We don’t have very many orphanages in our country. What we have is a very abuse ridden, expensive, overloaded foster care system where we the taxpayers pay over $26 billion a year (and your proposal would raise that astronomically by paying for neonatal intensive care for weeks) and a quarter million infants each year are added to the rolls of those waiting for adoption. The average wait is 5 years, and the rate of physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse while they wait is anywhere from 4-28 times as high as in the general population (depending on where they live, how old they are, what sort of abuse, etc.) Outcomes for babies and children placed into foster care are dismal. Infants suffer lifelong physical, emotional and behavioral problems that can be connected to foster care - the time when they most need to bond to a stable loving caregiver, and they’re too often given cursory care as the foster parent tries to avoid “getting too attached” to an infant they know they likely won’t see grow up.
So, is that a fate worse than death before the brain is even mature enough to form memories? I don’t know. I’m inclined to think yes, and I wouldn’t willingly put a child of mine into foster care. But here’s the thing: **I don’t want to decide for you. **I want it to be your choice. You want to put your baby into the system? Fine. Go for it. I sincerely wish you and your baby the best and hope that everything works out well, as it sometimes does.
I want you to make the choice you can best live with and me to make the choice I can best live with and Jane Doe to make the choice she can best live with. For me, it was having that unplanned baby at 18 and raising him myself. For you, it might be foster care with the hope of adoption. For Jane, it might be an abortion.
The people I **most **don’t want making these choices for us are old men with million dollar homes, nannies and jobs in Congress. Especially those who continue to cut social assistance programs and foster care budgets, making it even harder to do right by these babies, and then at the same time undermine sexual education and access to contraception, making it even harder to prevent unwanted pregnancies. How does that package make sense even a little bit?
You just made this up; Republicans are generally more unified in their opposition to abortion than Democrats are unified in their support of it. Tell me, who was it who almost held up Obamacare over abortion? Hint; it wasn’t Republicans.
“I’m not an extremist! You’re an extremist for thinking I’m an extremist!”
It’s a different century but you’re simply repackaging arguments. The fundamental point of “pro-choice” is to rationalize some policy or action under some nebulous concept of free exercise of will. Take Stephen Douglas’ rather tepid defense of slavery in Missouri.
If you replaced “the people of Missouri/the people of the slaveholding States are… men” with “women”, and “slavery” with “abortion”, you would have today’s modern pro-choice argument, regurgitated almost ad naseum on this board, for example.
Not to turn this into an argument of semantics, but unless you’re going to redefine what “independent” means, then you would have a rather tough time arguing that, say, newborns have an “independent existence” (they rely on someone to care for them). If anything, they have a “dependent existence”. And if, as some want to claim, individuals have no right to live so long as they lack “independent existence”, then you have no basis upon which to argue against infanticide, since infanticide is simply killing those who have no “independent existence”.
(Now who wants to have a debate on existentialism?)
I don’t believe this is so- many pro-choice arguments, including mine, primarily rest upon the right to bodily autonomy. A man (in his right mind and with his doctor’s approval) has the right to have a doctor sedate him, open him up surgically (or insert a vacuum device), and remove anything inside that he deems necessary to remove- and so does a woman. If something or someone is inside of a person, and they want it out, they have the right to get it out- period.
I don’t think a doctor should second-guess women or dismiss their wishes as just “stress.” I think that’s insulting. (But I get it - yeah, a few have second thoughts about pregnancy right about then, and AFTER too!)
I think they should do what their patients want, unless they themselves think its unethical
I can’t. I can buy that there are many women in the later stages of a normal pregnancy that just want this baby out NOW, and may even try to wheedle their doctor into scheduling an elective induction (and may be successful at that). But I don’t think it’s medically or intellectually honest to call that “demand an abortion”. They want to no longer be pregnant, true. But they want a live baby at the end of the procedure.
I don’t think they should dismiss their feelings, either. Nor do I think they should automatically do what their patients want. I think they should take the time to educate the mother on the risks and benefits of elective induction and come to a decision together, as a team. A team of two - mother and doctor.
And most of the time, all it takes is a little tea and sympathy and when the mother feels heard, she decides to wait for nature to take its course. Late pregnancy really can be dreadfully uncomfortable, but most of us really don’t want to face pitocin unless we have to.
Huh, I though “independent existence” was an argument for the mother’s rights, not the fetus’s.
In any case, no existentialism is required. Sure, the fetus has (as you describe) a “dependent existence”. By the nature of pregnancy, that existence is dependent on one specific other individual. Once born, the child’s dependent existence can be managed by multiple individuals, or at least a different individual than was the case during its time as a fetus.
It is the significance of this transition from the specific to the general that is overlooked in your argument, and on that basis - no, infanticide does not follow from a pro-choice or pro-women’s-rights argument. I don’t know who the “some” are that you say is claiming a dependent baby has no right to live. Rather, a parent or legal guardian has the right to seek to no longer be the person on which that baby depends, if only on a temporary basis, and this is an option a pregnant woman lacks.
I’m assuming you just made up your claim that Republicans are united on abortion and Democrats are not. If not, provide a cite.
You definitely made up you claim about Obamacare. It was Republicans who tried to hold it up over the issue of abortion.
Pointing a finger at somebody and yelling “Extremist!” doesn’t make it true. The position that everyone should decide for themselves on a moral issue is not an extremist position. The position that there can be only one true answer to a moral issue is an extremist position.
Slavery has nothing to do with abortion. I assume you brought it up because you can’t win an argument over abortion.
I don’t get the slavery analogy, myself. Don’t people get slaves so the slaves can do things for them, like pick crops, chop cotton, tote barges, lift bales, and so forth?
The pregnant woman is making no such demand on the fetus.
They can certainly feel pain and there are some reports of remembering that pain. Besides, what you’re arguing for would justify post-partum euthanasia as being preferable to fostering. Rates of child abuse are twice as high for black children than white children: is it better to be aborted than born black?
Then you understand why I have a problem banning late term abortions. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, but it’s becoming more and more difficult to believe you are arguing in good faith here. I tried to ignore the moronic “devil’s advocate” posts, but at this point the routine is tired and predictable. I answered your questions, you don’t reply, and then you set up the same strawman and ask again. I think you feel you are coming across as rational and Socratic. You aren’t.
Look, you don’t like the fact that someone disagrees with you. That’s normal. If you don’t like others disagreeing with you and questioning your opinions, don’t post them.
I don’t think I have put up any strawmen.
If this is all you have to say, we’re done.
Now, my point is still made - if anyone thinks they can walk into a political debate, as opposed to this relatively civil, moderated, intelligent debate here, and easily win on abortion in any part of the country is kidding themselves.
Was anyone challenging this point? I don’t think anyone doubts that abortion is contentious- I think we all know that one’s feelings on abortion have a lot to do with preconceived views about theology, biology, and women’s rights. In my OP I contend that, nationally, most people do not want to outlaw most abortions. I understand that many of these people may not go as far as I do- the “why” of our feelings on abortion probably belong in another thread.
