The "Pro Abortion" Argument
Let me make it clear from the start, I am not "pro-abortion." In other words, I am not advocating women should or must have an abortion. Anyone who has read my posts on the subject of abortion knows I am pro-choice. I have consistently said that the decision to continue a pregnancy or not is strictly and entirely a woman's choice. Neither is it anyone else's decision, business, or concern! But there are those who erroneously equate pro-choice with "pro-abortion," either out of ignorance or probably as a derogatory dig at pro-choice individuals. I have heard arguments made on both sides of the abortion debate. But I have never heard a "pro-abortion" argument. If there are those who are indeed "pro-abortion," they are likely on the fringe and not mainstream or are otherwise silent on the issue. In response to anti-abortionists who want to forcibly take away or severely restrict a woman's right to choose (I have not seen a rational reason why abortion should be restricted before viability), I came up with a "pro-abortion" argument. I have tried to present a general argument (specifics of the argument and its points can be saved for the discussion) based on practical reasoning.
1. You (a woman) have a right to choose. Exercise that right! This is more a matter of personal choice rather than simply telling someone "You should get an abortion." It's not so much a pro-abortion stance as it is a reminder of the individual rights one is free to exercise or not. People have the right to vote and every election, some will say "exercise your right to vote," or "go out and vote," or something to that effect. A woman has the right to choose, and she should also exercise that right. In this context however, the implication is a woman should choose to have an abortion, since she has the right to begin with. With voting, you shouldn't let a vote go to waste. Likewise, with abortion, you shouldn't let an abortion go to waste. But it's really up to the woman.
2. Abortion will reduce economic strain: Let's face it, raising children is expensive and if one is not financially secure enough before having them, they risk becoming or continuing to be impoverished. This causes a lower standard of living and quality of life for both mother and child. If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy while she has inadequate resources to be self-sufficient, then there is risk of financial, social, emotional, educational, and physical harm to both mother and child. According to the USDA (2015), "a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family." That's not even counting expenses towards college. This may not be so much an issue for those earning a higher wage, but it is an issue for lower to middle income individuals, where some people live paycheck to paycheck and every penny counts. Factoring in child costs (food, clothing, education, healthcare, ect.) can break the proverbial bank. Economic costs is one factor women might take into consideration when deciding on abortion. Can they afford to have a child? Sometimes, the answer is no.
According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 10 million children living in poverty in this country (365 million in the world). Why add to that number by forcing women to give birth if they do not have adequate means to support children? Poverty can adversely affect the growth, development, health, and wellbeing of a child. Abortions will help reduce that and reduce financial burdens and difficulties. For those that do have a child, they may rely on government assistance, which economically impacts the taxpayers and probably doesn't boost income by a large amount. In effect, a child might grow up poor, and probably in a poor neighborhood with limited means and opportunities. Parental opportunities might also be limited, as time and energy are now used to earn a living wage and pay the bills. Therefore, having an abortion can break one's fall into or cycle of poverty and make life better for them. If a woman chooses to have a child later, then she might be in a stronger economic position at that time to have a better life for herself and the child. By the way, the majority of abortions are from women with limited means.
3. Adoption is not always the answer: I have often heard anti-abortionists say a woman can simply give her child up for adoption if she doesn't want it or that adoption is a better alternative than abortion (as if that solves everything?). But that is naive and not always the case. Don't get me wrong, adoption is great and all the more power to those who do adopt. But adding more kids into the system does not solve the problem of where to put children. It makes the problem grow. Let's say a woman decides to give her child up for adoption. Well, the child still needs to be housed, fed, clothed, cared for, ect., right? Well guess what, that's going to cost you. They might be placed in foster care until adoption occurs, assuming they even get adopted. Foster care also requires recruiting individuals to be foster parents along with all associated costs. In addition, not all foster care environments [ special thanks to fellow NTer mocowgirl for the information ] are benevolent or altruistic in nature. According to the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) , there are an estimated 407,000 children in foster care and 117,000 waiting to be adopted. Clearly there are not enough people able or willing to adopt. Abortion will help bring those numbers down. So it is a practical solution.
4. Overpopulation is a problem. As the human population grows, it places a great strain on resources and the environment. According to the US Census Bureau , the current world population is around 7.9 billion with 333 million in the US (the 3rd most populated country in the world). Humans require a lot of resources to not only live, but to have a decent quality of life. As the population grows, humans encroach on or destroy natural habitats and consume farmed, mined, or other natural resources until the environment is destroyed. This is why we see vast swaths of land, forests, jungles, seas, ect decimated or disappearing. Humans also produce a lot of pollution, which only harms the environment and other humans.
5. Quality over quantity: The more people there are, the more demand for resources (food and materials), jobs, housing, education, healthcare, ect there is. As all of these things and more come in greater demand, the less there is to go around adequately for everyone. As a result, the quality of life suffers. The previous points mentioned all feed into this paradigm. One only needs to look at areas with a large population density to see this effect. Having children or forcing women to remain pregnant will not alleviate this effect. It will only be exacerbated. So if you want to do your part to help yourself, others, and possibly the world, get an abortion.
I'm sure there are other reasons to support a "pro-abortion" argument which I missed. Feel free to present them. I might include them in the argument list. I'm sure some reactions will be dismissive or possibly hostile. But all thoughts on the matter are welcome. Just mind the CoC please. Thank you.
6. Abortion is safer for a woman than a full-term pregnancy and delivery . Pregnancy and childbirth can be fraught with potential complications, some of which can be life threatening. According to an article [Thank you to fellow NTer sandy-2021492 for the article reference] in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2012) , " Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion ." Abortions are generally safe, easy, and quick, especially in the earlier stages of pregnancy. Choosing to end a pregnancy can be as simple as taking a pill.
Tags
Who is online
326 visitors
It cannot be overstated enough: abortion is a woman's choice, and that choice is hers alone and no one else's business.
The first point I can agree with and have stated such elsewhere..
The rest are a eugenics argument, which puts the ideal directly into the population control theories of Margret Sanger and her racist brethren...
simple math...
Rights of women 1: Population control 4:
I guess the rights of women lose in that game...
Not at all. They are real world concerns and considerations one can take when choosing to continue a pregnancy or not.
The rights of women definitely lose if Row is overturned or significantly restricted.
A woman can consider anything in making her choice, as it is an individual choice, and if she makes such to forward a political population control agenda I suppose that is just as well.... It IS her choice after all...
But population control IS an external political consideration, a consideration that has nothing to do with the ability to choose abortion itself...
This is one of the things the religious object to vehemently, Population control through abortion... Margret Sangers philosophy centered around birth control not abortion... Initially she advocated that the responsibility for birth control should remain with able-minded individual parents rather than the state... Later, she proposed that "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples," but added that the requirement should be implemented by state advocacy and reward for complying, not enforced by punishing anyone for violating it....
