Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:01 AM
SamuelA is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,369

Those states banning abortions made sure to pass laws supporting single mothers, right?


Let's start with a few obvious fixes to the current "system" for single mothers.

a. Child support payments. Why do the states not help single mothers who can't get these payments? The father could be dead, in jail, unknown, could have lost his job, or simply not make enough money to afford adequate payments to remotely cover the cost of taking care of a child.

An obvious fix would be for the states - especially these "pro life" states who want to force all their citizen women to have all their babies - to be the one making the child support payments. Which should be indexed to inflation, zip code, and actual costs of a child, not some nominal made up number. And then the state can put a heavy tax on the income of the fathers, but not interrupt the payments to the mother if something happens to the father's ability to pay.

b. These states offer free college for a bachelor's degree in a valuable subject or trade school, which is basically the bare minimum for decent paying, sustainable employment to all children of destitute mothers, right? I mean that would be the minimum thing to do if people were "pro life". It's not very pro life to have most of the citizens in the state condemned to near poverty all their lives because they can't pay the tuition and fees needed for employment in a decent job, right?

c. They fund medicaid for these single mothers as well as they fund medicare, right? I mean, surely the state's newest citizens are worth at least as much to the state as citizens who are on their way out, right? Surely they don't underpay doctors and hospitals with stingy payments, ensuring that children on medicaid get poor quality or nonexistent treatment, right?

d. Housing. Surely these states don't deliberately underfund police and schools, creating "bad areas" of town where violence and drug abuse is endemic, right? And thus make it where all these single mothers who couldn't get abortions are forced to live there, right?

I mean, surely pro-lifers care about the consequences of their desired laws, and they have made sure to use taxpayer money to fully pay for them, right?
  #2  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:18 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,115
I reject all of these arguments. I've always hated them.

Let's say I have a 2 year old kid. I've decided he's a lot more trouble than he's worth. And, for some strange reason in my city the law says you're allowed to strangle your kid to death before the age of 3.

You think this is horrific and the law is horrific. Murder is wrong. But whatever. It's within my power and my right to murder this kid, and I'm going to do it.

Now - you're against this, of course. Are you willing to take my kid in? Raise him as your own, feed him and clothe him and provide him with education and all his needs for the next 16 years at least? Let's say in this case you're not - as many people would not. Does that make you a hypocrite?

You can believe that murder is wrong, and yet still feel no obligation to personally take care of someone whose murder you prevented. People who are against abortion believe that a fetus is a human life, and therefore it's murder. They can be against that murder, just as they're against most or all forms of murder. And yet that gives them no logical or moral obligation to then take care of the person who now lives because they were able to effect a change that prevented that murder.

All of the things you propose simply change the scenario from "are you willing to raise my kid personally?" to "are you willing to collectively raise all of these kids with your tax dollars?" - fundamentally it's morally similar, it's just a matter of scale.

Now - all of those things may be good policy for one reason or another, and you can criticize someone for not supporting those policies. But it does not follow that because someone wants it to be illegal or otherwise wants to prevent someone from being murdered that this person then has a moral obligation to take care of the person who would've been murdered.
  #3  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:27 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,115
Furthermore, I feel like almost all of the arguments made about being "pro-life" as a term to try to find hypocrisy are disingenuous. The reality is that it's a two word identifier for your position on abortion, not a verbose description of your entire moral philosophy. So when people say "how can you be pro life and yet support a war? Hypocrites!" I find that to be rather childish and not really in good faith. I've even seen a vegan try to make the case that people who claim to be "pro-life" yet aren't vegan are hypocrites. Really?

"Pro choice" is similarly a simple identifier. I'm pro-choice on civilian machine gun ownership. I think people should be able to make their own choice about whether they want to own a machine gun. You aren't? I guess you're not really pro-choice are you then? Hypocrite! See how dumb that sounds? Saying calling yourself "pro-life" means you have to support life in every instance as just as stupid as saying calling yourself "pro-choice" means you have to support choice in every instance.

We've come up with simple labels to identify two positions on a contentious issues. Trying to apply those simple labels outside of the context of the issue they're meant to identify on is not really acting in good faith, they're just trying to invent and contrive hypocrisy.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 05-26-2019 at 12:31 AM.
  #4  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:58 AM
SamuelA is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
"Pro choice" is similarly a simple identifier. I'm pro-choice on civilian machine gun ownership. I think people should be able to make their own choice about whether they want to own a machine gun. You aren't? I guess you're not really pro-choice are you then? Hypocrite! See how dumb that sounds? Saying calling yourself "pro-life" means you have to support life in every instance as just as stupid as saying calling yourself "pro-choice" means you have to support choice in every instance.
This is a bad argument. When I say "pro lifers are hypocrites" I specifically mean they are up in arms about non-sentient lumps of human tissue but don't give a shit about living babies, living small children, or living young adults living in squalor. I charge that this is hypocritical and a nonsensical position only a moron could take. Or, well, someone trying to pass a law that ignores the separation of church and state.

I don't extend this to "well if you are pro life you should be vegan" necessarily...though to be fair, this is not a totally bad argument like you claim. A living cow or chicken is a mentally more sophisticated, complete living animal. If a pro-lifer really cares so much about a fetus they shouldn't be ok with chowing down on a cow or sheep or other large animal that has an enormously larger brain, actual peers and memories and complex behavior, and so on. Versus a fetus that does little more than twitch occasionally as the really advanced stuff isn't ready yet.

As for your machinegun analogy: let's suppose you are "pro-choice" for owning machineguns. Cool. But you support banning of body armor being sold in stores, which would be pretty damn useful if everybody has a machinegun. I would say you're being a hypocrite and not supporting laws consistent with your own claimed position.

