|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:06:59 GMT -5
I am against abortion in most cases. This time is not like decades ago when birth control was not widely available. There are so many options most of which are highly effective. With a few exceptions (rape & incest being a couple) there really shouldn't be so many unplanned pregnancies. Women need to be in control of thier bodies before abortion is even necessary. And if they're not responsible, tax them for it as you would drugs when they are legalized. There should literally be a price to be paid for stupid decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:07:11 GMT -5
Morning after pill being more widely used would also decrease abortions.
Abortion has always existed. But unlike decades ago, it is now much much safer for the mother.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:10:27 GMT -5
no, it doesn't work that way. you can't assume a real value for potential and declare it as fact. there are reasons these women chose to terminate. reasons that bring the average person to assume that life would not have been peaches and roses for the child that would result from a complete pregnancy. reasons like horrible deformities that may not even allow the child to live past birth, abuse, rape, abject poverty. yes, there are success stories for survivors of all of the above, but the reality is that the vast majority of children that would result from all those pregnancies would indeed require some assistance from the government before there's even any hope of them paying into Social Security. The number of abortions excluding rape, incest, and the mother's life being danger is in the high 90th percentile. I will state this one last time because it is indisputable unless you want to live without a govt. The public are net producers, the govt. is a net consumer. No example you give can change the fact that most of those abortions would have resulted in net production. This is Economics 101 and is precisely why centrally planned govts. fail. why are so many of you more interested in protecting what is technically a parasite until birth, rather than the woman that is already here? or better yet, children that are unwanted and also already here? Because those women have no respect for the unintended consequences of their decisions. Those parents are solely responsible for the insolvency of Social Security. Are you trying to deny why Social Security is broke?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,553
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 16:12:17 GMT -5
I am against abortion in most cases. This time is not like decades ago when birth control was not widely available. There are so many options most of which are highly effective. With a few exceptions (rape & incest being a couple) there really shouldn't be so many unplanned pregnancies. Women need to be in control of thier bodies before abortion is even necessary. And if they're not responsible, tax them for it as you would drugs when they are legalized. There should literally be a price to be paid for stupid decisions. so, by this logic, you would also tax that alcoholic who develops cirrhosis of the liver? IMO this is treading awfully close to those death panels that have been touted in other threads, where you'd have to justify why you need a certain medical procedure or treatment. besides, who would you have make those calls? would you be willing to pony up for a child that a mother can't support if you force her to carry the pregnancy to term? I really don't understand where you are coming from.
|
|
|
Post by sanityjones on Jan 22, 2011 16:13:13 GMT -5
I'd rather not reflect on 50,000,000 dead children, thank you very much...but if it makes you happy, well, this IS a free country (so far)... I like to reduce everything to economics. Remove the morality out of the equation and in this case, liberals are left with hollow arguments. When a government owns the means of production, can print money at will, and has become the rule of Law then your argument from the economic standpoint(only) becomes null and void. We need not abandon morality, for even the Libs must appeal to it (at the base levels) many times during the course of argument in order to avoid all of the necessary pitfalls of their worldview. (moral equivalency arguments for instance). Abortion as a means of birth control is both immoral and unjust. Abortion as a potential solution to rape, incest, medical/health reasons should be left to the individual to decide.........
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:14:51 GMT -5
So... you are good with the Child Tax Credit and EITC for parents... cause after all single SHOULD pay more taxes, because they aren't contributing to the common good... in fact, i'm thinking maybe we should tax all people who DON'T have 5 children... hmmm... 6? ... yes... that increase in population will certainly provide us with MORE resources ...