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control. She believed that the latter is a fundamental right of women and the former is a shameful crime.
In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent."...
Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion.
Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.
While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life.
Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician.
She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
So the women who was the prime motivator for Birth Control in America and one of the founders of Planned Parenthood was a dedicated anti-abortionist, except when the mothers life was at risk... She did not like the Nazi ideal of eugenics nor the American ideal of eugenics, population control thru abortion... She stood out against the racial ideals of eugenics as well although she readily accepted the financial support of the KKK... (and gave birth control lectures to their groups)
Your arguments on population control are not what planned parenthood advocates, it is a political ideal not a parenthood ideal...
Look at your title, your arguing the "Pro-Abortion" position, NOT the "Pro-Choice" position....
So your piggybacking a political population control stance, on the women right of choice stance...
this create conflict because those two stances do not aim for the same thing...
Did you bother to read the opening paragraph explaining my position and why I wrote the article?
If that's what you think, then the article went right over your head.
Actually no it didn't.. You also said this..
I'm on the general specifics as you mention in that same opening paragraph, this sets the bounds of the discussion... I'm WELL within the bounds YOU set for the discussion...
[deleted]
What specifics? You immediately jumped to a eugenics conclusion.
Nowhere Man is right. You didn’t make a choice argument. You declared in the first “argument” that women have the choice to abort a pregnancy without stating how or why they have that choice, or why they should have that right. Numbers 2-5 are basically about how abortion benefits society, the economy, etc, and 6 is just the observation that abortion is safer for the woman than pregnancy. Your points aren’t about justifying the choice.
Many things might benefit society and the economy, but that doesn’t give someone the right to take specific actions.
The debate over abortion choice rights has always been about its relationship/opposition to the rights of the developing fetus. If it were just about a woman’s rights to choose stuff, we’d also be talking about a woman’s right to choose where she goes, what she wears, what she eats, what she buys, and so on.
Historically, a woman often need the permission of her husband or father to do many things. Thankfully, those days appear to be behind us and women are free to choose all sorts of things. The abortion choice is unique.
I never said it was a choice argument. The article is specifically a "pro-abortion" argument. I included choice as that is an option on the table.
Yes, and? I think I made that abundantly clear. Abortion can also benefit the individual in addition to society and such.
I never said they were, nor was that the intention. They are simply practical reasons to support or promote abortion. A woman need not justify anything to anyone if she chooses to have an abortion.
What specific actions do you mean?
A fetus has no rights. Neither is there any way of granting such rights without removing the established rights of the woman. Some go on and on about fetal rights, but ignore a woman's rights. They basically think rights should be traded like a commodity.
Yes, and it is good that those days are behind us. The problem is, some want to go back to those days.
It is unique to the woman. But it must always remain a choice.
My niece had to have her husband sign off when she wanted to get her tubal after her 3rd child, so those days are not behind us.
Ok, fair enough. I guess I haven’t had enough caffeine. So within that context, I think a complete argument considers the cons and not just the pros.
When you declare that a woman has the right to chose, or that the fetus has no rights, are you making a legal observation only? Should that be the limit of the discussion? Or should we be open to a broader discussion of what is “right” or what ought to be? Because I think the reality of the actual debate is more expansive than what is legal.
In 5 or 6 months, the Supreme Court may change their legal opinion of who has what rights. If it does, then statements like, “a woman has the right to choose” or “a fetus has no rights” may no longer be legally true.
I don’t think there is any other way of getting at the core of the problem. One of them has to lose out, at least a little. We often say that a situation is not zero sum game, but this one kind of is.
I know your pain. There is no worse feeling than being uncaffinated.
Considering the argument is making a pro case, it wouldn't help my case to include cons. But I'm open to entertaining them.
No, a legal fact. Women have the established legal right to choose and there are no established or enumerated legal rights for the unborn.
It never has been.
What one might consider "right" is quite subjective.
It's about individual rights and autonomy.
That would set a very dangerous precedent.
It is impossible to grant rights to both. Women are already born individuals with legal rights and autonomy, The unborn is not.
Unfortunately. But I suspect a sign off was requested or required by the doctor as a legal protection for himself. Because you know a woman might change her mind, right?
Dr. Ligation doesn't want to risk litigation.
Yep, just like my single daughter wasn't allowed a tubal even though a pregnancy could kill her because she had no kids and was not yet 30. She is not the mothering type & she knows it, she does not like children. She was told she would change her mind and love babies - has never happened.
One of the women in my office had to fight to have a tubal. She'd already had 2 kids, and knew she didn't want any more. The doctor asked her "What if one of them dies?" She asked if another baby would be the same as the child who'd died in his hypothetical, and if he considered children to be interchangeable. He didn't have an answer to that. She got her tubal.
What I like is that they do not consider that women that have children might change their mind also, but we only worry about the women that decide not to have children. As if they are less some how...
Ding, ding, ding!
Yes, Nowhere Man steered the discussion onto the grounds of a right-wing talking point about Margaret Sanger. As if girls and women affected by abortion today will be affected by eugenics (or other such "attachments") in any way. Yes, he continues in doing that!
Population control of ones own family is an 'internal' consideration. Half of the women who have an abortion already have at least one child.
That seems to be a recurring tactic when one has no logical argument to make.
Population control via affecting the birth rate is not a bad thing, despite some views or attempts to vilify it. Why we need an increasing population is beyond me. We can't even take care of the population we already have.
This is not specifically attached to Tacos! comment in any way, but sooner or later the same some conservatives who are meddling in the affairs of civil abortion policy will turn to meddling in the affairs of girls and women as it relates to loving a child they did not wish or plan to 'deliver' in the first place!
I am reminded of these same some conservatives admonishing and "damning' homosexuals men and women to marry instead of being permanently single—the opposite sex!
Fools! What good is that for the opposite partner and for off-spring being involved in an 'eternal' emotionally draining where a 'third-party' is always in the background?
Quality over quantity.
TRUE.
It is called compromised. The girl or woman has an interest in child-birithing, child-rearing, and child-loving (for a lifetime). The state has an interest in the community of standards of decency.
What some conservatives are doing is an attempt to re-institute standards of ideological puritanism of old. That is, girls and women, should model modesty and be 'covered' by some boy or man through a life-long relationship.
Girls and women wanted 'out' of the gilded cage (encumbrances and limitations) of the age of puritanism in the United States.
The article presents a pro side. I'm open to hearing the con side. The question is, will a counterpoint be offered rationally and practically, or subjective and emotionally based?
Which is why J. SOTOMAYER commented on the court's possible (probable?) impositioning next year as "stench" from a political angle. Courts of law are SUPPOSED to look at the merits and be blind to the quantity of their 'order' to place a judgement upon which people must live.