Last edited by SamuelA; 05-26-2019 at 12:58 AM.
  #5  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:17 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This is a bad argument. When I say "pro lifers are hypocrites" I specifically mean they are up in arms about non-sentient lumps of human tissue but don't give a shit about living babies, living small children, or living young adults living in squalor. I charge that this is hypocritical and a nonsensical position only a moron could take. Or, well, someone trying to pass a law that ignores the separation of church and state.
I think it's as simple as they see abortion as murder because they see a fetus as human. They may not care what kind of environment the fetus is born into, but they don't believe it should be legal to murder it. I assume they would be equally against parents legally murdering their children.

They may not give a shit whether or not the person lives in squalor, but they don't support what they see is murder.
  #6  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:17 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Let's start with a few obvious fixes to the current "system" for single mothers.

a. Child support payments. Why do the states not help single mothers who can't get these payments? The father could be dead, in jail, unknown, could have lost his job, or simply not make enough money to afford adequate payments to remotely cover the cost of taking care of a child.

An obvious fix would be for the states - especially these "pro life" states who want to force all their citizen women to have all their babies - to be the one making the child support payments. Which should be indexed to inflation, zip code, and actual costs of a child, not some nominal made up number. And then the state can put a heavy tax on the income of the fathers, but not interrupt the payments to the mother if something happens to the father's ability to pay.
I would be open to forcing the father to contribute. I believe those laws are already on the books. The problem is, the father is not necessarily identified, or might be dead or unable to afford payments. Society has little pity for a deadbeat dad, even if there's nothing he can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
b. These states offer free college for a bachelor's degree in a valuable subject or trade school, which is basically the bare minimum for decent paying, sustainable employment to all children of destitute mothers, right? I mean that would be the minimum thing to do if people were "pro life". It's not very pro life to have most of the citizens in the state condemned to near poverty all their lives because they can't pay the tuition and fees needed for employment in a decent job, right?

c. They fund medicaid for these single mothers as well as they fund medicare, right? I mean, surely the state's newest citizens are worth at least as much to the state as citizens who are on their way out, right? Surely they don't underpay doctors and hospitals with stingy payments, ensuring that children on medicaid get poor quality or nonexistent treatment, right?

d. Housing. Surely these states don't deliberately underfund police and schools, creating "bad areas" of town where violence and drug abuse is endemic, right? And thus make it where all these single mothers who couldn't get abortions are forced to live there, right?

I mean, surely pro-lifers care about the consequences of their desired laws, and they have made sure to use taxpayer money to fully pay for them, right?
I might be open to having the states assist single mothers, but I could also imagine myself arguing against the same unless the baby was a product of rape.

~Max
  #7  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:21 AM
SamuelA is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I would be open to forcing the father to contribute. I believe those laws are already on the books. The problem is, the father is not necessarily identified, or might be dead or unable to afford payments. Society has little pity for a deadbeat dad, even if there's nothing he can do.


I might be open to having the states assist single mothers, but I could also imagine myself arguing against the same unless the baby was a product of rape.

~Max
First, what does "little pity for a deadbeat dad" have to do with anything? I'm saying that the government can obviously get the money from the dad if the money exists. But for all the cases where it doesn't exist this month, it's wrong to make the mother and child suffer because you didn't allow the mother to have an abortion.

Similarly, your "argument against" is what, a free will argument? That young women have the "free will" to not have sex at all until they are too old to reproduce? What percentage of women are able to do this? (or men, following their own role in things)

How do you think nature actually functions? What do you suppose evolution would have done with the women who had the "free will" to avoid kids? (I guess most pro-lifers don't believe in evolution...)

Now, yes, those women should have been responsible and been on birth control, which is the most reliable way to reduce abortions. But when the birth control is very expensive, due to a shortage of doctors and medicine, another problem caused by the State...

Last edited by SamuelA; 05-26-2019 at 01:24 AM.
  #8  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:29 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 911
Not to side-track the debate, and maybe it deserves its own thread, but I've always felt that in a logical world it would be the atheists against abortions and the theists disinterested in the matter. If you believed all aborted babies went to heaven, you would have to be a really evil person to bring any baby into this world were they'd have even a slight chance to be tortured for an eternity. If atheists believed in the humanist position, they would probably be against abortion as without restrictions you would have the right to end an otherwise viable human life regardless of its condition... but I digress.
  #9  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:36 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This is a bad argument. When I say "pro lifers are hypocrites" I specifically mean they are up in arms about non-sentient lumps of human tissue but don't give a shit about living babies, living small children, or living young adults living in squalor. I charge that this is hypocritical and a nonsensical position only a moron could take. Or, well, someone trying to pass a law that ignores the separation of church and state.
There is nothing at all that requires that if you oppose the murder of fetuses, that you must therefore be willing to support those fetuses. This is your own value judgement. These are not necessarily linked.

Do you think it should be legal to murder homeless people? No? Then you must support requiring the government to build nice new McMasions for homeless people, or confiscate homes from anyone who owns more than one and gives them to homeless people, right?

No, of course not. Those things are not intrinsically linked. You can oppose the murder of all human beings - include homeless people - and not give the slightest shit about homeless people and wanting to help them. That's completely logically and morally consistent.

People who are pro-life nominally believe that a fetus is a human life as much as a toddler or a homeless person or you are a human life. As such, it has a fundamental right to life, just as any of those things do, and so they believe it should be illegal to murder them. It's super simple.

The abortion argument is the most intellectually dishonest argument I've ever popularly seen from both sides. Both sides deliberately misunderstand each other, hide their own motivations, and lie.

