You would be making a case based on utilitarian ethics for society at large, disregarding individual ethically problematic cases based on an appeal to the "greater good". But if this is our logic, then any time we have a group of patients who are going to die for the lack of various different urgently needed organ transplants, we should just sacrifice one of them at random, take that unlucky person's organs, and save the rest of the patients. Or maybe organs from people who are dying aren't very good, in which case we should just take someone who came in for a minor procedure but is otherwise hale and hearty, and harvest their organs to save ten others' lives. The math says it's the right thing to do!

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-29-2019 at 01:07 AM.
  #122  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:07 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
GIGO, are you under the impression that what you posted contradicted me somehow?
One could just as easily add the Generally available: 44% with the Available under stricter limits : 34% and get more than 50% (not all limits are draconian, so not mutually exclusive) of people who are the ones that will be disproportionately likely to be decisive in battleground elections against the 20% that are for the unpopular position of not permitting abortion in any way.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-29-2019 at 01:08 AM.
  #123  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:16 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
But GIGO, that response was not "Abortion should be available, but with limits". That could be argued to be a vote for the status quo. The wording was actually "Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now." (emphasis mine) As I noted when first posting it, this was a very recent poll, conducted even after the recent abortion "heartbeat laws" were passed. Given that fact, it is not supportable to act like the "under stricter limits than it is now" 34% should somehow obviously go with the "generally available" 44%. The 34% have just witnessed draconian abortion laws get passed, and are still saying "Make them stricter!" Combined with the 20% saying abortion "should not be permitted", that's a majority of the public whose reaction to the "heartbeat laws" was apparently "Okay, that's progress, but let's ramp up these restrictions even a little more."

Personally, I would have definitely chosen the "stricter limits" answer a couple months ago. But a couple weeks ago, after these red state laws were passed? I don't know--I might have felt compelled to shift to "generally available", to express opposition to what I saw happening. Which suggests to me the 54% I'm talking about is a floor, and the number would have been higher in January or February.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-29-2019 at 01:20 AM.
  #124  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:17 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But let's say it somehow did work that way. You would be making a case based on utilitarian ethics for society at large, disregarding individual ethically problematic cases based on an appeal to the "greater good".
And that is precisely, exactly wrong -- a completely backwards view of the issue. It's precisely the theocratic Bible-thumping do-gooders who want to impose their will on the rest of society, preventing women from having abortions, intruding egregiously on their reproductive rights, and they don't give a damn what reasons these women might have for their highly personal and private decisions. The pro-choice side just wants people to be left the hell alone to their own private issues that affect no one else, because it's their absolute right to make that call for themselves. And that's really the key distinction between the two sides.
  #125  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:22 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But GIGO, that response was not "Abortion should be available, but with limits". That could be argued to be a vote for the status quo. The wording was actually "Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now." (emphasis mine) As I noted when first posting it, this was a very recent poll, conducted even after the recent abortion "heartbeat laws" were passed. Given that fact, it is not supportable to act like the "under stricter limits than it is now" 34% should somehow obviously go with the "generally available" 44%. The 34% have just witnessed draconian abortion laws get passed, and are still saying "Make them stricter!" Combined with the 20% saying abortion "should not be permitted", that's a majority of the public whose reaction to the "heartbeat laws" was apparently "Okay, that's progress, but let's ramp up these restrictions even a little more."
Not what I see, again: most people do reject the new restrictions, so again I have to insist that most of the "restrictions" people are talking about are less draconian, and in the end less supported anyhow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Personally, I would have definitely chosen the "stricter limits" answer a couple months ago. But a couple weeks ago, after these red state laws were passed? I don't know--I might have to shift to "generally available", to express opposition to what I see happening. Which suggests to me the 54% I'm talking about is a floor, and the number would have been higher in January or February.
And that was my point. That trip to add the fringe numbers (from the ones against all abortion) to numbers from the ones that talk about not defined restrictions that are likely not as onerous as the new laws was not necessary.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-29-2019 at 01:26 AM.
  #126  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:22 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The pro-choice side just wants people to be left the hell alone to their own private issues that affect no one else, because it's their absolute right to make that call for themselves.

