Bullshit, but no big deal. Do you still favour the general concept of adding waiting periods and other medically-unnecessary hurdles to the abortion process?
No.
Yes, American society cares so little about men walking away from their pregnant partners that they only took 20.9 billion dollars from men for child support in 2010, which is 85% of the total child support paid. Also, they call them deadbeat dads, which is clearly a term of endearment. Failure to comply leads to jail, which is a jolly fun place as everyone knows.
FTR, I’m pro-choice in all circumstances. But claiming society doesn’t have a problem with men who abandon their children is just incorrect.
Try responding to what I actually said. Which was society doesn’t have near the problem with men walking away from a woman they made pregnant as they do with that woman having an abortion. Also, don’t pretend that society has had great success with getting these men to pay child support, especially regularly.
FTR, I don’t support requiring men to pay child support in all cases.
How could we objectively measure your statement? We could, for example, compare the number of men in jail for failing child support to the number of women in jail for having an abortion.
You could look at things like demonstrations/violence towards abortions vs dead beat dads; or the amount of effort by society being put forth to limit/ban abortion vs the amount of effort to get the dads to pay. Note that it tends to be that those who aren’t involved with a dead beat dad just shrug their shoulders about it even if they think payment should be made vs those who have never had anything to do with an abortion yet strongly feel they should be illegal. Etc.
I’m pleased to hear it, as it represents an improvement over your position in 2013, but I’m not sure (or perhaps have overlooked) how you reconcile this with the last paragraph of your post 151, specifically what you’d hypothetically do as a legislator. Not choosing to directly inconvenience the woman is fine, but choosing instead to inconvenience the people advising and assisting her isn’t better.
Fair point. I’m thinking my PoV might be attributable to societal differences. In Canada, abortion is primarily considered a medical procedure, and there are no laws regarding abortion at all since our supreme court threw them out in 1988. It’s just not a big deal here. Comparatively, child support enforcement is a much bigger issue here, with multiple branches of the government involved.
So while your point may or may not be true for American society, it’s not a universal characteristic of all western societies.
Since the sub-discussion there was about funding, I was thinking of the funding issue and the allocation of costs when I typed that. “Difficult,” in the sense of insisting that Planned Parenthood accurately allocate shared fixed costs, like the receptionist and the electric bill, to the abortion providers.
Society schmociety. Let’s get something with some teeth, where there were serious consequences, like death for individuals, or bombing or arson for clinics. Let’s make it the last 10 years, just to keep it somewhat recent.
How many deadbeat dads have been killed by complete strangers for not paying child support? How many deadbeat dads have had their place of business bombed or burned?
How does it compare to 4 murders, 4 fires (no fatalities), and a bomb (no fatalities)?
And what medical purpose, if any, is served by requiring this?
If you just wanted to cut off funding to PP entirely, fine. You wouldn’t be the only legislator calling for such. Instead, it seems you’d grudgingly fund them, and then meddle for the sake of meddling.
Better still, if you must take a half-measure, fund PP to cover all their non-abortion services, leaving those to PP to fully finance on their own through donations and user fees and, beyond the conventional oversight for all legal medical practices, don’t interfere at all. The procedure is legal, so… y’know… fuck off. Go find something to ban a Muslim from, if you’re legislatively bored.
2nd Amendment. Arm all the women. I’m only half kidding at this point.
ACTUALLY, what I said was “it doesn’t matter much”, which it doesn’t.
If you change the status of an activity-- abortion, in this case-- from legal to illegal, even if the incidence of abortion remains the same, there are going to be more illegal abortions relative to now. I would expect there to be more illegal abortions if abortions were made illegal than I would expect there to be illegal abortions when abortions are legal. Who wouldn’t? :rolleyes:
Which is why I said a “sharp rise in the illegal abortion rate” didn’t, and wouldn’t, mean much.
I get that the cool thing to do around here is idealize entire groups of people, but I prefer to deal in reality. That’s precisely what I’m saying, as unsexy as it is, and there is ample data to back this up. I’ve posted it time and time again, only for people on this board to hand wave it away (Seriously, this particular thread was almost six years and 60 pages ago. And you were there). Absent abortion, contraceptive use is higher than it when abortion is readily available, which makes sense, as in instances where abortion is absent, the cost of an unplanned pregnancy is higher.
Call me crazy, but I think giving up a child for adoption is a lot easier than trying to hide a pregnancy for nine months and disposing of the kid in a dumpster. Not to say it won’t happen, because it happens now, but that this is straight up fearmongering in the worst way.
I don’t believe tax dollars should pay for abortions. The procedure is legal; that doesn’t make it a candidate for federal funding.
The usual response to this is to point out that such a rule already exists and Planned Parenthood follows it. I pointed out that abortion providers still gain the benefit of shared infrastructure when they work with Planned Parenthood: they need not pay electric bills or receptionist salaries. So I was advocating a change to PP’s procedure where those indirect costs would be allocated to abortion providers on a pro-rata basis.
This is not a medical purpose. It’s an effort to fully apply the principle that abortion, while legal, is not eligible for federal subsidy.
Unlike some, I do not speak for any society other than the one I live in.
It was those sorts of things that I was thinking of when I said that society appears to be less concerned with dead beat dads than abortion. I don’t think there have even been any demonstrations outside of building WRT dead beat dads, have there?
So you are unaware that women tend to die from illegal abortions?
Yet, you ignore the reality that birth control is cheaper than an abortion, and a hella lot less invasive and painful. It is also still easier to get birth control, tho I don’t know how much longer that will last.
I’m not going to dig thru an old thread to see if I can find something you should have at your fingertips. If you have a legit cite that says that women choose to take chances on needing a surgery costing hundreds of dollars, instead of using birth control, post it.
OK, you are crazy. I didn’t say that hiding a pregnancy was easy, I said it was done by those who don’t want anyone to know they are pregnant.
How do we get stats on how many illegal abortions are done? The only thing a ban on abortion would do would increase illegal abortions, which are not as safe as legal ones.
But hey, that’s what the bitch deserved for having sex and getting pregnant.
Annie, when you tell your story the next time, will you also include my reaction?
Are you unable to answer this this question?
May I speculate on why you’re unable to answer it?
Okay, okay, okay. I’ll state “The Catholic Church excommunicated the mother who allowed a legal abortion and the doctor who performed it on a nine year old girl pregnant with twins, but not the stepfather who knocked her up.”
Is that better?
There are lots of activities that do not and can be argued should not get federal funding, but you’re crossing the line between not paying for something and actively interfering with it, unless you can show that this level of indirect-benefit scrutiny is normal for a wide variety of activities.
I suggest that we can only start to plausibly speculate on the consequences of any abortion ban if we get some idea of what the ban proponents have in mind. If, for example, abortion is made 100% illegal under all circumstances BUT is treated as a misdemeanor punishable by a $5 fine, this is significantly different from making abortion illegal under most circumstances but making it punishable by death.