On the pro-choice side, you have asinine hypocrisy hunting like that in this thread. You deliberately misunderstand the philosophical position of your opponents, failing to understand their fundamental simple premise - that a fetus is a human life, which qualifies it for all of the rights inherent in that. And you attempt to find hypocrisy by demanding that those who do believe that a fetus is a human right therefore must be consistent and be willing to support those human life with whatever social program you deem necessary. But that's simply not logically connected.

On their side of things, I suspect only about 20% of "pro-life" people actually sincerely hold the position they claim. Most pro-choicers believe that number is zero percent, but I have absolutely no doubt that there are some people who simply have the value and moral conviction that a fetus is a life. Where they go wrong, and their motivations become clear, is that you could ask them - if you want to reduce abortions, then that must mean you support contraception and sex education, which has been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which in turn reduces abortion. And if they say no, they oppose those things, then they're hypocritical pieces of shit, because what they actually believe is that sex is bad, and having an unwanted baby is your punishment for having sex, and abortion is cheating your way out of that punishment.

But the degree to which people on both sides of this issue talk past each other, argue in bad faith, mischaracterize their opponents position, fail to state their true motives, and otherwise argue in bad faith is staggering. Easily greater than any other common debate issue in the public conciousness.
  #10  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:52 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
First, what does "little pity for a deadbeat dad" have to do with anything? I'm saying that the government can obviously get the money from the dad if the money exists. But for all the cases where it doesn't exist this month, it's wrong to make the mother and child suffer because you didn't allow the mother to have an abortion.
The counterargument is that killing the fetus is more wrong than letting the mother and child suffer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Similarly, your "argument against" is what, a free will argument? That young women have the "free will" to not have sex at all until they are too old to reproduce? What percentage of women are able to do this? (or men, following their own role in things)
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
How do you think nature actually functions? What do you suppose evolution would have done with the women who had the "free will" to avoid kids? (I guess most pro-lifers don't believe in evolution...)
Don't bring nature into this debate. Nature would let all the single mothers and their children fend for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Now, yes, those women should have been responsible and been on birth control, which is the most reliable way to reduce abortions. But when the birth control is very expensive, due to a shortage of doctors and medicine, another problem caused by the State...
There are people who think birth control is immoral, too; that people who cannot support children should just not have sex, and when they do, that's on them. I personally think we can help out, be it via charity or state assistance, that's why I said I would be open to your suggestions. But there's nothing inherently wrong with the opposing argument.

Without charity or state assistance, if the kid isn't getting enough support, the state takes custody and possibly prosecutes the mother for neglecting her child.

~Max
  #11  
Old 05-26-2019, 01:56 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Where they go wrong, and their motivations become clear, is that you could ask them - if you want to reduce abortions, then that must mean you support contraception and sex education, which has been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which in turn reduces abortion. And if they say no, they oppose those things, then they're hypocritical pieces of shit, because what they actually believe is that sex is bad, and having an unwanted baby is your punishment for having sex, and abortion is cheating your way out of that punishment.
This is not necessarily true. It is possible to both believe fetuses have rights and that non-reproductive sex is generally bad, see for example the Catholic Church.

~Max
  #12  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:01 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Not to side-track the debate, and maybe it deserves its own thread, but I've always felt that in a logical world it would be the atheists against abortions and the theists disinterested in the matter. If you believed all aborted babies went to heaven, you would have to be a really evil person to bring any baby into this world were they'd have even a slight chance to be tortured for an eternity. If atheists believed in the humanist position, they would probably be against abortion as without restrictions you would have the right to end an otherwise viable human life regardless of its condition... but I digress.
Similarly I believe the Catholic faith has aborted babies going to limbo or hell because they are unbaptized. Also it counts as a grave sin for the parents and doctor. If I remember correctly, current doctrine puts babies that were supposed to be baptized, but died too soon, in heaven. It is the intent that counts.

~Max
  #13  
Old 05-26-2019, 03:40 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Similarly I believe the Catholic faith has aborted babies going to limbo or hell because they are unbaptized. Also it counts as a grave sin for the parents and doctor. If I remember correctly, current doctrine puts babies that were supposed to be baptized, but died too soon, in heaven. It is the intent that counts.

~Max
Hmm... so the unborn baby's external future depends on the parent's intent of said baby. Man, some lives had 0 chance in making it in to Heaven. That's what maximum cruelty looks like. God made all of us, true, but some of us were made to be tortured for eternity.
  #14  
Old 05-26-2019, 07:35 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,238
I'm exceedingly uncomfortable with any abortion argument that is about the potential child. I think it's very problematic to talk about whether or not a life would be worth living, or to suggest that it's not fair to a person that they should have to take responsibility for their kid.

Abortion is about pregnancy. Men don't seem to get this, and honestly, I didn't get it either until I had a baby. I really, really noticed this when I was first pregnant: men, including my husband, heard "there will be a baby in the fall!", like I was announcing a future event. Women heard "I am pregnant right now!", which is what I wanted to convey. The now was overwhelming in and of itself--the future would have to wait. Generally speaking, men, even pro-choice men, seem to hand-wave away this part of the process, to think it's a debate about whether or not women should be forced to "have children" they don't want. That's not the issue. The issue is carrying the child. Under what circumstances can a woman be forced to go through an invasive, dangerous, painful physical process to protect the life of a fetus?

Any argument that ignores this part risks running afoul of some pretty solid arguments on the other side. But all that is irrelevant. You can't force a DEAD PERSON to give up so much as a fragment of skin to save the life of their living child, let alone compel a living person to give blood, bone-marrow or any other tissue to save the life of their own child. But you can compel a woman to be pregnant for nearly a year and risk her life in delivery and be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in bills--and two years of postpartum hormonal chaos--and that's something she should accept as the natural order of things and that a "normal pregnancy is uneventful and not that bad"

A better question would be if the state is going to pick up the bills for the pregnancy and delivery, the lost income for whatever period of time you are unable to work, the follow-up visits, etc.