"That affect no one else". If that were really uncontroversially accepted as true, it would be an open and shut case. No one but a few radical religious zealots would have any issue with abortion at any stage of pregnancy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And that was my point.

LOL, no it was not.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-29-2019 at 01:25 AM.
  #127  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:28 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,822
Lets note the rest that was added on edit:

And that was my point. "That trip to add the fringe numbers (from the ones against all abortion) to numbers from the ones that talk about not defined restrictions that are likely not as onerous as the new laws was not necessary."

I can say that enough will shift to the "generally available" column to make a difference.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-29-2019 at 01:30 AM.
  #128  
Old 05-29-2019, 01:41 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
But the poll result I cited was from AFTER the new laws were passed. I have explained this to you several times now.

ETA: Now, if you are just trying to argue that the red state/religious right overreach has massively undercut the traction the antiabortion camp was getting by reacting to, and sometimes strawmanning, newly permissive laws in blue states, then yes: that's true. But we can't count on their continuing to be so self-destructive forever. It's quite likely they will go back to seeming like the "reasonable ones" from the middle.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-29-2019 at 01:44 AM.
  #129  
Old 05-29-2019, 02:23 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I simply do not see how an attitude of "You shouldn't be permitted to murder you child" (as that is what the pro-life side believes is happening) equals I must now pay more to care for that child that I stopped you from murdering.

Because the kid is there now.

Your virtuous pro-life stance precludes rooting for a dumpster baby solution. So then you have to pay for the services the mother and the kid you (indirectly) brought into the world will need. The alternative is "I'm OK with a broken, uneducated, starving angry kid.", which for one thing makes you several shades of an asshole, and also will mean you added one kid who'll beat up your kid for his lunch money to the equation. Does that help ?
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #130  
Old 05-29-2019, 05:45 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Let me offer you a batter analogy. Suppose somebody says they are opposed to capital punishment. That doesn't mean they are willing to accept the responsibility of taking custody of a maximum security prisoner. The fact that they are unwilling to do the latter doesn't mean their commitment to the former is insincere or hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Thanks, that is indeed a better analogy. Just because someone objects to Thing X, doesn't mean they are obligated to shoulder the costs or responsibility of what happens if Thing X is prevented or banned.
People aren't asking abortion opponents to take the babies into their own homes, they're asked to support policies that help ensure those babies are well cared for once they are born.

If someone opposes capital punishment, they damn well should also be supporting policies that ensure those prisoners are appropriately housed post-conviction. Yes, that means shouldering the costs of those policies.
  #131  
Old 05-29-2019, 06:34 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
We think that because we have disagreements with others who want to make a better world as to what that world would look like and how to get there, that the people on the other side of the aisle share in our desire to make a better world, and it is simply honest disagreement in how to get there.
Bingo.

I can respect a nuanced anti-abortion position because it acknowledges that this debate involves the rights of two organisms, not just a fetus. But when someone proposes that a fetus has the unfettered right to use the body of a raped mother to sustain itself, I stop listening. There's a lot more to the sanctity of life than cell reproduction.
  #132  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:07 AM
hesdeadjim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Of course they are. They are supporting policies and laws that, by their very nature, ensures that more babies will be born, often in shittier circumstances (because people choose birth control/abortion when they can't support a kid at this point in their lives or relationships - if there even is a relationship to begin with). I don't care if their argument is that women should in turn stop having sex - it won't happen. There is a huge biological drive honed to a razor edge, to ensure it does not in fact happen. That's why we're here. We all descend from the horniest bastards of a group of horny bastards. Nature heavily selects for horniness. Sex is going to happen. Like, a lot. No matter how hard the Bible gets thumped.
If you're responsible for creating a social environment where more kids are born in shittier circumstances, then you are absolutely on the hook for its safety net as well. If you don't want to pay for it, then shut the fuck up and let people bathe in the blood of the murdered unborn, it won't cost you a dime. In the immortal words of Butchie, "Conscience do cost". Your argument is like saying that supporting mass incarceration/tough on crime crapola doesn't necessarily mean it's on you to make sure the inmates are treated decently or fed/housed humanely. Yes it fucking is. I don't expect you to become a prison guard for consistency's sake ; but you can't expect not to pay for the foreseeable, expected consequences of the laws you support.

