Opposing abortion does not, necessarily, require support for babies or mothers after birth

Great Debates
61

Of course he did. We have Bone over in the other thread stating that he hates Hillary Clinton for even suggesting that there is a community effort in raising our children. Anything that takes away from the fantasy that they are self made, that they are independent, that they did it all on their own digs deep into their insecurities and makes them lash out in a hate filled rage.

They don’t want to do anything to support the communities that they are a part of, and they justify that by ignoring the ways that that community benefits them.

OTOH, they have no problem imposing their religious morality upon their communities, as, even if they don’t give a shit about the actual welfare of those around the, they sure as hell are not going to grant them bodily autonomy or any sort of freedoms that may allow them to act in ways that anger their sky god. (while at the same time, with no self awareness whatsoever, shrieking about “Sharia Law”)

Pro-life is a label. It is a label chosen by the leaders of the movement as a deceptive label. It is not deceptive to its opponents, no, we see right through that. It is to deceive its followers. The OP hit the nail on the head when he brought up PETA. I’ve met people who donated to PETA because they are for the ethical treatment of animals. They don’t want people to look too hard at it, as when they do, when they find what PETA actually does stand for, they very quickly drop their support. “PETA” is a deceptive label. Many of those who label themselves “Pro-Life” do so out of the belief that they are following and supporting an organization that actually cares about life, that’s why they picked that label for themselves. Would you rather be “pro-life” or “anti-life”?

They don’t even care about these sparks of life that are conceived. Many fertilized eggs never even implant. If they truly believed that a soul is attached at the time of conception, and that loss of that egg means that a babies soul goes to purgatory, they’d be fighting and begging for people to use birth control. I have friends who have gotten pregnant intentionally. And they do all sorts of things, take all sorts of vitamins and do exactly the right kinds and quantities of exercise to maximize the chances that the egg gets implanted. Even a regular healthy person is going to have fewer eggs implanted, and therefore, send more baby souls to purgatory, than someone who is educated and trying to get pregnant. Many of these people that they look down upon are not as healthy, do not live as healthy a lifestyle, and so have even more of these sparks of life washed away with the rest of their uterine lining. Do they not care about all these baby souls? No, they do not.

All they care about is that if you are pregnant, then you must carry that baby to term. There is no other care. They don’t care if the mother dies in childbirth, they don’t care if the baby dies 5 minutes after it is born. They only care that that baby gets delivered.

And that is because it is not about the babies, it is not about life, it isn’t even about pleasing their sky god. It is about control. Not just of women, but of society. It is about imposing their morality upon others.

So, no, as they do not support any sort of policy that could honestly be described as “pro-life”, they have no interest in supporting the hussies and whores that have babies outside of their approved marriage, they just want those hussies and whores to be forced to pay for their sinning ways, and they have no problem with causing that life that they claimed was so sacred to be tormented and tortured in order to make her pay for her sins.

Then of course, there are the secular reasons for wanting many unwanted pregnancies to come to term. That more feed for the prison system and for the military. They don’t care which that baby goes into, they will profit either way. The people who profit off of unwanted babies certainly don’t want a safety net, as alleviating that poverty and desperation would interrupt the flow of babies going to for profit prisons or fighting in wars for profit. And they are the ones that create and disseminate deceptions like “pro-life” in order to get people to help to enrich them at the expense of the community.

Most pro-lifers, I would say, are actually pro-life. They believe in things that would help these babies become functionally productive members of society. They would favor things that would make being a single mother a palatable task. But they buy into the label, they allow themselves to be deceived, and they are used to advance agendas and policies that would actually be antithetical to what they actually believed, if they are not deceived by that well chosen and extremely dishonest label. If they actually took a good honest look at the policies that they were supporting, they would distance themselves, as people who care about animals distance themselves from PETA once they learn what they are actually all about.

62

No, of course I didn’t. I earned the money that paid other people to do those things. All the money. I also paid taxes, which more than covered my share of my use of the government infrastructure and services, as well as for other people who didn’t or couldn’t pay their share.

So not only did I pay my own way, I paid for others.

Maybe it takes a village, but if the village ain’t made up of people like me, on average, then the village ain’t going to be able to raise many children.

Regards,
Shodan

63

If you have zero responsibility for other people’s children (and they have none for yours), then that is all the more reason for you to have a laissez faire attitude towards abortion. The government should only concern itself with things that quantifiably impacts the public. What is and isn’t growing inside a stranger’s uterus right now impacts no one but the uterus’s owner.

If abortion is banned tomorrow and there is a dramatic rise in the number of kids that require free lunch, Medicaid, subsidized day care, and other social services, what should we expect pro-life supporters to be in favor of? Increased government spending to cover these growing costs, so that innocent kids can get the resources they need to become productive citizens? Or should we expect pro-lifers to sit back and watch these kids suffer from deprivation and later grow to be dysfunctional adults, all in the name of “why should I be responsible for taking care of someone’s child?!” It seems like the safest bet is the latter…which should be worrisome regardless of one’s position on abortion. We are all impacted if the number of dysfunctional adults increase, because it means more crime. More suffering for the living.