Abortion isn't about babies. It's about pregnancy.
  #15  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:33 AM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I'm exceedingly uncomfortable with any abortion argument that is about the potential child. I think it's very problematic to talk about whether or not a life would be worth living, or to suggest that it's not fair to a person that they should have to take responsibility for their kid.

Abortion is about pregnancy. Men don't seem to get this, and honestly, I didn't get it either until I had a baby. I really, really noticed this when I was first pregnant: men, including my husband, heard "there will be a baby in the fall!", like I was announcing a future event. Women heard "I am pregnant right now!", which is what I wanted to convey. The now was overwhelming in and of itself--the future would have to wait. Generally speaking, men, even pro-choice men, seem to hand-wave away this part of the process, to think it's a debate about whether or not women should be forced to "have children" they don't want. That's not the issue. The issue is carrying the child. Under what circumstances can a woman be forced to go through an invasive, dangerous, painful physical process to protect the life of a fetus?

Any argument that ignores this part risks running afoul of some pretty solid arguments on the other side. But all that is irrelevant. You can't force a DEAD PERSON to give up so much as a fragment of skin to save the life of their living child, let alone compel a living person to give blood, bone-marrow or any other tissue to save the life of their own child. But you can compel a woman to be pregnant for nearly a year and risk her life in delivery and be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in bills--and two years of postpartum hormonal chaos--and that's something she should accept as the natural order of things and that a "normal pregnancy is uneventful and not that bad"

A better question would be if the state is going to pick up the bills for the pregnancy and delivery, the lost income for whatever period of time you are unable to work, the follow-up visits, etc.

Abortion isn't about babies. It's about pregnancy.
Awesome post.

I agree that the focus needs to stick on pregnancy. Because pro-lifers will just argue that if a woman is too poor to raise a baby, she can turn the baby over to an adoption agency and walk away. No woman is obligated to raise a baby she doesn't want to raise, so a woman who chooses to keep the baby is choosing to accept all the hardships associated of keeping the baby.

So I think if pro-lifers wanted to win hearts and minds over to their side, they would be pressing for free health care for pregnant women as well other benefits (high-quality subsidized housing, free childcare, free counseling). And there would be no question that the the guys who knocked them up with be on the hook for child support from day the pregnancy is detected--and the state would be prepared to pick up any slack. Child support payment could not only help a pregnant woman prepare for the baby materially, but it could also cover the costs of transportion to and from doctors, extra groceries, and lost work hours (it's hard to work when you're yakking every ten minutes).

I am not a sociologist, but I'm guessing one of the top reasons young women (teens) abort their babies is due to the perceived and real lack of family support. Parents do a great job of instilling the fear of God into their daughters that they "better not show up here pregnant", and girls hear horror stories about their friends and classmates being kicked out of the house for doing just that. Perhaps if pro-lifers could direct some of their sanctimonious messaging to the kind of families that shame pregnancy, then girls wouldn't find it necessary to get abortions. Make being pregnant something to be proud of instead of a mark of shame. It's too bad so many pro-lifers are big believers in shaming both pregnancy AND abortion.
  #16  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:16 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
a. Child support payments. Why do the states not help single mothers who can't get these payments? The father could be dead, in jail, unknown, could have lost his job, or simply not make enough money to afford adequate payments to remotely cover the cost of taking care of a child.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate: why should states support single mothers? If the state wants to discourage women from becoming single mothers, then surely not supporting them is one way to achieve that? Let their poverty and distress serve as a warning to others. This would be pure social engineering.

Now, my answer to that question in this case would be, "The state is forcing me to keep the child, so it should be forced to pay for its upbringing."
  #17  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:33 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Let's start with a few obvious fixes to the current "system" for single mothers.

a. Child support payments. Why do the states not help single mothers who can't get these payments? The father could be dead, in jail, unknown, could have lost his job, or simply not make enough money to afford adequate payments to remotely cover the cost of taking care of a child.

An obvious fix would be for the states - especially these "pro life" states who want to force all their citizen women to have all their babies - to be the one making the child support payments. Which should be indexed to inflation, zip code, and actual costs of a child, not some nominal made up number. And then the state can put a heavy tax on the income of the fathers, but not interrupt the payments to the mother if something happens to the father's ability to pay.
As I have friends and even siblings who are at the financial mercy of the deadbeat dads of their children, this is something that I have proposed and certainly endorse.

Regardless of your position on abortion, it does make far more sense for the state to administer the child support that is needed to support the child, and then use the resources of the state to collect from the father.

Hard part is, of course, identifying the father, but, as the "pro-life" contingent does not believe that anyone has a right to medical privacy in regards to abortion, a pro-life state can also get a genetic sample from every male resident, and match the children to their fathers.
Quote:
b. These states offer free college for a bachelor's degree in a valuable subject or trade school, which is basically the bare minimum for decent paying, sustainable employment to all children of destitute mothers, right? I mean that would be the minimum thing to do if people were "pro life". It's not very pro life to have most of the citizens in the state condemned to near poverty all their lives because they can't pay the tuition and fees needed for employment in a decent job, right?
Once again, a good idea, whether or not the state is also removing a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Quote:
c. They fund medicaid for these single mothers as well as they fund medicare, right? I mean, surely the state's newest citizens are worth at least as much to the state as citizens who are on their way out, right? Surely they don't underpay doctors and hospitals with stingy payments, ensuring that children on medicaid get poor quality or nonexistent treatment, right?
Don't forget prenatal and postpartum care for the mother.
Quote:
d. Housing. Surely these states don't deliberately underfund police and schools, creating "bad areas" of town where violence and drug abuse is endemic, right? And thus make it where all these single mothers who couldn't get abortions are forced to live there, right?
They can try to give their kid up for adoption to some nice deserving wealth christian (white) family.