Since you're, in part, responsible for the birth of the baby ; you get to pay child support. It's in your own interest anyway, for a number of reasons that shouldn't need explaining. But again, if you rate your finances above your morals, then you have the choice to not try and make your morals into laws.

Nope. No one except the two people who created the baby are in any way responsible for supporting said baby, regardless of what Millennials and liberals think.
  #133  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:21 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by hesdeadjim View Post
Nope. No one except the two people who created the baby are in any way responsible for supporting said baby, regardless of what Millennials and liberals think.
Did you attend public school? Drive on public streets? Use publicly supported infrastructure and services? Or did your mommy & daddy raise you on your very own planet?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #134  
Old 05-29-2019, 11:26 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Let me offer you a batter analogy. Suppose somebody says they are opposed to capital punishment. That doesn't mean they are willing to accept the responsibility of taking custody of a maximum security prisoner. The fact that they are unwilling to do the latter doesn't mean their commitment to the former is insincere or hypocritical.
There are reasons why that analogy doesn't really work as is, but lets change it up a bit. Suppose our prisons are over crowded (okay, not exactly a hypothetical there), and that in order to alleviate that overcrowding, we have decided that we are going to start executing thousands of prisoners a year to keep the population down.

Now, I'd be against this. I'd vote for and advocate for politicians that would fight against this. However, is someone the asked me if I supported funding the prisons better so that there was not the overcrowding issue, then I wouldn't necessarily be a hypocrite if I refused, but it would be pretty obvious that my concerns were not for the welfare of the prisoners.

(Well, or let some of the non-violent offenders out too, but that's a different discussion for a different thread.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I understand all that, but it just seems as if this debate is for another thread. I simply do not see how an attitude of "You shouldn't be permitted to murder you child" (as that is what the pro-life side believes is happening) equals I must now pay more to care for that child that I stopped you from murdering. Whether we should have a social safety net and more accurately, the extent of that safety net is for another thread.

Taken to its logical conclusion, a lot of people would be on the hook for paying for a lot of things.
You keep saying that that is a topic for another thread, but it is the exact topic of this thread. This thread is specifically asking if pro-lifers should be also advocating for a social programs to support babies and mothers after birth. It's right in the title. Not sure why you keep trying to deflect by trying to equate it to individual responsibility, as that is not in any way related to this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This has been stated in this and other threads. "Pro-life" is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person's overall moral philosophy anymore than "pro-choice" is.

As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion?
Well, as a pro-choicer, the word choice is in the name, and I support the mother in whatever she chooses. If she wasnt to keep the baby, I want to support her in that decision. If she wants to have but give up the baby, I support her in that decision. If she doesn't want to carry the baby, I support her in that decision. Yes, the pro-choice is only choice in relation to abortion rights.

This is opposed to pro-life, which has nothing to do with promoting life. There is nothing that is actually pro-life about the policies that they push. It can only be, at most, narrowly defined as "Pro-Life in regards to birth".

So, yeah, unlike the term "choice", which you are correct is limited to reproductive rights, but in regards to those reproductive rights is pretty comprehensive, the term "life" has absolutely nothing to do with the pro-lifer's position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I have no problem with the label. But the "choice" that they are "pro" is the choice for women to have legal abortions and nothing more. The label doesn't mean that they are in favor of a woman choosing to carry a concealed weapon or to use recreational drugs. It is abortion related only and it would be unfair for someone to say that they are not really pro-choice if they do not support the latter.

That is my problem with the "how can you say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty?" arguments. The label is not universal.
That is where you mess yourself up. We are not pro-choice for the choice to have legal abortions and nothing more. We are pro-choice in that if she wants to keep the baby, she can make that choice.