Sure, no one who is pro-life is required to “be on the hook” (to use the OP’s phrase) for other people’s kids. But if you’re trying to convince someone your anti-abortion position is truly about protecting life and ensuring it’s survival, you can’t just talk. Talk is extremely cheap.

64

It’s not so much that a person who is pro-life doesn’t support social programs for children, it’s that groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children.

It’s this trend that suggests the pro-life movement, the core reasoning behind the movement, isn’t based on compassion for babies. If it was, you would think that this would come out in some way, that pro-life groups would tend to support other “I love babies” political positions, but they are nowhere to be found.

So, if you oppose abortion, you don’t have to support babies after the fact. However, if you don’t, please don’t expect me to believe that your opposition is based on compassion for the helpless little babe.

65

No, you did something that a member of society decided that it values, and therefore, rewarded with a greater share of the community’s resources, denoted by little pieces of paper that you get to wave around and trade for other people to do things that you find valuable.

Outside of a society, outside of a community that values your contribution, you did not earn a damn thing.

Unless you live by hunting on territory that you defend from invaders yourself, you do not “earn” anything yourself. Society created the framework in which you can use your skills to enrich yourself.

Our ancestors paid your way, all we ask is that you pay the way for our descendants.

66

Abortion is a choice. If others want a mother to be to make a different one, it stands to reason they make other options more viable for the mother. Its silly to pretend otherwise. The PETA example is a good one. If PETA people would like drugs tested some other way, they have the obligation to provide a viable alternative.

67

Do you have a cite for this, or “seemingly” unfalsifiable?

It’s good to know that we all understand how fiat currency works.

Thanks for your insight. And you are correct - I earned the money where I earned it, instead of somewhere else. What that has to do with anything is rather a mystery, but at least you recognize that I earned the money.

Already done. As mentioned, I paid significantly more, on average, than I received in government services. And my taxes already go to pay for bonds issued by the government.

Regards,
Shodan

68

Most of the radical anti-abortion folks I’ve talked to believe that as long as only women pregnant with unwanted fetuses are willing to carry them to term and give them to the “right” (straight, married, Christian couples) couples, everything would be la-la perfect.

I personally wish every woman considering abortion would have the chld and give it to a gay or lesbian couple.

69

I could just say Republicans, if that makes it better.

Republicans want to criminalize abortions, Republicans want to cut WIC, Republicans want to cut Food Stamps, Republicans want to cut free school lunches.

Republicans want us to believe that criminalizing abortions is about their “wuv for widdle babies”, but I really can’t think of any other position they have that professes this “wuv” which confuses and infuriates me!*

*note, this paraphrased Futurama quote is for my own amusement

70

Right, but it seems that there are those who think that they did everything on their own that think that a fiat currency has any sort of value outside of the community that gives it value.

No, you did not “earn” that money. That money was granted to you in exchange for the services that someone else asked you to do. In order to have “earned” that money, you would have had to have not only founded the company yourself, but developed the technology that it uses, the software and language compilers that it uses, basic computer science, and well, computers themselves.

That’s what many people seem to think, when they look at the direct payouts of what they receive in govt services, but they don’t think anything about where else their tax dollar goes. Do you receive the govt service of being in a country that is not at risk of being invaded by belligerents? Are you granted the govt service of living in a stable economy where money is worth more than its BTU value in keeping you warm? Do you rely on the govt service of educating and providing for those who do not receive as great as compensation for their contributions to society which prevents them from rioting through your neighborhood?

How much is that worth to you? If you had to use gold to pay mercenaries to protect you from enemies, both foreign and domestic, and you had to earn that gold through actually going out and mining it yourself, how well would you really do?

That’s the beauty of a community, we actually all get out far more than we put in. You seem to think that it is unfair that you put in more, and that others less deserving receive more, but that’s just the thing, if we all actually got what we deserved, we’d still be hunting and gathering and keeping what we foraged to ourselves. It is only with community and cooperation that we can work to make computer programming jobs that give a greater financial reward. We all get more than we deserve, and that only works as long as we keep making sure that everyone gets more than they deserve.

It really is a positive sum game that we are playing, and the only way to lose is to turn it into a negative sum game, and the only way to do that is to make sure that no one gets any more than they “deserve.”

71

I don’t understand the point of this socialist screed. The OP opened the argument for debate that if a person is pro-life then he should pay for the cost of caring for the unwanted children. Shodan stated that not only does he pay for his own children, through his taxes he pays for social welfare programs for other children.

But that’s not enough apparently because he uses fiat currency. What is the bottom line? Pro-lifers should deposit gold in the town bank? I know that’s not it and I’m being snarky, but what exactly is the point you are trying to make. Assuming we are against legal abortion, what monetary contribution needs to be made and to whom?

72

No, I am afraid that doesn’t help.