Of course, if their kid isn't cute (white) enough to be selected for such a status, then back to the slums for them.
Quote:
I mean, surely pro-lifers care about the consequences of their desired laws, and they have made sure to use taxpayer money to fully pay for them, right?
No, pro-lifers only care about ensuring that women do not get a choice in how their bodies are used. As SenorBeef explains, "Pro-life" is a name that they have chosen for themselves, not a description of their views. I get it that it is a bit confusing that they have chosen a name that is diametrically opposite of what their actual views are, but that is because they are dishonest in their goals and objectives, and want to try to get people on their side through dishonest rhetoric. As long as they call themselves "pro-life" they can call their opponents "anti-life" and no one wants to be anti-life, do they?
  #18  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:40 PM
ohiomstr2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 202
These laws are being passed to create a challenge that will be elevated to the Supreme Court in an attempt to overrule Roe v. Wade.

Questioning the morality of anti abortionist so is pointless. Like most conservatives they have no Morales
  #19  
Old 05-26-2019, 12:53 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,711
Been listening to George Carlin?
  #20  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:16 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Hmm... so the unborn baby's external future depends on the parent's intent of said baby. Man, some lives had 0 chance in making it in to Heaven. That's what maximum cruelty looks like. God made all of us, true, but some of us were made to be tortured for eternity.
Not necessarily torture, limbo is not torture. I believe Dante's outer ring of hell was an apt illustration of limbo.

~Max
  #21  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:20 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Because pro-lifers will just argue that if a woman is too poor to raise a baby, she can turn the baby over to an adoption agency and walk away. No woman is obligated to raise a baby she doesn't want to raise, so a woman who chooses to keep the baby is choosing to accept all the hardships associated of keeping the baby.
Or, that the woman should not have sex, and if she does have sex, she is obligated for keeping the baby she does not want, and if she fails in that regard the state can press charges.

I know it sounds cold, but if you look at it from the perspective where the fetus is a person, it should make sense.

~Max
  #22  
Old 05-26-2019, 02:40 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Or, that the woman should not have sex, and if she does have sex, she is obligated for keeping the baby she does not want, and if she fails in that regard the state can press charges.

I know it sounds cold, but if you look at it from the perspective where the fetus is a person, it should make sense.

~Max
If you look at it from the perspective that the woman is a person, it doesn't.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-26-2019 at 02:40 PM.
  #23  
Old 05-26-2019, 03:02 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Or, that the woman should not have sex, and if she does have sex, she is obligated for keeping the baby she does not want, and if she fails in that regard the state can press charges.

I know it sounds cold, but if you look at it from the perspective where the fetus is a person, it should make sense.

~Max
Under what circumstances does the state have the right to compel you to submit to invasive, dangerous, medical procedures to save the life of a third person?

Do you support mandatory organ donation? How about blood and bone marrow from living donors? Should the state compel my parents to donate blood if I need it? I clearly have a right to life.
  #24  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:04 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Since it is well known that children do much better in two parent households, giving young mothers huge benefits contingent on their partners leaving is a horrible idea.
  #25  
Old 05-27-2019, 12:19 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Since it is well known that children do much better in two parent households, giving young mothers huge benefits contingent on their partners leaving is a horrible idea.
The main reason why children do better in two parent households is that it's easier to raise children when you have four hands instead of two.

If we gave single mothers an extra set of hands--whether in the form of additional services or funds--then we could improve their and their kids' quality of life. And you know what, puddlegum? We could require recipients of that assistance be on birth control, as well as being enrolled in sex education programs. But conservatives like yourself have a problem with those things too. You guys seem to have plenty of ideas for how we can further shame and punish people, but no actual solutions.
  #27  
Old 05-27-2019, 01:34 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,201
I'm willing to bet we're at the point where a fertilized egg could likely be removed safely from a woman's uterus and then be implanted (with the right hormone manipulation) on the peritoneum of a man--there have been documented pregnancies that resulted in viable babies that gestated in this manner. If the bodies of adults are property of the state and may be used as incubators then it stands to reason that men should line up for the job of being incubators too--I mean, sure there's a risk and all, but women have been the sole carriers of this risk for millennia so I think it's really time the men stepped up for it. Every man who's been sexually active needs to be on the list to receive a transplanted fetus, regardless of their wishes or their place in life or how much a pregnancy might disrupt said life, just as women are. Fair's fair, right? I bet every man arguing that women should be forced to gestate every fetus would be signing right up for this procedure, right? And if not--well, maybe ought to sit with that and examine your motives for insisting women be "held accountable" for the "consequences" of having sex when men aren't.
  #28  
Old 05-27-2019, 01:39 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
I'm willing to bet we're at the point where a fertilized egg could likely be removed safely from a woman's uterus and then be implanted (with the right hormone manipulation) on the peritoneum of a man--there have been documented pregnancies that resulted in viable babies that gestated in this manner. If the bodies of adults are property of the state and may be used as incubators then it stands to reason that men should line up for the job of being incubators too--I mean, sure there's a risk and all, but women have been the sole carriers of this risk for millennia so I think it's really time the men stepped up for it. Every man who's been sexually active needs to be on the list to receive a transplanted fetus, regardless of their wishes or their place in life or how much a pregnancy might disrupt said life, just as women are. Fair's fair, right? I bet every man arguing that women should be forced to gestate every fetus would be signing right up for this procedure, right? And if not--well, maybe ought to sit with that and examine your motives for insisting women be "held accountable" for the "consequences" of having sex when men aren't.
I could see someone seriously arguing that forcing men to incubate fetuses "goes against God's will" and would thus be an abomination.
  #29  
Old 05-27-2019, 01:49 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I could see someone seriously arguing that forcing men to incubate fetuses "goes against God's will" and would thus be an abomination.
Well, of course they would--I mean, anything that inconveniences or endangers men is something god is against aside from sending them off to face a hail of bullets in a war. I've noticed that the more likely something is to adversely affect a man the more likely he is to argue that it's against nature to expect him to face it. Hence the very old rich men who send the young and poor ones off to die to secure their monetary interests. Force them old rich fucks to put on a pack and pick up an AR-15 along with the young, fit troops and there'd be no more wars. Force men to bear the children and face death doing it and suddenly abortion becomes a sacrament. And so it goes.