I will agree that "how can you say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty?" arguments are a bit out of line, but "how can you say that you are pro-life when you stop giving a shit about the baby once it is born?" is very relevant.
  #135  
Old 05-29-2019, 12:55 PM
Uncommon Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wisconsin, Untied States
Posts: 7,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post

Similarly, anti-abortion conservatives who want to saddle our society with millions of unwanted babies by redefining abortion to be murder, without bothering to figure out any pragmatic way to address the massive support and care deficits that those unwanted babies will inevitably face, are being wilfully irresponsible.
Nah, we just want everyone else to be willfully responsible.

I would think that pressuring society to be more careful with their reproductive responsibilities would bleed into other parts of society as well. Part of the conservative thought process is to hold ourselves and others to higher standards.

People have unwanted and unplanned babies all the time without dropping them off at the front steps of the fire department. I've had a couple myself. You suck it up and do the right thing. It CAN be done.....
There should be more local level community support for those who need help, however. I'm a supporter of community and local charities. Keep the Feds out.
  #136  
Old 05-29-2019, 03:04 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense View Post
Nah, we just want everyone else to be willfully responsible.

I would think that pressuring society to be more careful with their reproductive responsibilities would bleed into other parts of society as well. Part of the conservative thought process is to hold ourselves and others to higher standards.

People have unwanted and unplanned babies all the time without dropping them off at the front steps of the fire department. I've had a couple myself. You suck it up and do the right thing. It CAN be done.....
There should be more local level community support for those who need help, however. I'm a supporter of community and local charities. Keep the Feds out.
Then keep the Feds out of my body.
  #137  
Old 05-29-2019, 03:44 PM
you with the face is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense View Post
Part of the conservative thought process is to hold ourselves and others to higher standards.
So what happened to this thought process when conservatives elected our current president?
  #138  
Old 05-29-2019, 03:55 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense View Post
Part of the conservative thought process is to hold ourselves and others to higher standards.
You misspoke a bit there.

Part of the conservative thought process is to hold others to a higher standard than they hold themselves.
  #139  
Old 05-29-2019, 04:07 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Part of the conservative thought process is to hold others to a higher standard than they hold themselves.
They believe in you.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #140  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:13 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
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. There are many other kinds of voters besides one-issue voters. If both parties represent an individual's views poorly/incompletely, a shift in an issue, or in multiple issues, can sway such individuals without their needing to be super dedicated one-issue voters. Otherwise, how do you explain the people who shifted from Bill Clinton, to George W. Bush, to Barack Obama, to Donald Trump?
One of us is clearly confused. You're saying Democrats should change their position on one issue in order to attract a group of voters. Wouldn't those people by definition be one issue voters?

The only people who are going to change the way they vote based on a change in a single issue are one issue voters. They are voters who are saying they will not vote for a candidate unless that candidate holds a specific position on their important issue. And when the issue is abortion, there are one issue voters on both sides. Some people will not vote for a candidate unless they stand for outlawing abortions and some people will not vote for a candidate unless they stand for no restrictions on abortions.

But I don't believe there are any people who will vote for a candidate solely on the basis that the candidate favors some middle position where abortions are allowed sometimes but have restrictions that prohibit them sometimes. If somebody prefers that kind of middle ground position it usually means they don't consider abortion to be a significant issue in how they decide who to vote for.

So a candidate who such a position will lose the pro-life or pro-choice voters who will only support candidates who stand on more extreme positions. And they won't gain any moderate voters because while those moderate voters might agree with their position on abortion, a candidate's position on abortion isn't the basis for how they decide who to vote for.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 05-29-2019 at 07:13 PM.
  #141  
Old 05-29-2019, 07:59 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
One of us is clearly confused. You're saying Democrats should change their position on one issue in order to attract a group of voters. Wouldn't those people by definition be one issue voters?

No, they would not be "by definition" (it's possible of course that some of them could be), and I already explained why not. Try rereading what I posted above.

But heck, I'll throw in a little something more to illustrate. You've heard of "the straw that broke the camel's back", right? Maybe that one piece of straw was added to an already very heavy load of corn. That doesn't mean straw is the only thing the camel found heavy.