To say that a fetus ought to be allowed to develop and cross-over into this world simply because science has improved its likelihood, says nothing for the willingness of the girl or woman to deliver, raise, and emotionally attach herself (not abandon) to it. These are real-world matters which can result in many 'shades' of attitudes and actions by females living through their child-bearing years!
That is there are real-world consequences which led to a NEED for an abortion ruling such as we have on the books in the first place. Consult history.
Women all over the world make that decision all the time. They may want a gaggle of kids but make the choice to limit the size of their family in the hope of raising their existing children to the best of their ability. Gone are the days when women had 10 or more kids, some of whom died before they themselves met an early grave. My father was one of 13. He had almost 30 cousins from three uncles. My grandmother died when she was 52.
I agree. This being a comment board, I can accept why many do not present both sides for the sake of expediency. Still it bears up that formal debate it is necessary for debaters to demonstrate (to an "audience") that they understand the contours of their opponents position/s.
I write this by way of discussion only. Not as to "preach" or teach here.
My parents were both from large families. Mom was 1 of 13, with 8 surviving to adulthood. Dad was 1 of 10, with all surviving to adulthood. My mom's oldest sister had to drop out of high school to help take care of her younger siblings. Both of my grandmothers had to do the same. That led to resentment, and to my grandmother feeling trapped in an abusive marriage (she eventually divorced him and married my grandfather), and to my aunt being forced to stay married to a man who was repeatedly unfaithful and who ran up a lot of debt supporting his mistresses.
Their families were close, and still are, but it was not a good situation for the girls. They had no opportunities, because they were parenting their siblings when they should have been getting an education.
My dad's family was reasonably well off. My mom's family was dirt poor. Mom's father died when she was 11, leaving his wife (with no education, remember) with 8 kids to support on her own, raising sugar cane as a cash crop. It was a hard existence.
And it is accounts similar to this and a lifetime of my own as a single homosexual man (with Christian over-pinnings) which permits me to understand that these some conservatives are just a bunch of hypocrites! Literally, as we have a go on this here, people are living MISERABLE lives trying to please narrow-minded people who only want what they want out of life—frp everybody else!
It is a sad commentary on this world that ignorant, selfish people can wield so much power over other people (most of the time)!
Miserable sorts who can't fix what is wrong with the Church "state," so they move out into regular politics and interfere with the surrounding world. It's a cheap distraction for the right-wing Church and for those secular some conservatives who don't care about religion, but do like control over women writ-large.
It is time women start calling these people out: Front and Center! Women start campaigning actively against every form of pill created to fix (end) erectile dysfunction (ED)—make those old farts have to find natural remedies for their 'wilted' friend! That should give them plenty to "busybody" over!
I'm serious. Really. Start a serious campaign to cancel erection dysfunction pill "power" and watch these mealy-mouthed double-talkers shut the "heav—" up!
Her husband had to approve?
Just curious...where were they living at the time...Saudi Arabia?
Abortion is and always be a form of eugenics. There is no moral justification whatsoever for having one except to save the life of the mother or in the event of severe enough deformity to cause no quality of life at all.
Yes we can.
[deleted]
I certainly hope and pray 🙏 for that result!
And how the "heaven" do you know that, "Jefferson"? Anybody 'taken' you unwillingly that you wish to share with the group? Got any unplanned and unwanted descendants or teens in your household?
You can SAY talking points all day long, but ideology is bull patty. Time to get practical. Especially with the realization that we are not all some conservatives and we are not all trying or intending to live your worldview!
And I know damn well you did not just try to tell me about moral justification, when you support an evil 'clown' for president of the United States who aided in an insurrection, indirectly got Ashley Babbitt killed for trying to traverse a blockaded entryway in the national capitol, and who did not have the integrity to apologize to the nation as its head for having gotten everything wrong about what it means to be a decent, responsible, sensible president and human being! Don't you dare to try to spar with me over right and wrong, Jefferson! You will lose that round 'bigly.'
Well of course you do. Never mind how it will negatively affect women.
Hyperbole.
No one need justify anything when choosing to have an abortion.
Spare me the meta. It's obvious you have nothing to offer other than emotionally based tripe, as your previous statements demonstrate.
No, actually NYS. I think it was as Gordy says - the doctor covering their ass.
That is indeed what I said. Docs fear lawsuits, even if a suit has no merit. Getting approval from all parties is an insurance policy for the doc.
I didn't have to fight for mine. Maybe it was because I was 33 and had 2 children or maybe it was because I was in the military. I was the only one who made decisions for me. And I think the military knew it was cheaper than paying for a 3rd C-section and hospital stay
Well, looky there...you do have exceptions
If I understand you correctly-- does that mean that you approve of abortion (AKA "a form of eugenics")...at least in some cases?
you notice he neglected to mention rape or incest. shocking isn't it...
No. No it isn't.
No, not now, nor ever.
to hear these fucking pro-life morons tell it, every abortion occurs 30 minutes before natural delivery. despite defying any logic or reason, along with decades of collected statistics, it's religious bullshit that they so happily swallow. it's time to put this 5 decade old issue to rest once and for all. the social breakdown of opinion is very clear, 2/3's of america are pro-choice and the rest need to mind their own business and stick their noses back into their bibles.
as somebody with alternative plumbing and really no vote, my feelings on pro choice revert back to the constitutional basics. I believe every american deserves the freedom of bodily autonomy, with all the common sense disclaimers attached to that statement. but my primary concern is the unconstitutional attempts of religious activists to impose their particular version of religious dogma in a secular society or government. that is a line for me that they should not cross without the incredibly high risk of serious consequences. in this day and age, anyone that is for removing individual freedom from 51% of the voters, deserves what they get later. I don't speak for anyone else here, but no thumper is ever going to tell me or mine what to do in a secular america.
Interesting...
I have little doubt there are some who actually believe that would happen if abortion restrictions were relaxed or removed altogether.
And then regurgitate on the rest of us.
Indeed. But some simply cannot accept it.
Clearly those who want to restrict abortion rights do not share the same belief.
I share the same sentiment.
it's another example of give them an inch and they want a mile, and it wouldn't stop there with these immoral moral crusaders. the fucking religious wackos can't even decide among themselves about excluding victims of rape, incest, a fetus with a serious health issue, or a serious health risk to the mother. it's all or nothing with these puritan crusaders, no matter the cost to everyone else.
hopefully if this anti-choice bullshit somehow gets thru SCOTUS, I hope that the house retaliates against these tax exempt religious businesses financially. make these fools pay the piper. now is the time to extract serious concessions from religion-inc if they have the resources to engage in national politics. it won't be very hard to go after these con artists in the court of public opinion.
either way it turns out in the highest court, it's not going to bode well for the GOP or their religious money laundering apparatus. it'll be the end of their tried and true get the thumpers into the polling booth wedge issue. besides, the precedent has previously been set at the state level by republicans when it comes to obeying SCOTUS decisions. normally I would pity those subservient to such dogma as ignorant, but their cult has graduated onto dangerous religious extremism.
