In fact, neither assertion does.
One does not establish that abortion is murder by repetition, except among the pro-life movement. Similarly, one does not establish that opposing abortion obligates one to support greater government spending, except on the SDMB.
Faith-based statements are not debatable.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes ? What’s your point ? How is your child being 2 year old instead of zero change things ? He/She/It still needs daycare, schooling, food, warmth, health care, no violent or forced sexual contact if at all possible within the context of your household and so on.
I’m really not getting the “ha HA !” you’re trying to get at there, if any ?
It’s propaganda branding.
They certainly are if given as fact instead of personal opinion.
But they are legislatively enforceable.
They want to deny a woman the ability to terminate her pregnancy on grounds that they have reverence for life. Well reverence for life, in the eyes of many, also means supporting a healthy quality of life. It seems hypocritical to say we want a baby to live but we don’t care if it suffers from a painful, terminal illness, or whether it born into abject poverty. It also seems hypocritical to say that they have reverence for life but only the fetus and not the health of the mother. Thus, it’s fair to say that their reverence for life is selective, and thus, not really a valid reason to deny a woman an abortion. Mind you, I’m talking about the most extreme anti-abortion opponents. There are more reasonable anti-abortion opponents who at least allow for some exceptions and middle ground.
I don’t have a beef with treating animals more humanely. The issue with some activists is that they, like some of the anti-abortion activists, occasionally resort to tactics that are misleading and even go so far as to suggest outright bans on research. To that I say, you’re a fucking hypocrite if you’re eating the fruits of animal research and misleading the public in the name of protecting animals. I don’t like the idea of testing primates or cute little rats anymore than the next guy, but if it means I can add another 20-30 years of quality living to my life, where do I sign up to go catch primates or breed mice?
Let’s take away the labels of “murder” and “pro-life” and look at it for what it is.
The argument is that a person might take action X which will save them a lot of money in the long run. Therefore if someone supports a law which makes it illegal for a person to take action X, then that person is responsible for paying the first person the money that they lose in the long run.
I’m not sure why it matters if X is already illegal and the second person supports keeping the law, or if X is now legal but the person supports changing the law. The money is lost in any event. It matters not if we call X “murder” or “non-murder” and it doesn’t matter if we call those opposed to X “pro-life” or “anti-choice.”
So, IMHO, if the argument is that a person who prevents someone from having an abortion and this costs the person money, then the first person must pay the money, I’m not seeing why that shouldn’t apply more generally to any law which costs a person money.
Just because people recognize it as a shorthand for the “hey fetus, we want you to be born, then after that, fuck you, you little welfare moocher” movement, doesn’t make it any less a dishonest shorthand.
I think we’ve amply gone over the territory that makes “pro-life” a deceptive and dishonest euphemism.
Now explain what’s deceptive about “pro-choice.”
You could say the same thing about “pro-choice” if you don’t support my choice to carry a concealed weapon or use drugs or throw litter along the highways. See, you really aren’t “pro-choice” now are you? Ha!
I think the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are significantly recognizable and allow each side to define their group with their own spin. They are reserved to the belief in legal abortion only and are not meant to represent a moral philosophy involving all things.
I’ve never seen the point in this sort of hijack in the abortion debate.
Presumably by “you,” you actually mean “the American taxpayer.”
And yes. Of course. I would support lots more money going to the various services which protect at-risk kids, including those who have to be removed from violent situations like the one you’ve just described.
Likewise, whether abortion is legal or illegal, I support lots more money going to social services for at-risk mothers both during and after pregnancy. More money for subsidized childcare. More money for VPK programs and SNAP and, yes, more money for thoughtful and effective sex education so that there are less unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Some conservatives seem to think saying, “ah ha! But that would require spending MONEY on PEOPLE!” is a gotcha. It isn’t. The government should be spending lots more money on** lots **more people, especially if that’s at the expensive of spending lots less money on the wealthy. Yes, even if it means my taxes go up.
Not all by yourself, no. Nor should any random individual opposed to murdering two-year-olds be personally required to adopt and care for a two-year-old whose life is in danger.
But a society which says ‘nobody is allowed to kill two year olds’ needs to also provide care for them if and when their parents can’t. Saying ‘nobody can kill a two year old but it’s fine if two year olds starve to death even if there’s more than enough food for everybody’ is indeed, IMO, a position open to charges of hypocrisy.
I’m aware that in the USA at the moment the chances of a newborn or two year old actually starving to death for lack of public funding is small. But that’s because we do, in fact, force everyone to pay for the care of other people’s two year olds, if only inadequately, by way of taxes. And we do, in fact, force everyone to pay for other people’s minimal health care, even though that care’s often inadequate, sometimes inadequate to the point of causing deaths.
So yes, I’d say that people who are insistent that a fetus must be carried to term and become a child should be willing to pay taxes in order to support that child once it’s born. Some of them are, of course. But what’s being discussed in this thread I think is the ones who aren’t.