Or here's one more, that's actually much closer to this question: you're familiar with "battleground states" in presidential elections? For shorthand, we talk about the election coming down to winning those states, or a majority of them. That doesn't mean you don't have to win a bunch of non-battleground states as well--and those non-battleground states will be completely different whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

Hopefully that clears up this strange little tangent.
  #142  
Old 05-29-2019, 10:42 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You keep saying that that is a topic for another thread, but it is the exact topic of this thread. This thread is specifically asking if pro-lifers should be also advocating for a social programs to support babies and mothers after birth. It's right in the title. Not sure why you keep trying to deflect by trying to equate it to individual responsibility, as that is not in any way related to this thread.
I didn't read the thread that way. Social programs are here already. The question, at least in my mind, was that there was some sort of personal obligation on the side of the pro-life movement to contribute.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, as a pro-choicer, the word choice is in the name, and I support the mother in whatever she chooses. If she wasnt to keep the baby, I want to support her in that decision. If she wants to have but give up the baby, I support her in that decision. If she doesn't want to carry the baby, I support her in that decision. Yes, the pro-choice is only choice in relation to abortion rights.

This is opposed to pro-life, which has nothing to do with promoting life. There is nothing that is actually pro-life about the policies that they push. It can only be, at most, narrowly defined as "Pro-Life in regards to birth".

So, yeah, unlike the term "choice", which you are correct is limited to reproductive rights, but in regards to those reproductive rights is pretty comprehensive, the term "life" has absolutely nothing to do with the pro-lifer's position.

That is where you mess yourself up. We are not pro-choice for the choice to have legal abortions and nothing more. We are pro-choice in that if she wants to keep the baby, she can make that choice.

I will agree that "how can you say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty?" arguments are a bit out of line, but "how can you say that you are pro-life when you stop giving a shit about the baby once it is born?" is very relevant.
You are pro-choice. She can have an abortion or she can have a baby. Pro-choice means nothing more than that.

Pro-life is the same. She may not have an elective abortion. That position means nothing about one's opinion about what type of social welfare system we should have for indigent mothers to help them care for their children. You can be pro-life and support a socialist worker's paradise with wide governmental help for poor mothers. You can be pro-life and support the system we have now. You can be pro-life and believe that helping the poor is best done through private charities and that government programs are an ineffective way of treating the overall problem. You can be pro-life and say fuck these women, I paid for my kids, so you pay for yours.

Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more.
  #143  
Old 05-30-2019, 12:00 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more.

But they shouldn't be allowed to just own that label, any more than someone on one side of some other hotly debated question should be able to label their side "pro-ethics" and have neutral observers describe them that way.

The label itself is a kind of spin, propaganda even. Those outside of that faction should not help them spread this propaganda. And make no mistake: they invented this label knowing it was propaganda. It would have been much simpler to just call themselves "anti-abortion".

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-30-2019 at 12:02 AM.
  #144  
Old 05-30-2019, 12:51 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No, they would not be "by definition" (it's possible of course that some of them could be), and I already explained why not. Try rereading what I posted above.
I have read it. I just don't think it's realistic. I don't believe there is any significant number of voters who would fit the description you've given. You're saying these hypothetical voters are currently voting consistently for Republicans. But they're right on the fence between voting for Democrats or Republicans. Enough so that one minor shift on a single issue would tip them over and turn them into people who will consistently vote for Democrats.

I don't think people like that exist. Anybody who is that close to switching parties is already doing so. They're not consistently voting for Republicans or Democrats. They're swing voters who go back and forth between the parties.
  #145  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:13 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
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.
  #146  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:11 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by hesdeadjim View Post
Nope. No one except the two people who created the baby are in any way responsible for supporting said baby, regardless of what Millennials and liberals think.

Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who's responsible for whom, who deserves what and so on. It's about what works. Forcing poor people to carry their pregnancies to term and not helping them any does not, can not work.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #147  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:17 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncommon Sense View Post
People have unwanted and unplanned babies all the time without dropping them off at the front steps of the fire department. I've had a couple myself. You suck it up and do the right thing. It CAN be done.....
There should be more local level community support for those who need help, however. I'm a supporter of community and local charities. Keep the Feds out.

The charity model is what we had before state-run social securities - throughout the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment. In a time when a lot more people believed in god and charity and the church was vastly more active there. Oh, and monasteries were rich as fuck and took some foundlings in, too.


