I don’t agree with abortion a homosexual fetus, but I do accept doing it if that’s what the pregnant woman wants to do. Like most pro-choicers, I don’t want to see restrictions on abortion. It’s too slippery a slope.
Saying a nine year old pregnant with twins should not be allowed an abortion is wrong.
You certainly have a lot of “I told this anti-abortion person once” stories, that’s for sure. They always seem to end with “he had no answer.” Well, you go grrl.
There’s some hard core protesters out every Saturday morning at a women’s health clinic across the street from the local library, and I talk to them while waiting for the library to open. Mostly I try to see how I can make their jaws drop and heads spin.
Our local 9/11 Memorial is on the library’s grounds. Every year a 9/11 real time ceremony is held there on that date, and it takes about 2 1/2 hours. When the ceremony was on a Saturday, the protesters were screaming above it.
How you going to respect people who would do that?
There was a poll here on the SDMB, not too awfully long ago, and that was the by-and-large consensus. Nearly everyone who responded said it was an ugly, stupid, nasty, improper thing to do…and they still defended the mother’s right to do it.
(In much the same way, we who value the First Amendment know that it has to apply to some of the ugliest and most hateful literature ever penned. We do not approve…but we know we must not censor it.)
I guess that’s one way of looking at it.
I find this argument weak and ill founded. Infanticide does not enter into the debate - it is well outside the overton window for this issue in this country; yet laws that mandate parents take care of their children do in fact control other’s lives.
Some substantial proportion of babies born to women who did not want to give birth (but were forced to do so) have problems that make them difficult or impossible to place with adoptive families–kids born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, drug addiction, birth defects, etc.
Over the years I’ve asked quite a few anti-choice people the question, “so, how many hard-to-place children have you taken into your own home?”
Not one has ever taken on the care of a single such child; they were full of excuses, of course.
I realize that there are some anti-choice activists who have adopted such kids, but so far as I can tell, the vast majority of them do not. And when this topic arises, the defense is to name the same handful that did adopt, over and over, and ignore the general failure to adopt the hard-to-place kids. There were over four hundred thousand kids in foster care in 2014, according to the Child Welfare Information Gateway.*
*https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf#page=1&view=Introduction
It sounds like you’ve never been on welfare. Because if you had been, you’d realize that it’s no trap. Things have changed a LOT regarding welfare. I’ve had to go on it twice in my life and each time I desperately needed the help. But even then, it was only a leaky life preserver. You can only claim welfare for 60 months of your entire life combined. When you are receiving it, it’s not much at all. When I was getting it, with myself and one child, I was getting about $470 a month. That’s not going to pay for rent for sure and it certainly didn’t cover all my other bills like auto insurance, utilities, anything I needed that food stamps didn’t cover (toiletries, etc) or any other of life’s little expenses. And I had to work for that money too. I was expected to come into the ‘self sufficiency’ office at least once a week, which was 60 miles round trip from my home, so…extra gas needed. I was pressured heavily to come in more for workshops. Then I had to submit proof of doing 30 hours of ‘work’ a week. Making notes of where I applied for jobs, having to cold call a minimum of five companies a week seeking a job. I mean, yeah it’s not the same as working for a real job but my point is, welfare isn’t some mom with five kids sitting down to her plasma tv, eating shrimp and steak while she rakes in free money each month.
And also…pro-lifers being pro-sex education? Since when? Every single one I’ve met, and I’ve met A LOT, are vehement that ‘abstinence only’ is the only education that’s needed. Any mention of something like free contraception or easy access to it, or god forbid, talking to students about sex is just completely frowned upon. Hell, the town I live in, where your options for a good time are sex, drugs or booze, almost came apart when it came to light the school nurse had condoms available for kids that wanted them. They’re no longer available.
This is like saying that if someone opposes Trump’s Muslim refugee restrictions, they must then open up their own personal homes and their wallets and house the Muslim refugees themselves, or else be hypocrites.
Just because someone supports or opposes a law or government policy, does not necessarily mean that they must commit their own personal resources into the cause.