Last edited by SmartAleq; 05-27-2019 at 01:50 PM.
  #30  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:25 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
The main reason why children do better in two parent households is that it's easier to raise children when you have four hands instead of two.

If we gave single mothers an extra set of hands--whether in the form of additional services or funds--then we could improve their and their kids' quality of life. And you know what, puddlegum? We could require recipients of that assistance be on birth control, as well as being enrolled in sex education programs. But conservatives like yourself have a problem with those things too. You guys seem to have plenty of ideas for how we can further shame and punish people, but no actual solutions.
Where is the evidence that additional services or funds could actually replace a father in the home?

I have no problem with forcing people on welfare to be on birth control, when norplant was approved there were proposals to make it mandatory for welfare recipients to be on it, but those proposals were opposed by the ACLU and people said it was a conspiracy to limit the number of black people.

Enrolling mothers in sex education classes would be a waste or our money and their time, it does not work.
  #31  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:42 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Enrolling mothers in sex education classes would be a waste or our money and their time, it does not work.
When did this happen, and how did it fail?
  #32  
Old 05-27-2019, 02:51 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Where is the evidence that additional services or funds could actually replace a father in the home?
Where is the evidence that abortion ban will improve the greater good?

Ya'll seem real keen on having hard evidence when it comes to something ya'll are already inclined not to like. But when it comes to the things you learn in Sunday School, suddenly "evidence" doesn't matter at all.

But since I'm a strong believer in evidence and you asked (kind of) nicely, here you go:

Children aren't any worse off in single parent households (as long as there are positive relationships present)

State and federal tax subsidies may reduce child maltreatment by single mothers


Quote:
I have no problem with forcing people on welfare to be on birth control, when norplant was approved there were proposals to make it mandatory for welfare recipients to be on it, but those proposals were opposed by the ACLU and people said it was a conspiracy to limit the number of black people.
See, I wasn't even talking about welfare. I was talking about services beyond welfare...that could be supported by government funding and private donations. You're a young single mother and you're seriously considering an abortion? Well, here's a program you might be interested in, that can address the particular concerns you're having about your pregnancy. If you're worried because you don't have a support network, the program will provide that for you. If you're worried about health issues, we have doctors who will give you state-of-the-art care, free of cost. If you're worried about finances, we'll help you get on the path of financial independence. Just as long as you agree to practice one of a multitude of contraceptive methods (including abstinence) and you agree to participate in sex education/parenting classes.

Quote:
Enrolling mothers in sex education classes would be a waste or our money and their time, it does not work.
Where's the evidence for this statement?

Because here's evidence that refutes it.
  #33  
Old 05-27-2019, 09:54 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Where is the evidence that abortion ban will improve the greater good?

Ya'll seem real keen on having hard evidence when it comes to something ya'll are already inclined not to like. But when it comes to the things you learn in Sunday School, suddenly "evidence" doesn't matter at all.

But since I'm a strong believer in evidence and you asked (kind of) nicely, here you go:

Children aren't any worse off in single parent households (as long as there are positive relationships present)

State and federal tax subsidies may reduce child maltreatment by single mothers




See, I wasn't even talking about welfare. I was talking about services beyond welfare...that could be supported by government funding and private donations. You're a young single mother and you're seriously considering an abortion? Well, here's a program you might be interested in, that can address the particular concerns you're having about your pregnancy. If you're worried because you don't have a support network, the program will provide that for you. If you're worried about health issues, we have doctors who will give you state-of-the-art care, free of cost. If you're worried about finances, we'll help you get on the path of financial independence. Just as long as you agree to practice one of a multitude of contraceptive methods (including abstinence) and you agree to participate in sex education/parenting classes.



Where's the evidence for this statement?

Because here's evidence that refutes it.
Fewer abortions are the greater good.

Your first link says that in England kids in single families feel as good about their families and about their peer relationships. Those seem like odd measurements and are probably the result of data mining. However, even if they are true, feeling good about your family is not enough. Children of single parents have twice the odds of dropping out of high school, 2.5 the rate of teen motherhood, have worse grades, are less likely to go to college, and commit crimes at a greater rate. Hardly not any worse.

There are places like you describe that me and other anti abortion voters support. They are called crisis pregnancy centers and they provide counseling and material support to young women considering abortion. Of course the abortion industry hates them and is trying to get them shut down.