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
so, by this logic, you would also tax that alcoholic who develops cirrhosis of the liver? [/size][/quote] In the case of alcoholism, it generally leads to unproductivity in the latter years, when earning potential was already reduced, and the alcoholic has already been paying in Social Security. IMO this is treading awfully close to those death panels that have been touted in other threads, where you'd have to justify why you need a certain medical procedure or treatment. besides, who would you have make those calls? would you be willing to pony up for a child that a mother can't support if you force her to carry the pregnancy to term? I really don't understand where you are coming from. There are going to be death panels, there is no denying it. Healthcare is an economic service and it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Unless everyone is magically born a doctor, care will be rationed based on statistics and demographics. There have already been studies performed on these issues.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:17:33 GMT -5
So... you are good with the Child Tax Credit and EITC for parents... cause after all single SHOULD pay more taxes, because they aren't contributing to the common good... in fact, i'm thinking maybe we should tax all people who DON'T have 5 children... hmmm... 6? ... yes... that increase in population will certainly provide us with MORE resources ... When I used the term "Collective", I was using the liberal's argument. A person's productive capacity is not influenced by the state of marriage. As for Child Tax Credits, well now you understand why Russia is paying people to reproduce. They are dying and not replacing the producers. There is no getting around the unintended consequences. If a society doesn't reproduce, it dies.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,553
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 16:21:25 GMT -5
so, by this logic, you would also tax that alcoholic who develops cirrhosis of the liver? [/size][/quote] In the case of alcoholism, it generally leads to unproductivity in the latter years, when earning potential was already reduced, and the alcoholic has already been paying in Social Security. IMO this is treading awfully close to those death panels that have been touted in other threads, where you'd have to justify why you need a certain medical procedure or treatment. besides, who would you have make those calls? would you be willing to pony up for a child that a mother can't support if you force her to carry the pregnancy to term? I really don't understand where you are coming from. There are going to be death panels, there is no denying it. Healthcare is an economic service and it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Unless everyone is magically born a doctor, care will be rationed based on statistics and demographics. There have already been studies performed on these issues.[/quote] would you care to answer that last question in there? that's the one that nobody seems to be willing to step up and tackle.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 16:21:26 GMT -5
[/size] I guess they could always use scissors through the skull. If a man kills his wife and unborn child, he is charged with 2 murders, right? Why is it not the same when a woman and doctor abort the baby after a certain point? I'm pro-choice but this becomes problematic and inconsistent with how the country views when life begins for a baby. Like Loop, I'm against 7-9 mth abortions unless the mother could die. Viability is at 24 weeks, so is that when life begins [i.e. not conception, but also not at full term]? Is that when the cut off should be for when a woman is no longer only making a choice for just herself & her body but killing an unborn child and an innocent life?
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:21:59 GMT -5
When a government owns the means of production, can print money at will, and has become the rule of Law then your argument from the economic standpoint(only) becomes null and void. We need not abandon morality, for even the Libs must appeal to it (at the base levels) many times during the course of argument in order to avoid all of the necessary pitfalls of their worldview. (moral equivalency arguments for instance). Abortion as a means of birth control is both immoral and unjust. Abortion as a potential solution to rape, incest, medical/health reasons should be left to the individual to decide......... All govts. which control the means of production end, and usually within one human lifespan. Many of them eliminated their future producers in a more overt form of abortion, but the results are the same.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:23:16 GMT -5
would you care to answer that last question in there? that's the one that nobody seems to be willing to step up and tackle. I already have answered it, if you know where to look.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,553
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 16:25:02 GMT -5
traelin, if I thought anything you had to say already was sufficient enough to back up your viewpoint, do you really think I'd still be posting in here?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 16:27:54 GMT -5
[/size]
This would easily be solved if we made adoption laws and processes logical and binding.
There is way too much of a chance that the adoption process would take so long here in the US that the child would be emotionally screwed up and potentially have a number of other issues that we'd have to deal with. Add in any potential for the birth parent to come back and try to fight for custody for a previously adopted child and I have absolutely no interest in adopting a child in this country. I'll go to China or Central / South America.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:28:21 GMT -5
If a man kills his wife and unborn child, he is charged with 2 murders, right?
No... i don't think he is... UNLESS we're talking late term and the child was vaiable on its own. Otherwise, it is just murder of the mother.
I'm also with loop... easy and readily available for the first 3 months... after that, only in cases of maternal health...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 22, 2011 16:29:40 GMT -5
I'd rather not reflect on 50,000,000 dead children, thank you very much...but if it makes you happy, well, this IS a free country (so far)... I like to reduce everything to economics. Remove the morality out of the equation and in this case, liberals are left with hollow arguments. You don't care for this middle of the left explanation of my feelings on the topic or the reply of another on the males participation?
|
|
|
Post by sanityjones on Jan 22, 2011 16:30:04 GMT -5
All govts. which control the means of production end, and usually within one human lifespan. Many of them eliminated their future producers in a more overt form of abortion, but the results are the same.