[deleted]
Taxing Churches will never happen in America.
I hope your savior is really good at completing organic puzzles.
please feel free to bet your life on that.
No secularist is ever going to tell a theist what to do or what we can or can not do in our religious liberty protected America despite your taunting name calling of us and those demands. We will not comply.
That works both ways!
[[Proselytizing]]
What’s the matter. You make demands on us and you can’t handle a defiant reply to your taunting comment? I make no apologies for what I said, stand by it, and meant every word of it. Every time a secularist makes a ridiculous demand of believers here in America they will not like the believers response in return. Nice death threat by the way. And yes, He can. People who went down on ships and their bodies were consumed by marine life will still be resurrected
(Continued)
[Proselytizing continued]
Cut the bad-ass-hiding-behind-a-keyboard crap; the topic is abortion.
he's proselytizing again
Get back on topic.
[Proselytizing and off topic, especially after I reminded you to remain on topic.]
[✘]
No, I’m responding to comments from another member. Nothing more.
Are you going to ask the one I was directly responding to to do likewise?
Xx, if you think that comment was taunting, FLAG it. Since you didn't and instead replied to it, you lost your standing to WHINE about it.
Cut the childish ' but he did it first ' nonsense. The topic is abortion.
I ask that of everyone. If you think someone is off topic or otherwise committing a CoC violation, then don't exacerbate the problem by replying and engaging in similar violations. Flag it and either reply civilly or not at all! You are the worst offender here. Your initial post was really of no value and you only devolved into meta, taunts, and proselytizing. You haven't addressed the topic itself or the points made. Instead, you engage in immaturity and practically trolling with your replies and CoC violations!
Careful with how you respond.
I can’t.
[Meta]
[[I determine the topic. You do not!]]
very well. Abortion is as great a social and societal evil in America now as slavery and legalized segregation once were. It is a stain on our nation and it’s moral fiber. It was wrongly decided to compel by judicial fiat it’s legalization the way it was done on a national level. Roe vs Wade was as wrongly decided as Dred Scotf and Plessy vs Ferguson were.
(Continued)
This is a never ending battle as long as Roe vs Wade shall stand. Hopefully it will be totally eradicated from our nation in 6 months. You asked for my opinion on abortion and now you have it. Pro life forever! End abortion now!
I determine what becomes the the topic, or off topic. Not you! You continue to engage in meta and childish tactics!
You give no rational reason to end abortion beyond emotional sanctimony. Neither do you combiner the negative ramifications of Roe were overturned, chichi the point in the article touch on.
none of these scumbag thumpers can explain how abortion didn't make the 10 commandments, can explain why their own biblical scripture says it's not life until it's first breath from god, or why they were specifically tasked with this act of religious over reach that would impose their warped dogma thru legislation upon others, in a constitutionally guaranteed secular society and government. metaphorically speaking, after the next religious beat down, take their f'n wallets too.
They cannot formulate a logical reason why abortion should be limited or prohibited, especially before viability. I've noticed anti abortion arguments are based largely on emotional appeals or personal opinions or feelings. No rationality.
most thumpers can't admit they'd force every pregnant woman to give birth or they would lose even more of their narrowing support.
Well, my religious beliefs (such that they are) is that some things are morally wrong-- some aren't. And therefore no government should interfere in an individuals religious beliefs.
Unfortunately in recent times there are more and more "Big Government Republicans". The type of people who want to expand the governmet beyond its Constitutionally defined role-- and these RINOS want to greatly enlarge the government (and increase the degree to which it interferes in our lives)
The way they want to expand the role of Big Government is to have it enter a new arena-- that of takingaway our own rights to determine our choices...and have the government expand to regulating our personal morality!
And this goes beyond a citizens choice of medical care.
And what does that mean?
Well, for starters, if these Big Government Republicans have their way (i,e, expanding the role of government into a new area-- i.e. regulating morality) that means they will have to increase police forces (who would now need more personnel etc to enforce "violations" in a whole new area.
They would have to increase the court system-- again because they would have to take on another whole area of law (regulating morality).
It will mean a need for greatly expanding the already overcrowded prison system.
Expanding the role of gov't will mean a huge increase in government spending, a great burden on tax payers, an increasing government deficit!
But that's not the worst of it... the worst is this greatly enlarged government will greatly infringe on the rights of Americans.
Something that any true Conservative would greatly oppose!!!
Some people here clearly do not care about your (or any woman's) choices or your right to them. They are only interested in their own agenda and ignore all else.
[deleted]
It is also a woman's right and choice to make some common sense attempts at birth control.
Abortion can be used as birth control too. Besides, BC sometimes fails. Regardless, a woman has the choice to continue a pregnancy or not.
Bingo, between 7 and 21% of the time...
7% accounts for at least half of all unplanned pregnancies.
Indeed. And whether a pregnancy is planned or unplanned, it changes nothing. The woman still has a choice.
Indeed. And to expand of your futile off-topic attempt to derail the conversation-- let's not forget its also a women's right to choose what dentist she wants.
IAnd speaking of health care, its also her right to make some common sense decisions as to what type of food she selects (healthy or not) when grocery shopping!
After all. this isn't Saudi Arabia-- the Big Government Republican's still haven't totally gotten their way.
(Well...not yet...)
Exceptin' Texas...
(???)
Thanks for the title. It always has been about the pro aborts.
Really? Who said they were "pro-abortion" or presented an argument for it? Or more likely you just don't know what you're talking about.
Exactly. If someone does not want an AB, then don't get one. But it is no one's business if a woman does.
Well said. That about sums it up too. But there are those who can't let it go, try to deprive women of their rights, then sanctimoniously pat themselves on the back for doing so.
5. Abortion is safer for a woman than a full-term pregnancy and delivery. It's not even close.
Thank you sandy. I'll add that one to the list.
There are three classic movies I've watched recently where a woman dies giving birth. In War and Peace Prince 'Andre's wife dies giving birth to a son, in A Christmas Carol (1951) Scrooge's sister dies after asking him to look out for her just born son, and in Goodbye Mr. Chips his wife Kathy dies during childbirth, and the baby dies as well. I'm sure that in present times it is far less likely for a woman to die giving birth, but then there are those statistics comparing deaths from abortion to deaths from childbirth.
Early 1800's setting
Mid 1800's setting
Late 1800's setting
The TV show Gunsmoke, (set in the late 1800's) had many references to women whom had large families, (think fertile myrtle) and several references to deaths by pregnancy...