Studies of sex education that rely on self report are generally unreliable. The best study about sex education effectiveness found that on measurable outcomes like STI infection rates and number of pregnancies sex education has no effect. The study was done on multiple countries and used 55,000 participants.
  #34  
Old 05-27-2019, 10:42 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Fewer abortions are the greater good.
Not necessarily. Fewer unwanted pregnancies are definitely the greater good. But requiring women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum
There are places like you describe that me and other anti abortion voters support. They are called crisis pregnancy centers and they provide counseling and material support to young women considering abortion.
Mostly what they do is lie to women:
Quote:
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are anti-abortion centers that try to talk patients out of abortion through manipulative tactics. There are over 4,000 fake clinics all throughout the country, in red, blue, and purple states—outnumbering abortion providers 4 to 1. They misrepresent themselves as abortion clinics, often with vague names like “MyChoice,” but when patients come in to CPCs seeking abortions, they’re lied to, shamed, and given medical misinformation to try to stop them from obtaining an abortion.

The CPCs’ shameless disguise as medical facilities has real consequences: patients have faced life-threatening medical emergencies and lost pregnancies because fake clinics didn’t give them accurate medical information. They promise free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds to target marginalized women, including teenagers, college students, women of color, low income women, and non-English speaking women, who are less likely to be able to access affordable healthcare. The stories of patients who were manipulated, endangered, and deceived by fake clinics are brutal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum
Of course the abortion industry hates them and is trying to get them shut down.
There isn't any "abortion industry". Family planning services in general, including abortion, are mostly provided on a nonprofit basis. Nobody wants women to have unwanted pregnancies just so they might then be able to sell them an abortion: it's an absurd business model.

So-called "crisis pregnancy centers" should be exposed and shut down because they try to con women seeking an abortion into believing that they provide actual medical services, and then try to pressure them into changing their decision. If anti-abortion advocates want to make adoption services and counseling available to pregnant women, they can do that without trying to lure women in by pretending to be abortion providers.

Last edited by Kimstu; 05-27-2019 at 10:43 PM.
  #35  
Old 05-27-2019, 11:46 PM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post

Studies of sex education that rely on self report are generally unreliable. The best study about sex education effectiveness found that on measurable outcomes like STI infection rates and number of pregnancies sex education has no effect. The study was done on multiple countries and used 55,000 participants.
Interesting that the "best study" about sex education effectiveness failed to include the United States as part of its scope of research. And you seem to have missed an important part of the study's conclusion (bolding mine):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Amanda Mason-Jones, Senior Lecturer in Global Public Health and lead author of the review
As they are currently designed, sex education programmes alone probably have no effect on the number of young people infected with HIV, other STIs or the number of pregnancies, especially if condoms and contraceptives or other health service provision are also not freely available to young people.
But God forbid that we try to reduce teen pregnancies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
There are places like you describe that me and other anti abortion voters support. They are called crisis pregnancy centers and they provide counseling and material support to young women considering abortion. Of course the abortion industry hates them and is trying to get them shut down.
To backup the point made by Kimstu: Here are a couple of doctors on the AMA ethical website weighing in on crisis pregnancy centers.

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical

Quote:
They strive to give the impression that they are clinical centers, offering legitimate medical services and advice, yet they are exempt from regulatory, licensure, and credentialing oversight that apply to health care facilities.
And when you can list the places that provide the services that were proposed by monstro, please do let us know. Because Crisis Pregnancy Centers most definitely do not offer these services, contrary to your claim.
  #36  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:46 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
Interesting that the "best study" about sex education effectiveness failed to include the United States as part of its scope of research. And you seem to have missed an important part of the study's conclusion (bolding mine):



But God forbid that we try to reduce teen pregnancies.



To backup the point made by Kimstu: Here are a couple of doctors on the AMA ethical website weighing in on crisis pregnancy centers.

Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical



And when you can list the places that provide the services that were proposed by monstro, please do let us know. Because Crisis Pregnancy Centers most definitely do not offer these services, contrary to your claim.
It would be odd if America alone among countries had the only successful sex education program in the world. The best study on American sex education also found no relationship between comprehensive sex education and pregnancy. Luckily condoms are ubiquitous in American and just about everyone who wants one can easily get one.

I am not surprised two abortion doctors find crisis counseling centers unethical, I'm sure every industry would like to have its competitors shut down.
I don't have a comprehensive list of crisis pregnancy centers but 2 seconds of googling gave me this which offers free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, counseling about options, help with housing, free emergency contraception, and STI information.
  #37  
Old 05-28-2019, 09:59 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Or, that the woman should not have sex, and if she does have sex, she is obligated for keeping the baby she does not want, and if she fails in that regard the state can press charges.

I know it sounds cold, but if you look at it from the perspective where the fetus is a person, it should make sense.

~Max
It makes sense only if we want society to look like something out of Handmaidís Tale.
  #38  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:08 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Studies of sex education that rely on self report are generally unreliable. The best study about sex education effectiveness found that on measurable outcomes like STI infection rates and number of pregnancies sex education has no effect. The study was done on multiple countries and used 55,000 participants.
What makes this one study you dug up from from 1986 that didn't even involve the country we are talking about the best study on the topic...besides the fact that a quick going over made you think it aligned with your personal opinion? This "best study" of yours is horribly out-dated and off-topic, and you should feel embarrassed that you thought we wouldn't check up on the validity of your cite.
  #39  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:18 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This is a bad argument. When I say "pro lifers are hypocrites" I specifically mean they are up in arms about non-sentient lumps of human tissue but don't give a shit about living babies, living small children, or living young adults living in squalor. I charge that this is hypocritical and a nonsensical position only a moron could take. Or, well, someone trying to pass a law that ignores the separation of church and state.

I don't extend this to "well if you are pro life you should be vegan" necessarily...though to be fair, this is not a totally bad argument like you claim. A living cow or chicken is a mentally more sophisticated, complete living animal. If a pro-lifer really cares so much about a fetus they shouldn't be ok with chowing down on a cow or sheep or other large animal that has an enormously larger brain, actual peers and memories and complex behavior, and so on. Versus a fetus that does little more than twitch occasionally as the really advanced stuff isn't ready yet.