You’re right, infanticide doesn’t enter into it. Infanticide is not abortion, as even you note. The thing is, everyone doesn’t generally agree that abortion is murder. Matter of fact, it appears to be split pretty much down the middle. But the right defines it as murder for its own purposes, and assumes it has the right to choose for the women in question, even to the point of making them into baby factories. An entirely different thing, and it definitely does amount to controlling others’ lives without regard for those persons in the slightest, nor societal agreement on the fact.
Personally, I find your argument weak and unfounded. Oddly, I don’t remember even bringing up infanticide. Matter of fact, I didn’t.
I never said that pro-lifers are pro-sex education. I have no data on the subject but I would not be surprised if pro-lifers are anti-sex education. Everyone should be as it has been proven to be a waste of money. Whether abstinence only or comprehensive, none of it works. Anyone who has ever been a teenager should not be surprised that it is not possible for a high school teacher to talk kids out of their biological urges. At least with abstinence only education the majority is not being forced to pay taxes to teach their kids things that are against their values. No public employee should be giving underage kids birth control without parental permission.
Furthermore, if someone kills a baby, odds are that they’ll be arrested, tried, convicted, and put in prison. The only deterrent to this is in the perpetrator’s mind. There are certainly numerous means to carry out the act. Outlawing abortion removes the ability to have an abortion - no clinics, no morning-after pills, no option other than to go to a foreign country or have an illicit or ‘coat hanger’ abortion done, both of which are inherently more dangerous to the mother. And those living in poverty won’t even have the former option.
Not that the right cares…it’s something that they find odious, therefore it must not be done, consequences to others be damned. But then they’ll complain about how public assistance is for lazy people, forgetting having forced them into those circumstances in the first place. Moral my ass.
You could say the same thing with murder, arson, robbery, and rape. Some people find these odious and thus they must not be done consequences to others be damned.
It actually does reduce the rate of teen pregnancies; just not terribly much.
What it does work at is teaching kids the facts of life. Where babies come from. What menstruation means. What wet dreams mean. Where the ovaries are. And also about sexually transmitted diseases.
It’s not just abstract knowledge, like dissecting frogs: it’s teaching people about how their own bodies work. Denying them this knowledge is cruel, stupid, and highly counterproductive.
Fallacious on its face. In case you hadn’t noticed, murder, arson, robbery, and rape are crimes. The only way abortion will be a crime is if the right gets its way. Nice try, though.
The teen pregnancy rate, and abortion rate, has steadily declined for many, many years, while use of contraception has gone up. It’s not credible to suggest that education about contraception isn’t involved in this at all.
In one breath you say that you can’t stop teens from having sex, then that teaching them about sex, their bodies, and STD’s is against their parents’ values? Teach them abstinence, which won’t work anyway, and don’t inform them of the risks. Yeah, that’s great policy.
Actually, it’s sticking your head in the sand. Good parents should have had this discussion with their kids long before. Or is it somehow a sin to speak frankly and openly about sex? (That would be a new one on me, but I put no prohibition past religion.)
Did you mean the unmarried teen pregnancy rate?
Making assertions without proof is what makes something not credible.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay, then let’s see a cite of a well-constructed study that showed that teaching about, for instance, sexually transmitted diseases reduces the pregnancy rates for unwed teenagers.
Regards,
Shodan
No; this is like saying “all Muslims refugees must come to the USA but I won’t allow them anywhere near me and I want to make sure they can’t drive on public roads, attend public schools, or receive police or fire protection services.”
In other words, the anti-choice position I was discussing was “all fertilized eggs must result in births, but I won’t lift a finger to care for the results of those births, especially the ones who will have health or developmental problems as a result of the forced nature of the child-bearing.”
Both positions are ugly.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Just because someone supports or opposes a law or government policy, does not necessarily mean that they must commit their own personal resources into the cause.
[/QUOTE]
I find this more reasonable than the unsuccessful analogy advanced above. But then, my position was never ‘if you believe something then you are obligated to commit personal resources in support of that belief’ or anything remotely close to it. My point was that if you want to force another person to bring a new child into the world then you do, actually, have an obligation to provide for that child.
Many anti-choice people seem to enjoy forcing their views on others, but don’t seem inclined to take any responsibility for the consequences of forcing their views on others. That conduct is unethical.