Otherwise, the position amounts to ‘it’s horrible to kill a fetus before it’s capable of knowing what’s happening, but it’s perfectly all right to kill a child once it’s born, as long as you do so by withholding nutrition and/or medical care and/or housing instead of by using a weapon.’
Yes, I think it’s partly the phrasing. Some people like that phrasing, of course, because they don’t like being depicted as anti-anything; and some for the nastier reason that it lets them protray their opponents as “anti-life”. But being pro-life until the moment of birth to the point of commandeering other people’s bodies, and then saying society has no proper interest in providing support after the moment of birth – it looks rather as if while objecting to any argument that there’s a sharp line at birth after which the born child is independent of the mother and gains rights, they’re arguing that there’s a sharp line at birth after which the new child loses rights which they’re claiming for the fetus before birth. ‘The mother must be required to support the fetus with her body, but nobody should be required to support an infant with their taxes’ isn’t a great look.
– UltraVires, I think that would make more sense as an argument against accusing “pro-life” people of hypocrisy for eating meat or swatting mosquitos. Supporting a child after birth is a whole lot more directly related to a position that would require that child’s existence to occur.
I’m not talking about social welfare programs. Those are a debate for another thread.
Assume that the woman has a good career and is fully capable, either by herself or through the help of her husband or boyfriend, to pay for the child’s care. But she would rather not spend that money. She would rather save it to buy a larger home or to take nicer vacations for the next 18 years.
Is the argument that because I support a law making abortion illegal, that either I personally or through tax dollars, should reimburse the woman for 18 years of child care?
Hey UltraVires, not to be a bitch about it or nothin’, but care about adressing my answer to your question ?
First, I don’t think the pro-life position requires supporting abolition of social welfare programs. These women that have children that they didn’t otherwise want to have, and are indigent, would still be eligible for WIC, SNAP, Section 8 housing and the whole panoply of services that we provide. So in a sense, we are already “paying” for that.
But it seems like your side is arguing for something more. I mean, I support my kids (only one) and you support your kids and if someone out there or even you or I have financial troubles, society helps support our kids. So what is it that you are asking of people who would outlaw abortion in the way of helping these kids?
I think that post #27 addresses your question.
Also, if you prevent me from murdering my child, that requires me to pay more to care for it. Under the theory advanced by your side (that an opposition to a policy which saves a person money morally requires those in opposition to pay) shouldn’t anyone who opposed the murder of a two year old be required to pay me for having to care for the child?
It might be 'cause I’m pretty drunk right now, but I honestly can’t make heads or tails of that post. I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t mean that as a put down on you, btw - at best a request for clarification. Or dumbing things down for this asshole.
Again, yes ? Like, that is not in dispute, at all ? Still not seeing the gotcha.
I fully support a woman’s right to choose. Fact is, I’ll be on the record as supporting abortion rights up to and incluting the 216th month post partum, just to keep the ungrateful little fuckers on their toes.
I also absolutely and unquestionably support the responsibility of the State (which in turn means yours) to provide support for single moms and families alike. No kid should grow up needing food, needing heat, needing clean clothes or running water, needing a roof, needing internet, needing schooling, needing doctors or vaccinations, nor hopefully needing a lovable pet (Corgis preferred for demonstrable potato-related reasons, unless the kid is a pet-torturing psycho in which case they should be provided Siamese cats instead). I’m perfectly fine giving out a portion of my substantial (future, just around the corner) earnings for those purposes - fuck, take some cash away from the army budget if you have to, if the schooling’s good enough you won’t need it anyway. Is that controversial for any reason to you ? Do *you *object to having to pay for/participate in any of these costs wrt two, three, twelve year olds in your city/state/country ? Why ?
ETA : the whole point of society is for people to stick together and share our collective burdens. If not, what’s the fucking point ?
Well, hell, it’s Memorial Day, so drink up. 
Again, I’m not talking about welfare programs. I am trying to understand the underlying logic.
Pretend I make $5 million per year. Pretend I have $100 million in the bank. I don’t need your money or the taxpayer’s money to raise a child. I have enough to raise 100 children, okay?
Now, suppose I am a woman and become pregnant. The new abortion law says that I cannot have an abortion but must give birth to the child. Leaving aside that I can put the child up for adoption, assume that it means that I must now pay to raise the child for 18 years. Do the people that supported the abortion law owe me money?
If so, imagine the same except I have a 2 year old child. I would rather use the money for the next 16 years to buy exotic animals or use $100 bills to light my cigars instead of caring for the child. Since you make it illegal by your continued support of murder laws for me to forego this expense, shouldn’t you pay me the costs of raising a child for 16 years?
Very well, then be honest about it. Has nothing to do with pro-life, and everything to do with anti-abortion. Do the admit it? Nope. Hypocrites the entire bunch.
That’s ridiculous. Feel free to say we’re pro-just-that-one-choice if it makes you feel better, but it’s silly to say you can’t call yourself pro-choice unless you favor the legality of all choices, right up to the choice to torture and murder your neighbor.