As for your machinegun analogy: let's suppose you are "pro-choice" for owning machineguns. Cool. But you support banning of body armor being sold in stores, which would be pretty damn useful if everybody has a machinegun. I would say you're being a hypocrite and not supporting laws consistent with your own claimed position.
What if a person is say "pro choice" in just about anything and everything. The only kicker to being pro anything is that you must then live with the repercussion of said choice?

I dislike almost any and all things that take away choice and even more than that , I hate when the government thinks they need to come in and save all those people who made the 'wrong' choice(s)
  #40  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:23 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,462
I think the anti-abortion movement is generally supportive of individual responsibility. Have sex, be responsible for the child you might have, or else don't have sex. So no they would not be in favor of taking care of other people's children.
  #41  
Old 05-28-2019, 10:32 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
I think the anti-abortion movement is generally supportive of individual responsibility. Have sex, be responsible for the child you might have, or else don't have sex. So no they would not be in favor of taking care of other people's children.
So you justify forcing women to go through with pregnancies by making it a punishment for wanton sex?
  #42  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:00 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So you justify forcing women to go through with pregnancies by making it a punishment for wanton sex?
What you call punishment isn't really anything other than taking responsibility for ones own actions. So, no it isn't "punishment"

Is it "punishment" for the father if he doesn't want the child to have to pay child support?

Last edited by Kearsen1; 05-28-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #43  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:15 AM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
I don't have a comprehensive list of crisis pregnancy centers but 2 seconds of googling gave me this which offers free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, counseling about options, help with housing, free emergency contraception, and STI information.
You do realize that the link you thoughtfully provided is a website for a group of clinics in Florida which provide services for pregnant women, including education on the different types of abortion procedures available? These clinics are most definitely not crisis counseling centers, as you would have us believe. Rather, they are licensed medical clinics serving women in need of their services.

Last edited by Railer13; 05-28-2019 at 11:16 AM.
  #44  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:22 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
What you call punishment isn't really anything other than taking responsibility for ones own actions. So, no it isn't "punishment"

Is it "punishment" for the father if he doesn't want the child to have to pay child support?
Well no, because the father doesn't have to pay child support. There are many ways that the father can avoid paying child support, many of them legal or quasi legal.

And that is assuming that you know who the father is. Are you willing to require all males to submit to a DNA test in order to make sure that the fathers are all punished as the mothers are?
  #45  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:31 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
I don't have a comprehensive list of crisis pregnancy centers but 2 seconds of googling gave me this which offers free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, counseling about options, help with housing, free emergency contraception, and STI information.
Another screwed up cite try? You might make a better argument if you didn't try to provide cites, at this point.
  #46  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:44 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well no, because the father doesn't have to pay child support. There are many ways that the father can avoid paying child support, many of them legal or quasi legal.

And that is assuming that you know who the father is. Are you willing to require all males to submit to a DNA test in order to make sure that the fathers are all punished as the mothers are?
You know who the father is? Way to dismiss all single pregnant women as "sluts"? And shouldn't DNA testing be mandatory to determine paternity and responsibility? Or are in the crowd that believes only women should be responsible for their offspring?
  #47  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:49 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
You do realize that the link you thoughtfully provided is a website for a group of clinics in Florida which provide services for pregnant women, including education on the different types of abortion procedures available? These clinics are most definitely not crisis counseling centers, as you would have us believe. Rather, they are licensed medical clinics serving women in need of their services.
Those are pregnancy clinics which are affiliated with Heartbeat of Miami, a Christian pro life charity dedicated to helping pregnant women. They do not provide abortion referrals and are clear about that on the site.
  #48  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:51 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post

Let's say I have a 2 year old kid. I've decided he's a lot more trouble than he's worth. And, for some strange reason in my city the law says you're allowed to strangle your kid to death before the age of 3.

You think this is horrific and the law is horrific. Murder is wrong. But whatever. It's within my power and my right to murder this kid, and I'm going to do it.

Now - you're against this, of course. Are you willing to take my kid in? Raise him as your own, feed him and clothe him and provide him with education and all his needs for the next 16 years at least? Let's say in this case you're not - as many people would not. Does that make you a hypocrite?
Well at the very least I might try to look into what set of circumstances led these parents to feel that they needed to kill their kids and what could be done to alleviate them. Understanding of course (to extend the analogy) that whether or not I succeed in making infanticide illegal, those who feel the need to off their offspring will find a way to do so.
  #49  
Old 05-28-2019, 11:54 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What makes this one study you dug up from from 1986 that didn't even involve the country we are talking about the best study on the topic...besides the fact that a quick going over made you think it aligned with your personal opinion? This "best study" of yours is horribly out-dated and off-topic, and you should feel embarrassed that you thought we wouldn't check up on the validity of your cite.
If you read the study it was published in 2016 and is the only review to have both a huge sample and relied on actual biological outcomes and not self reports which are notoriously unreliable. If you can't even get the date of study right perhaps you should refrain from comment on it.
  #50  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:28 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
You know who the father is? Way to dismiss all single pregnant women as "sluts"? And shouldn't DNA testing be mandatory to determine paternity and responsibility? Or are in the crowd that believes only women should be responsible for their offspring?
By *you* I was specifically talking about the person that is wishing to implement or enforce the policies. Any dismissal of women as "sluts" is something that you have fabricated from whole cloth.

I was pointing out to the poster that was trying to claim that paying child support is as much of a burden as bearing a child that even that small responsibility can easily be dismissed by the "father".

Last edited by k9bfriender; 05-28-2019 at 12:29 PM.
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 03:13 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