Rome ended. The system was perpetuated by others. It would be preferable to say that all "enlightened" societies fail; they are overcome by those who do not have the time to waste pontificating the finer points of murdering ones own peoples and justifying/popularizing all forms of debauchery. Moral decline is the root of most other abuses, (economic/monetary included). The Muslims will be our natural replacements should things continue to progress unchanged. That is not to say that the Muslim worldview is morally superior; this need not be the case.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jan 22, 2011 16:30:11 GMT -5
What about a woman who is depressed in her 8th month over the idea of having a baby? Or gets divorced during her 7th month and has major anxiety over how to support the new baby? Maternal health?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 16:37:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:39:52 GMT -5
I'd tend to say no ed. I guess if a person, i don't know, developed schizophrenia and needed medication you couldn't give a pregnant person and nothing was working, or someone had a serious suicide attempt, something like that... i mean if it has legitimate potential to end up in the death of the mother, then it should be considered.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 22, 2011 16:40:12 GMT -5
I was a young woman when Roe v Wade was decided. I was not very political, nor very interested for that matter. But it incensed me that one of the most personal, private decisions that a woman might have to make came under a law created by males who would never face the issue. (At that time, the political arena was male dominated). A woman has approximately 40 years in which she could become pregnant. That's a long time to be perfect. To never once make a mistake. To not make a single slip up. A very long time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:40:42 GMT -5
I'm guessing psych rationale in late term abortion doesn't come up often... in the fraction of abortions that ARE late term, i'm guessing only a very small percentage of THOSE would be phych related.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 16:46:04 GMT -5
I think traelin's rationale is that we should round up all women and put them into a breeding farm so that capitalism can continue functioning perfectly.
It's probably the only way he could get some anyway.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,553
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 16:47:08 GMT -5
I think traelin's rationale is that we should round up all women and put them into a breeding farm so that capitalism can continue functioning perfectly. It's probably the only way he could get some anyway. Loop, I exalt you for this. hah!!
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 16:47:24 GMT -5
I'm guessing psych rationale in late term abortion doesn't come up often... in the fraction of abortions that ARE late term, i'm guessing only a very small percentage of THOSE would be psych related. Only 2 percent of breeding aged women (16-44) have an abortion per year, and only .8 of those abortions performed are late term. You can extrapolate from that. Seriously though, aren't there enough duggars in America to make up for the rest of us that don't want to have a million kids?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 16:49:50 GMT -5
[/size]
Do you have the stats behind this or more information? I'm specifically interested in knowing how many abortions take place after viability [i.e. 24 weeks].
Then again, if they're charging men with murder at 13 weeks gestational age...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:52:59 GMT -5
I'll have to read up on that expat, but its a slippery slope there... next you'll have mothers being charged with murder if, say they go skiing in the first trimester and have a wipe out and miscarry (or anything really, i'm no in 'example' mode at the moment) ...
Eventually you'll have women held hostige by their fetuses... if they do anything that isn't in the best interest of the fetus (as determined by who?)... then they risk a murder charge if something goes wrong... maybe just manslaughter actually... still... something to consider when you give a blob of cells more rights than the person carrying it around...
But it does look like currently fetal homicide is used 'in commision of'... secondary to the first murder/ or assault of the mother, which limits it, so that seems workable.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 16:54:01 GMT -5
[/size]
So, population 310m, 50% women = 155m.
Roughly 40-50% in the 16-44 range, or 62 - 77m women in that age range.
2% per year have abortions or 1.24 to 1.55 million abortions per year. Of which, 9.9k to 12.4k are late term.
But how many are after 24 weeks? That's a lot of murder.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:55:12 GMT -5
Its not murder if its done to save the life of the mother... at that point its triage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 16:55:19 GMT -5
Hey-- whoever said it-- maybe YOU should read Atlas Shrugged. I am in the middle of it now, for the second time since I was a teen-- which was a long time ago. It is ALL about how the gov't ruined the country through regulations and stupid laws that took from the rich and gave to the whiners. I am not yet to the part that tells people to kill babies. Could you tell me what page that is on-- or are you just whining? Yeah-- Who is John Galt??
|
|