I_Like_Dirt wrote:nate33 wrote:This is such a stupid talking point. Pro-lifers are defending innocent babies. The death penalty is for guilty criminals. And wars are never so morally clear. Being a pacifist may result in more death and suffering. (That's not to say I support our aggressive pro-war foreign policy.)
The abortion issue is really simple. It's the right for an innocent life to be allowed to exist versus the right to control one's own body. They're both very fundamental rights worthy of a vigorous defense. I totally understand the viewpoint of both sides and I don't think either side is evil for defending their position.
I get both sides, too. There are solid points there. And I don't feel the death penalty is a great contrast, either.
The catch is that they aren't actually mutually exclusive. Where the argument gets derailed most often is that those arguing for protecting babies often gets far too caught up in the "controlling women's bodies" side of the issue. I've mentioned it before, but there are a LOT of things that could be done to potentially reduce abortions. You are never going to eliminate them entirely. Banning abortion won't make things better just like prohibition didn't actually eliminate drinking or drinking-related problems. We need to start with an understanding that we are never going to eliminate all abortions and begin operating under the premise of making them safer and reducing their numbers.
There are two key fronts where a lot more really needs to be done and should be done in order to reduce abortions. The first is to start supporting families be they couples or single parents. Let's be honest, we still need a growing population (yeah, yeah, someone is probably going to chime in about how there are too many people - we have a consumption problem right now, not a population problem). And the reality is that children have become inordinately expensive and that expense is largely foisted onto the individual. It's a way that workers and even non-workers are supporting the country that gets absolutely 0 credit. They're the ones having kids. The super wealthy have kids, too, but not at a higher rate than the non-wealthy and there aren't as many of them. In terms of long-term economic impact, having kids is massively important as a contribution to society and totally ignored in terms of supports from pretty much anywhere. Heck, schools are getting worse, more divided on economic grounds and advanced education more expensive. And this is a change from past times when birth control wasn't nearly so readily available and having kids wasn't necessarily an economic burden because child protections and labor laws and such weren't so strict. Make it to the point where kids aren't a factor in people feeling hopeless and you will see fewer abortions.
The other front where something absolutely needs to be done is men's responsibilities. This is a massive issue because men absolutely have the overwhelming power in the system (yes, it's true, anyone who denies it is either lying or has their head in the sand) and by system I mean beyond government and throughout social structures overall. It winds up with the argument that women are responsible for children because they are responsible for their own actions. Here's the thing, that argument effectively turns the responsibility issue into a game of tag and because women give birth, they touched the baby last, so it's their principal responsibility.
The argument then winds up evolving into one of men's rights where they should have custody of the child, etc., again moving the discussion away from men's responsibilities. It's also a great defense against having to pay child support because if you have custody then the other person should instead be paying you child support. And it's often brought up how women would lie and manipulate the system. Yes, that will happen. It happens right now. You know who's doing it even more now? Men. Child supports are not enforced and it's extremely easy to skip out on them. Unlike women, men are fertile all the time and can use birth control, too. Let's take a national DNA sample of all male citizens. A simple DNA analysis determines the father then. Forget men's rights for a second and let's go men's responsibilities. Make them actually responsible for their children in a way that isn't so easy to escape. If some women take advantage of the system, that's what the legal system is for. Granted my example is highly extreme and problematic on a few levels - it's just indented as an example and figuring out the details would take more time but it's absolutely possible. Oh, wait, now we know the problems of the legal system and it isn't fair and doesn't always come to the right conclusions? Well then why are we so quick to turn it around the other way?
I go to Church with a LOT of people who campaign against abortions and I never once hear them mention those two issues. When I bring them up, they may or may not agree but either way it's clear they aren't really interested in discussing the issue and quickly push the issue in another direction. If anyone is serious about abortion we need to stop seeing this as a zero sum game. We can protect children AND protect women at the same time. All it costs is a little added responsibilities placed on society and men, and they really aren't actually that onerous of responsibilities either, particularly not when contrasted with what is placed on women overall. This whole argument in support of banning abortion is making it out as though it's some obvious easy decision. Of course it isn't. Women aren't making these decisions lightly and these are things they have to live with for the rest of their lives. So rather than banning everything and make their heavily mixed emotions into a source of shame on top of what they're already feeling, let's consider some other options. Never enters the discussion, though.
If someone wants to ban most or all abortion, while they don't actually see it that way, what they're actually saying is that they want to take a path that winds up killing both babies and women because they don't like the idea of abortion and don't want to have to think about it much so they aren't interested in looking at real life and looking for legitimate solutions. They have their fingers in their ears beyond the part where they truly don't like killing babies and are unwilling to discuss it further.
Re: the first paragraph.
Performing an abortion is very unlike selling a bottle of booze. That said, there is evidence that back room abortion are putting women at greater risk.
this would be my stance. Make abortion not only illegal but in fact murder after a certain time ( and that time for me is 5 months). Charge people with murder and you would need to pay someone at least 4,000-10,000 to perform that abortion. Or more. At which point (cost) it become a better idea to just have the baby, get a job, and pay for the costs and minimize the risks of going to jail.
The point of a law like this is to NOT force people to have children but to force them to use other forms of birth control. Prior to 20 weeks, people are free to choose. and i personally would not abort my potential child unless their were medical issues. I see no reason to bring a child into the world where it has some kind of genetic disorder or other kind of severe disease. Life is difficult enough and expensive enough. there is not reason to force that on someone.
But if the only reason to kill a human life is some version of: "im not ready." or "i cant afford it." <--then we have failed as a country, failed as a society, failed as a race of people. We have completely failed. That's not the message i want to send young people nor the message i want to send to the world. Instead we could have adoption services more available. We could make it financially worth it for young girls to have babies and adopt them.
Imagine, if instead of abortion:
1. we paid girls $100,000? Wealthy people would pay! And pay for prenatal and pay for the birth itself. I guarantee it. And we need to make it so the girl gets the full $100K minimally and up to $250K. I'll bet abortion would almost immediately stop.
2. Then instead of cutting the birth mother out of the picture, we allowed her to spend 5-10 hours per week with the child? To stay in the child's life both as a check on the adoptive parents but also for the health of the mom and the child?
^^^^sounds way better than killing and murdering 1 million babies in the womb per year since 1979? 600K of which on average are african american. This seem right?
^^^^sound better than tax dollars funding these mruders.
^^^^sounds better than using abortion as a form of birth control.
Look, I fully support birth control. And contraceptives. even the morning after pill. And i fully support abortions as a last resort up to 3-4 months. But we need better solutions after 18-20 weeks because those babies can live at that point. If a mom dies while 20 weeks pregnent our laws and hospital systems are designed in every single state to save the child. That child's life is fully protected. And dad might not have a say. The girls parents might if they can get to them and have paperwork signed which is never the case. instead it is decided in court rooms and in hospital emergency rooms and we save those children...which we should. So i dont know nor understand how nor why a woman can end that life so easily.
Furthermore, there is more at stake than just a womans choice. The choice should Start with her. No doubt. But this should not be just her choice. Prior to 5 months I think that a pregnant female should need the consent of the biological father, her parents, and his parents before allowed to abort the child. After 5 months it should be illegal and considered murder unless there is severe disease or disorders present.
Physical and medicinal Abortion should NOT be just another form of birth control or contraceptive. There is more at stake here than "just a child." Liberals have confused themselves in their own messaging...They have become too selfish and too self centered. Why does pro-choice mean solely the choice of one person. the mother? if it takes a village to raise a child then the village should be consulted on if and or when to kill off our children.
like i said, its a full rebuild.