You made a pretty specific claim - “groups who are pro-life are also (seemingly) overwhelmingly in favor of cutting social programs for children.” I was hoping for a specific cite for that claim. A cite, for instance, that National Right to Life or the Roman Catholic church wants to cut WIC, or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan

73

I think that this is far afield of what we are debating. Let’s assume that the National Right to Life opposes social welfare programs in all forms. That is a different debate, whether the poor should be helped through government programs or private charity, than whether abortion should be legal.

And it is even further different from the debate in this thread regarding how if I support a law that costs you money, that I should pay you for it.

74

I agree. But what is the point of this? These people did not give me these things out of charity, they did so because I paid them.

Where does it follow that a member of society who did not provide any value is entitled to the fruits of my labor? Again, not that we shouldn’t have morality, compassion and treat those less fortunate with a helping hand, but it doesn’t follow just because we have specialized our trades.

I pay the lumberjack and the contractor fair value for what they put into building my house. I don’t pay him extra because under the new law his wife cannot have an abortion.

75

It all comes down to money, doesn’t it?

Fine.

You can either pay him not a penny more while not denying he and his wife the right to an abortion.

OR, you can pay more taxes to send his kid to public school.

I know for damn sure you’re not going to happily hand over money for the kid’s healthcare.

But OOPS, your cost for medical insurance and services will go up anyway when the kid ends up at the emergency room for a serious sinus infection that could have been prevented by a GP whom the family could not afford to visit because you refused to pay extra for contractor services.

76

I have learned recently that many conservatives are violently hostile to the idea that it takes a village, as it feeds into some sort of insecurity that they have that they didn’t actually do everything themself.

If you do not understand that we need to work together, then you have a vested interest in not understanding that we need to work together.

You are correct that the OP states that if a person is pro-life that they should be willing to assist in the consequences that would come about if they successfully impose their morality through legislation upon their communities, but that is only because he is under the impression that pro-life means that they give a shit about life, or about women, or about the babies that come as a result of their policies.

It is correct that you can oppose abortion, while still not giving a shit that your proposed policies will make your community a lesser place. Same with people who advocate against paying enough taxes to fund the services that they demand. You don’t have to be consistent to advocate for a policy. You don’t have to care about the consequences of your actions when it comes to policies, and pro-lifers don’t.

It is just that the OP, along with many who follow the “pro-life” movement, actually keep thinking that htat label was not chosen as diametric opposite of the actual effects of the desired policies. It is a common mistake, one that is repeated oft times because some of the followers of the pro-life movement also actually think that it cares about life, and then they go and claim that they care about life, in opposition to the actual movements policies and desires, threatening to blow up the whole gig.

It’s not that hard to figure out, I wouldn’t think. You can figure out whatever you want to figure out, but I am willing to support my community through taxes.

And it is not just that I will pay those taxes, it is that I will vote for those taxes to be increased. I vote for school levies, I vote for police levies, I vote for mental health levies. I even vote for senior assistance levies.

I advocate for an adequate school system, universal healthcare, and a robust safety net. These are things that are not just not adequately in place, they are als things that the “pro-life” people are fighting against.

As the venn diagram of the “pro-life” cohort neatly overlaps that of the cohort who wants to gut public schools, have already destroyed our attempt at a UHC, and are going after the little support that a less fortunate family has left, then it is plain to see that those who oppose abortion not only are not willing to support those who are effected by their policies, but they are trying to take away what little support there already is.

77

You must be confusing this thread with some other. No one has posted anything like this.

That’s what “earning money” means. So, yes, I did earn it.

None of this has any relevance to whether I earned my money or not. I contracted with a company to perform certain services. In return, they agreed to pay me (in fiat currency, because that’s how modern economies work). If I performed the services, then I earned the money.

Yes, I sure did. Police protection too. I also paid my taxes, which went to pay for the police and the military (and the courts).

Yes, I sure did. I also paid my utility bills.

Yes, my taxes also went to pay for that. And, as mentioned, I paid more than the amount needed, to make up for the fact that others do not or cannot pay for their share.

I’m sure I would do very poorly. Fortunately, this has no relevance.

This, of course, is entirely false, as a few seconds thought will show.

TANSTAAFL. If everybody got more in government services than they paid for, on average, the system would be unsustainable. “Buy at seven, sell at five, make up the difference on volume” doesn’t work.

Regards,
Shodan

78

I thought all human life had inherent value. Isn’t that kind of central to the whole “pro-life” thing? Or is it only all unborn life has value? Does your value reduce to zero at the moment of birth?

79

Go back to Rapture, splicer.

80

Your mistake is that assuming “get more out” of and “put in” when speaking about community are both simply about dollars. There are many things that you can get out of and put into your community that have nothing to do with money. What do we get out of our communities? Fellowship, a sense of belonging, common purpose, lifting each other up when we fall, looking out for each other, shared experiences. These are also things that we put into our communities, however since we are each just one person, clearly we benefit much more from these things than we can ever put in ourselves. Humans learned long ago the value of living together in communities, and it is about much more than just $.