Yes it was well known that modern medicine of the 1800's (200+ years ago) could only really assist the woman in giving birth, She had to do it herself... In essence modern medicine of the period discussed in the movies/TV wasn't much more advanced than it was for the entirety of mans existence on the planet... A lot of women died in childbirth... Have been to that point for thousands of years...
It's right about the turn of the last century though that medicine has made huge strides in understanding pregnancy and creating medical means for assisting women thru it... So yes women are far less likely to die from pregnancy today although it still does happen occasionally it is considered very rare...
I for one would like to see those statistics comparing abortion deaths to childbirth deaths.... Do you have a link?
Sandy provided a link in her post #2, which I included in point 6 of the article.
A young woman in my county died a few years ago. Her sister was known to have a condition in which her blood clotted uncontrollably during pregnancy. She had nearly died during one pregnancy, and still went on to have a child, against doctors' advice.
Her sister was told the condition was not likely genetic. Apparently, it was, and the sister was not so lucky.
Hypercoagulation. It can be a very dangerous condition.
Yes. This was something she'd had periodically since childhood, so she knew pregnancy was a risk. Her sister remained undiagnosed until pregnancy.
It's terrible that happened. But this also brings up another point: potentially passing on genetic abnormalities to children, which can be life threatening or shortening in some cases or lead to a lower quality of life.
Agreed. I personally would have chosen sterilization and adoption in their situation. I'd hate to think that I'd knowingly passed on such a potentially devastating condition.
Can a person quit a job?
If you can't quit a job isn't that a form of slavery?
Talking human biological functions here, not employment nor slavery...
Are you thinking on equating pregnancy to employment or slavery?
If you are not allowed to quit it is slavery or involuntary servitude and are not getting paid
So yes, you are equating the two positions...
A woman can freely choose to not get pregnant, especially today given the state of medicine... So the question is an antique one from the previous century and in no way relates to the medical or effaceable state of pregnancy today...
accidents happen, things don't always go as planned and people have a right to change their minds
I think you mean to say a woman can freely choose to not have sex or choose to use birth control. Getting pregnant is not something one chooses to do. It either happens or it does not. But ending a pregnancy is something a woman can freely choose.
If a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy against her will, then she is in effect a slave to a fetus.
Good one, Gordy. I will only say this:
Adoption does not solve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy.
By the time there is need to consider abortion, women have already been devalued. The real choice of women is to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. If there is an unwanted pregnancy then it's too late to value the woman.
Preventing pregnancy is not difficult. We already have several means of preventing pregnancy. But if those available means are inadequate then we need to improve upon them. We value women by providing women the choice of means to prevent unwanted pregnancy. We don't value women by hacking away at their bodies to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy; that's far too late. The woman's freedom of choice has already been taken away. The woman has already been devalued. The woman has already been denied the right to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
We don't value women by placing the onus of unwanted pregnancy onto women. Women have a right to avoid unwanted pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy violates that freedom of choice. All the exquisite rationalizations about abortion is deliberately devaluing women and undermining women's freedom of choice. We need not be concerned with the rights of women because denying their freedom of choice can be corrected by hacking away at their bodies to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Not by everyone. Only by those who insist on doing so by removing their agency.
If we really valued women's freedom of choice then abortion would not be an issue. Women's freedom of choice isn't about controlling sex; women's freedom of choice is about avoiding unwanted pregnancy. That's the issue of women's rights.
If the means to avoid unwanted pregnancy are inadequate then we need to improve those means. Women have a right to avoid unwanted pregnancy, don't they? That's the central argument for legal elective abortion. But by the time there is a need to consider abortion, it's too late.
No. women's freedom of choice is about choosing what to do with her body, including ending an unwanted pregnancy. The issue exists because some cannot accept that.
They also have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy too!
No. My first statement is the central argument.
The issue remains nonetheless. Since unwanted pregnancies occur, the question of choice is on the table.
Indeed. And it must always remain an option.
What??
If a woman discovers she is pregnant and did not want to be then she is not devalued. She has a choice to make. What kind of bizarre reasoning is this: "denied the right to avoid an unwanted pregnancy"? Irrelevant. She is pregnant; she did not want to be; she can choose to not be up to the point of viability.
Biology forces the reality; only woman can get pregnant. There is no choice there; the onus is a result of biology. Both men and women can avoid pregnancy but if they fail to do so the woman should not be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. That would be placing the onus of unwanted pregnancy on the woman.
If a woman discovers an unwanted pregnancy, it's too late. Obviously the woman did not choose an unwanted pregnancy. And obviously the woman was denied a choice to avoid an unwanted pregnancy since she is pregnant and the pregnancy is unwanted. And the onus of the unwanted pregnancy isn't placed on the woman by choice; the woman doesn't have a choice by the time there is an unwanted pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy means there is no choice; to restore the woman's choice of avoiding pregnancy it's necessary to hack at her body to eliminate the pregnancy.
Pregnancy is unwanted before sex and not after sex. If there is an unwanted pregnancy then the woman's freedom of choice was taken away before sex. If a pregnancy is unwanted then it means the woman did not have freedom of choice before sex. We, as a society, have not provided the means that allows the woman to exercise freedom of choice before sex.
Yeah Nerm everyone knows that abortion is a surgical procedure.
Given.
Yours is not an argument for removing a woman’s right to choose that elective surgery. You simply note that once pregnant, elective surgery becomes the most common method of ending the pregnancy.
You seem to be making two assumptions.
1. There is a 100% effective method of contraception for women who have sex.
2. That women who choose to have sex are also choosing to be pregnant.
Neither is true.
I am saying that if the means of contraception are not 100% effective then we need to improve them.
I am saying that women choose to not be pregnant before sex and not after sex. An unwanted pregnancy means the woman made a choice to not be pregnant before sex. The unwanted pregnancy is because the woman's choice made before sex was violated. The woman was denied adequate means to exercise her freedom of choice before sex.
Your conclusion is based on false assumptions.
If the pregnancy is unwanted then the woman did not have sex to become pregnant. Pregnancy was unwanted before sex and not after sex.
Yet again, a distinction without a difference.
If a woman is pregnant, do you deny her the choice to end the pregnancy?
If pregnancy were not occasionally unwanted after sex, women wouldn't have abortions, Nerm. Your assertion does not become any more true with repetition.
It rather sounds like "Well, you had sex, and now you're pregnant, and you're going to like it." Which really devalues women.
Abortion is being used to hide the fact that women's freedom of choice has been violated. If women had real freedom of choice then abortion would be unnecessary.
I'm saying that if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy then the woman's freedom of choice has been violated. Abortion is being used to hide that women are not being allowed real freedom of choice.
That is a contradiction and makes no sense.
You have yet to explain how. A woman's choice doesn't end because she becomes pregnant.