It didn't work, and it wasn't enough. It most certainly wouldn't work in the era of "fuck you, got mine". That's why we moved on to state-run social programs funded with taxes rather than voluntary charity.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 05-30-2019 at 03:18 AM.
  #148  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:20 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I didn't read the thread that way. Social programs are here already. The question, at least in my mind, was that there was some sort of personal obligation on the side of the pro-life movement to contribute.
But that is not the question. That you have chosen to interpret it that way, and insist upon continuing to interpret it that way in spite of being told that that is not a valid way to interpret it is not my fault. I do not know why you would choose to do that. Can we agree at this point that the way that you read the thread is not he way that anyone on the pro-choice side actually thinks?

Yes, social programs are here. However, not only do those social programs not do enough to assist those who are in need, but they are being threatened to be cut further by pretty much the same folks that want more babies, babies of which, will stretch these already inadequate programs to the breaking point.
Quote:


You are pro-choice. She can have an abortion or she can have a baby. Pro-choice means nothing more than that.
And there you are wrong again. She can have an abortion or a baby is only one plank in the platform of the pro-choice movement. We are also for giving her choices of birth control, and education to use it properly. We are for supporting her in whatever choice she wants to make. We want to make sure that she doesn't feel forced to have an abortion because she can't see how to support herself and the baby. We want her to make a choice not based on fear or coercion. We want her and her child to have many options that are currently denied to less fortunate families.

So yeah, while pro-choice doesn't cover every possible choice, for instance, we do not advocate for your choice to murder your neighbor, or if you come whining that you only have 700 guns to choose from, we will not lobby to expand your choices there, we do want women and families to have many choices in how to raise their families. So, when it comes to anything to do with reproduction or family planning or family raising or education or nutrition or education, the vast majority of those who are for a woman's right to choose are also for giving them the resources to support those decisions.
Quote:
Pro-life is the same. She may not have an elective abortion. That position means nothing about one's opinion about what type of social welfare system we should have for indigent mothers to help them care for their children. You can be pro-life and support a socialist worker's paradise with wide governmental help for poor mothers. You can be pro-life and support the system we have now. You can be pro-life and believe that helping the poor is best done through private charities and that government programs are an ineffective way of treating the overall problem. You can be pro-life and say fuck these women, I paid for my kids, so you pay for yours.

Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more.
Right, which is why the label is intentionally deceptive, as it has nothing to do with any sort of respect for life. Just as the PETA has nothing to do with ethics, NAMBLA has nothing to do with love, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has nothing to do with democracy. They are labels that have been chosen to put a positive spin on an odious policy position.

Since you are being honest here about the utter falsehood that is the label, "Pro-Life", how do you feel about the "Pro-Birth" label? It is far less of a lie, and far more descriptive. You still can use it for the "feels", people like babies, they like births. Be honest with your followers, if you have to resort to deception and outright lies to get your way, is your way really the morally superior one?
  #149  
Old 05-31-2019, 07:29 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Absolutely not. The "Pro-Choice" movement is not going around insisting that anyone has the right to order a pregnant woman to have an abortion. All they want is for women to have the choice to have a legal abortion.

Whoopi Goldberg is pro-choice, yet she supported her daughter's decision not to have an abortion. My sister and her legally wedded wife are all for women's rights, yet they took in their granddaughter and her twin babies and supported them.

It's all about legal abortion and CHOICE.

The fact that the "pro-choice" anti-abortion movement labels us "pro-abortion" shows how disgusting their tactics are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This has been stated in this and other threads. "Pro-life" is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person's overall moral philosophy anymore than "pro-choice" is.

As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion?
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).
  #150  
Old 05-31-2019, 07:37 PM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 965
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?

That's like saying, cancer is a terrible disease. You might get it, so you should take no chances and end it all now.


Why do so many people reject adoption as a better alternative than abortion? There are millions of parents on adoption waiting lists, and God knows how many others who cannot afford to go through the process and will never be able to adopt.
It sickens me when a woman says that 9 months of convenience is more valuable than another human's entire life.
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 09:28 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