More repetition of a faulty conclusion = more repetition of a faulty conclusion, Nerm. It's still not any more true.
Sometimes, in fact fairly often, women choose to have sex, without any intention of getting pregnant. Same as men choose to have sex without any intention of getting their partners pregnant.
And sometimes, much less often, a condom breaks, or hormonal birth control fails. On occasion, even a person who has been "sterilized" manages to get pregnant, or sire a pregnancy. It's rare, but it happens. There was a reason that, when I had a hysterectomy, the surgeon also did a tubal ligation - there was still a tiny chance that an egg would somehow encounter a sperm cell and implant somewhere in my pelvic cavity.
When those things occur, the pregnancy is not any more wanted than it was before the sexual encounter.
You denying the feelings and decisions of women on such matters and insisting that your own should supersede them devalues women.
Then we, as a society, need to improve contraception to value women's freedom of choice.
Placing women in the position of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is not valuing women or advancing women's rights. Abortion is a makeshift correction that avoids confronting the real issue of freedom of choice and women's rights.
The women's right is to have sex without fear of unwanted pregnancy. Abortion means that we, as a society, have not upheld the rights of women. As a society, we have failed to value women's freedom of choice and are forcing women into false choices about abortion. If a woman has made the choice to not be pregnant then an unwanted pregnancy means that choice was violated. Abortion is a false choice forced onto women because women's freedom of choice has been violated.
Many societies do their best to make contraception available. But we're dealing with biology, and any doctor will tell you that there are no guarantees when we're dealing with biology. Hormonal contraception is pretty reliable, and allows for pregnancy later, if a woman chooses it, but it is not 100% effective, and it is not safe for all women. The most reliable contraception is sterilization, but it is fairly permanent (it can sometimes be reversed), and still isn't 100% effective.
When you come up with a 100% effective contraceptive method that is safe for all women and easily reversible, you let us know, mmkay?
Oh, and I'll add - what if this method requires some sort of medication or surgery for men? Do we mandate that men take medications or have surgeries to protect women's rights and prevent abortion?
Women are only devalued by those who would see their rights restricted or revoked.
They also have the choice to end a pregnancy.
That makes no sense.
Yes, but prevention is not 100% effective.
That would be the woman's choice. And most pregnancies can be ended pharmacologically. No "hacking away" necessary. That statement indicated you may not be overly familiar with how some abortion procedures are performed.
Pregnancy is unwanted before sex and not after sex. When there is a pregnancy that is unwanted then the woman's rights have already been restricted and revoked. Abortion is used to restore rights that have already been restricted and revoked.
You are making distinctions that have no significant difference. This is not complicated. If a woman becomes pregnant and does not want to be, she has the right to remedy the situation.
The woman did not want to become pregnant before sex. That's where the woman's choice was made. And an unwanted pregnancy after sex means the woman's choice before sex was restricted and revoked.
If the woman did not want to become pregnant before sex then abortion is not a choice. Abortion is a consequence of the woman's freedom of choice before sex being violated. Abortion is being used to restore the freedom of choice made before sex.
Repeating yourself does not change the fact that you are making a distinction without a difference.
When a woman is pregnant, there is a choice to be made. The fact that she had choices prior to pregnancy does not have any impact on her choices after pregnancy. Once pregnant, she has new choices based on her new condition.
How do you know? Can you read a woman's mind?
Go ahead and explain that bizarre reasoning.
Abortion is a right. What rights are you referring that have been revoked?
No. The choice was made before the pregnancy. Abortion only restores the choice made before the pregnancy.
Abortion hides the fact that women are being denied a real freedom of choice. Abortion is being used to correct violations of women's rights. Abortion is being touted has giving women rights when the only right that matters is the woman's choice to avoid pregnancy. And that choice is made before sex and not after sex.
Abortion is symptomatic of women not having freedom of choice as a right. And abortion requires hacking away at women's bodies to correct violations of women's freedom of choice. Abortion is a smoke screen to hide the fact that women are being denied freedom of choice as a right.
All this smacks of punishing women who choose to have sex, Nerm.
That devalues women.
If the pregnancy is unwanted then the woman did not have sex to become pregnant. Obviously the choice to not be pregnant was made before sex and not after sex.
The woman's choice to not be pregnant was violated. Abortion only restores the woman's choice made before sex. Abortion is being used to correct violations of the woman's freedom of choice.
Do women have freedom of choice before sex or only after sex? Do women only have rights after the deed is done?
Women can have all the sex they want. But if women only have freedom of choice after sex then that severely restricts women's rights.
Straw man. Nobody but you has hinted that there is no freedom of choice until after sex.
You are incredibly patient.
I am bluntly stating that the pro-choice abortion argument only grants women freedom of choice after an unwanted pregnancy occurs. Abortion is a false choice; the choice to not want pregnancy was made before the unwanted pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy means the choice to not want pregnancy was violated.
Pregnancy is something that either happens or does not. Women might have sex with the intention of becoming pregnant or they have sex for pleasure, or both. But if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, she has the choice to continue with it or not. How do you not understand that?
That is just stupid.
Then you are wrong! Abortion is a legal and personal choice, plain and simple.
Then you are making a blatantly false statement. Women can choose to use contraception. Contraception is not always effective, even when they make that choice. So they then can choose abortion. Choices can be made either before or after. And the pro-choice movement advocates strongly for the availability of contraception.
Pregnancy doesn't just happen. That's an absurd argument.
Women can have sex for any number of reasons. But the choice not to be pregnant is dependent upon the means to avoid pregnancy; that's separate from the choice to have sex. If the woman's freedom of choice is restricted by the means to avoid pregnancy then the choice becomes to either avoid sex to avoid pregnancy - or - have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy. How does that limitation bolster women's freedom of choice?
If a woman's choice to have sex means the woman has no choice to avoid pregnancy then what does abortion accomplish? Isn't abortion being used to give the woman a false choice? The pro-choice argument claims to be giving women freedom of choice when, in fact, women are being denied freedom choice when they have sex. We're only allowing women a choice of avoiding risk of pregnancy by avoiding sex.
If contraception is not 100% effective then that's the issue that needs to be corrected to protect women's freedom of choice. If an 'abortion pill' is 100% effective as a prophylactic after sex then that needs to be available to protect women's freedom of choice.
Abortion clinics are attempting to correct violations of a woman's freedom of choice after the fact. As long as there are abortion clinics then women's rights are not being fully protected. Abortion is a false choice.
When a woman contracts an STD because of sex, is treating the STD a choice? When a woman does not want to be pregnant is abortion a choice?
Abortion doesn't provide freedom of choice. If a woman does not want to be pregnant then abortion is no more a choice than treating an STD. The choice was made before the woman became pregnant. Don't try to make abortion sound like some sort of progressive fight for human rights because that's bullshit.
The pro-choice argument is that abortion is just another treatment for a venereal disease. There's nothing noble or progressive about the pro-choice argument. And the pro-choice argument certainly isn't a fight for women's rights.
Yes, it actually is. Patients have the choice to seek medical treatment, and turn it down.
Yes, again. Some people who devalue women would have it otherwise.
Women's bodily autonomy is bullshit? There are some very regressive Middle Eastern regimes who would likely agree with you.
So true.
...and they suffer from undue government influence from religious wackos too.
If women had bodily autonomy then women would have the means to avoid pregnancy available. If the means to avoid pregnancy as a choice is not available then women are being denied bodily autonomy.
Women contracting a venereal disease is about a disease imposed onto women without a choice. An unwanted pregnancy is about a pregnancy that has been imposed on women without a choice.
Until then, your concept of "bodily autonomy" includes the right to choose to have or not have sex. If a woman has sex, she is then considered to be fair game for having her bodily autonomy rescinded. That devalues women.
And an extremely dim view of women having sex for pleasure. In fact, an extremely dim view of women, in general.
I'm beginning to lose mine.
No shit. Do you think this is a revelation to members here? Of course the pro-choice argument is dealing with women who are pregnant.
And of course if a women becomes pregnant when she did not want to become pregnant then her choice to not be pregnant has failed. Who does not know this?
If you speed (even if accidentally) and get a ticket your choice to not get a ticket has been 'violated'. Good grief, how pointless.
Arguing the obvious seems a bit silly.
if I ever start typing out foolish circular nonsense on NT, please feel free to let me know. thanks.
I lost mine 4 Nerm comments ago
4? Is that a new record? Usually it only takes 1 or 2, Lol
Some men consider getting a woman pregnant is like a badge of honor with bragging rights. Then they walk away believing their job is done with no thoughts to the life they started.
Then the woman is labeled a whole or shut while the man is called a stud.
Well, have you personally ever not wanted to have an abortion (before sex)...and then gotten pregnant? And then found, after that, that abortion was not a choice?
Because I personally have known a few women who that happened to who actually did have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion ..and in fact did have one!
If that's been your experience... have you ever considered the possibility that maybe...just maybe...you're hangin' with the wrong crowd???
[[Meta]]
To avoid plagiarism do this:
When you paste the words of others, include them in a blockquote (the " symbol on the upper left of the toolbar) and then cite the source by pasting a link to same.
Perrie is liable for plagiarism occurring on her site.
Who's going to sue? wikipedia editors? that is a joke right? (Ps: I was a wiki editor as well as an IMDB editor)
Weak justification for eliminating truth... shame is, it reveals the site bias for all to see...
This is about good practices.
What you wrote appeared to be your research, not Wiki's.
You could have just published it as was, and cited it to Wiki. Btw, if I wanted to eliminate the truth, I would have just removed the comment. The comment still stands. I just don't want this to become general practice.
Please no more meta. Any further discussion can be had in the "Metafied" group.
Have walked on the moon, too? Coz you seem to have done everything
He worked on developing the last space shuttles...
He taught all those ladies how to do the math that got the first man to the moon
Are you familiar with ''Walking Eagle'' and it's meaning?
Walking Eagle
A joke about Native Americans derisively tags a pandering U.S. politician with the name Walking Eagle because 'he's so full of crap he can't fly.'
Nonsense, a few weeks ago two of us posted a long article with photos from a new NA photographer. We attributed the photos to her by name and a full bio on her. A few days later she joined NT and commented and thanked everyone for their comments.
Without the proper handling, the outcome could have been far different.
It's as simple as that.
No, but I am now. Very funny!
And I was one of those that commented in praise of her beautiful photos...
AS far as walking eagle? {chuckle} I've never claimed to know or having been everywhere... But some of the places I have been which I've revealed on the board, were examined by other board members who were also there in the same time periods... Asked me questions only they and I would know the answers to, you HAD to be there to know the answers... (both sides of the aisle) Do you remember their conclusions? Do you even remember who they were?
I've always respected you even if I vehemently disagree with your politics, and I thought you respected me in the same manner..
You now telling me that has changed?
I'm aware of that, the point being without proper ID the outcome could have been different which relates to your comment on Wiki.
I have no idea and there is no reason that I should.
I called out a bs comment by you, if you want to imagine it went further than that, that is your decision.
Fair enough, it was quite a few years back... There aren't too many peeps still on the board from that era...
What you did was support someone else's BS insult with one of your own... But who's quibbling, it's an internet forum, it only has the credence you allow it to have in your own mind...
Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's position and I'm not looking to... and I think your one of the few here smart enough to know that...
mino-wiijiindiwin
Waanakiiwin
Huh?
WTF are you talking about?
(Curious minds want to know!)
Spare us the Meta. Aside from your plagiarism, you never seemed interested in any meaningful discussion. Your posts are indicative of that. Instead of actually addressing the points made, you immediately went straight to Margaret Sanger and eugenics, which is absurd. So I doubt if you actually read the article, much less understand the points, and perhaps only gave it a cursory glance.
Is that supposed to be justification for plagiarism? And you haven't offered any truth. Only your own (biased) opinion.
{chuckle}
First there's his "Who's gonna sue...Wikipedia?"
Sounds like that thought may be borderline delusional (Or not?).
And then there's all those futile attempts at Meta...
Is it at all possible that he may have a latent Mark Zuckerberg complex???
Thus, you call a fraud a fraudster or organization full of fraudsters! Some conservatives want to 'win' the abortion debate for its own sake. These fraudsters will stiff every new girl or woman bringing a child or children they can not afford into existence. These self-same people will complain and put out data points about the "single mother who can not afford. . . ." "The 'bastard' child or children. . . ." "The new welfare queens. . . ." All planned and executed in the future where abortion is ended.
You can see the setup in Congress today: Republicans and conservatives are sitting on their damn hands with their thumbs stuck up their patooties, while Senator Manchin all by his sorry self kills any and another opportunity to speak to helping girls and women make a "home" for these poverty-stricken children some conservatives are PERSISTENT they issue forth!
Mothers who didn't want children and are struggling to make ends meet or require assistance can say to anti-abortionists, "it's because of people like you that I need government assistance or cannot improve my quality of life." Of course, some anti-abortionists probably do not care. In their eyes, it's all about the fetus being born. Nothing else matters or is even considered.
For some conservatives it is and for now shall remain about their narrow-set of life points, and controlling (take over) of the U.S. They think less and just act as a bloc to try and push policies for the sake of winning. What happens after the 'dust settles' and they are holding a nation's life force in their hands? Some conservatives have demonstrated under that former "thing" named Donald Trump they do not have a clue!
I tend to agree.
But if these same conservatives that CB brought up get their way they will dismantle the "welfare state". Then we shall see a class divide
Their stance on abortion helps enable people to go or stay on welfare.
Moreover, we can see in Congress today that with the help of Senator Joe Manchin, not a single conservative senator is willing to help pass anything for child-care or families. These same 'warriors' for unspecified increases of human births, offer nothing but more of 'want' and a life-time of unfair and unnecessary struggles for these new citizens they wish to force into existence. So much dribble comes off of their tired, sorry, noisy, lips!
The Problem With Linking Abortion and Economics ; (A New York Times Op-Ed) By Lori Szala
Population Control (Eugenics Archive)
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Four of your original topics are directly related to Eugenics and in fact the second, fourth and fifth, are core principles of Eugenics and the third, adoptions policies and study was heavily influenced by Eugenics....
So my 1-4 score is correct, and with the 6th topic sandy contributed, it is now 2-4 in favor of a eugenics argument... Not a choice argument...
So you want to discuss societal strain, overpopulation and quality over quantity on the basis of the allowability and efficacy of human abortion, your talking Eugenics right in the eugenic ideals wheelhouse...
I'll go with the learned people on this one.. you can deny it, but the content of what you posted belies the truth of what you posted... You have a eugenics component to what your ideal of pro abortion stands for and you support it...
Can't deny it... (well you can, but the evidence is there for everyone to see if you just do a little research)
You claim that Gordy is not making a pro-abortion argument as he has clearly stated but that he really is making a pro-eugenics argument. Your supporting 'argument' ostensibly compares Gordy's points with points in Eugenics. So let's look at these points side-by-side:
Factor
Abortion Point
Eugenics Point
Economic Strain
Children are expensive for a family
Individuals are just numbers to exploit
Adoption
System already overloaded
Nature vs. nurture impact on traits
Overpopulation
Consuming resources
Population control by the state
Quality over Quantity
More people less quality of life
Safety
Safer than full term pregnancy
Unspecified
Eugenics seeks authoritarian control of the population. You compare the pro-Abortion point of each child being expensive for a family to rear with a dehumanizing view of the population as numbers. You thus compare a personal choice made by a mother (and father) of a family in family planning to an authoritarian state crunching numbers. Category mistake.
On adoption, you compare the pro-Abortion point that our system is overloaded with children to adopt with an abstract reference to the Eugenics debate over nature vs. nurture impact on an individual's traits. The comparison is nonsensical.
On Overpopulation and Quality over Quantity points you compare consuming resources reduces the quality of life for all to an authoritarian population control. Again comparing a personal choice made by individuals with an authoritarian action by a state. Category mistake.
On Safety, you simply assert that the fact that it is safer for a woman to have an abortion than to go full term is a Eugenics argument. No argument, just an unsubstantiated claim.
Basically, you plopped up a bunch of words that, when actually analyzed, are irrational. You apparently are trying to baffle with bullshit.
I didn't say anything about safety, I counted four your claiming five... can't even get the posting correct, did you even read it?
Of course I am according to you... a foregone conclusion... If you actually did any analyzing at all in the first place...
You stated:
Got that from your comment. The 6th topic is about safety.
Well I summarized my analysis in a table with supporting commentary. Hello?
So then you didn't really analyze got it... Did you notice how the score changed from 1-4 to 2-4?
Nah you didn't, so you automatically assumed didn't you... I posted about the four I counted, which you didn't really analyze cause you assumed I counted Sandy's added point which counted as #6 as one of the 2 NOT the four, or as you analyzed as five...
Doesn't matter anyway... My point is made, your very weak analysis doesn't change facts and since you didn't even make the effort to get it right, one realizes that your answer is only for those that understand before hand...
An attempt to disparage not refute... I guess it's one of those things a person must understand before it can be explained to them, and most honest people know what those type of subjects represent... The Pro-Abortion side has been trying to deny it's eugenic roots from the beginning, but they love their population control argument, so much so that they reveal themselves for what they actually are...
Some of us out here remember and will never forget...
You have the floor, I'll leave you the last word, you'll take it anyway and claim something that isn't...
I will not be responding to any of your denials....
Who do you think you are fooling with this pathetic tactic of denying what is right in front of your face?
Good choice since you clearly have nothing to offer.
My time is limited at the moment. I'll address your post when I am able. Although, TiG certainly explains it well. But a cursory glance tells me you are way off.
And that may be the problem, right there!
Because if you don't just do a tiny bit of research but rather go a bit deeper...then you will find that the opposite is true!
(The Internet in its present state is full of nefarious pitfalls... there are more rabbit holes to go down then there are Rhine Maidens on the Danube !!! )
Ok, let's address this. First off,
An opinion piece with a splash of sensationalism by the NYT? Really? That's the best you have to offer? Or are you suggesting financial security or issues is not a factor some women make take into consideration when deciding on abortion? Especially those who might be in a lower socioeconomic status?
What does any of all that have to do with adoption?
Except that is not what is happening with abortion. No one is being forced or targeted to have an abortion.
Not even a little. Eugenics is an old concept and not in practice or promoted. No one is required to continue a pregnancy or have an abortion, or procreate with someone with "desirable" traits. Reproduction is not policed like that. That fact alone discredits any claim of eugenics.
Again, wrong! Those are relevant issues which affect the individual/s and society. Are you saying overpopulation and resource strain is not an issue?
More like you made up your own truth and then started throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks.
Of course I can because your claims are false, as your reasoning behind them!
Not just according to TiG.
What point would that be.
Stopping Illegal Immigration and Deporting Illegals will also reduce economic strain, reduce Overpopulation, and give us Quality over quantity: The more people there are, the more demand for resources (food and materials), jobs, housing, education, healthcare, ect there is.
You got that right!
Yes, this is true too, even if it toes the line of becoming off topic. It also demonstrates points 4 and 5: when there are too many people in one area, resources and opportunities become increasingly scarce, forcing some to relocate in an attempt to improve their situation. But this only transfers the same problems elsewhere. Advocating abortion helps mitigate or prevent such a situation from occurring to begin with. Like I said, humans require a lot of resources.
So let's kick all the Illegals out and give each one a coupon for a free abortion. That's compromise, the Right gets immigration laws enforced and the Left get's a bunch of abortions paid for by the government.
How about you skip the political snark and address the article itself!
Right now there are plenty of jobs thanks to people opting for gov money which is sometimes more than they made working.
But of course that's only one side of the story.
Because the fact of the matter is-- the more people there are the greater the amount of resources (food and materials), jobs, housing, education, etc that can be produced!
Producing those things also takes resources. Space and lumber (trees) are needed to build homes. Schools and hospitals can only accommodate so many people. Jobs can be filled or oversaturated, leaving extra people jobless or unable to command a certain wage. Raw materials are finite and can be depleted if over consumed due to increased need.