Abortion v non Abortion

 
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
What is it with religious nuts and the beatings? No! Don’t go hypothetically beating your dog, or cat, or bunny, or cavy, or anything.

Just be a non hypothetical decent person - I know that’s hard for religious people, with their Biblical morals of being ordered to sacrifice their children’s lives, offering their daughters to be raped in lieu of angels, and the whole instructional tutorial of slave ownership, treatment and trading, but just a little harder and you’ll find a decent person within you that doesn’t need to beat a living thing.

Truly, if the religious right had as much concern for having their clergy keep their hands and ‘attachments’ out of children’s orifices they’d have an infinitesimally small amount of credibility towards their ‘caring’ of what happens to a foetus, instead they have none.

Part of me, and I make exactly no apology for thinking, or posting this, cannot help but think the primary reason senior religious MEN (because they generally are) are so against abortion is because it is their precise hope for continued supply of ‘unwanted’ children - providing them with a continued supply of more easily exploited.

It’s abhorrent to think, and I take no joy whatsoever in thinking it, trust me, I cannot think of a concept I’d rather think about less, nonetheless it is currently the best explanation I can arrive at. I just cannot see any other rational explanation as to why these MEN would be so concerned with what goes on inside women.

Sponsored advertisement

  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@RTT_Rules: Why should I just accept your assertions about what is and is not relevant?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

No! Don’t go hypothetically beating your dog, or cat, or bunny, or cavy, or anything.
Aaron
I completely agree.  People should not beat their wives, daughters, dogs, cats etc.  It is, and should be, a crime.  I also think you have every right to say that.

Can you tell me, however, what you think gives you the right to say that?

And what, in your view, is different about people, dogs, cats, bunnies and cavies (as opposed to say, rocks) that justifies making it illegal to beat them?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@RTT_Rules: Why should I just accept your assertions about what is and is not relevant?
Sonofagunzel
Because I (and others seem to agree) that comparing beating your direct family members with abortion is rather brain dead stupid. How can something be relevant if its stupid?

Anyway, so rather than replying to that comment, why not focus on the questions asked which are completely related to the topic?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Part of me, and I make exactly no apology for thinking, or posting this, cannot help but think the primary reason senior religious MEN (because they generally are) are so against abortion is because it is their precise hope for continued supply of ‘unwanted’ children - providing them with a continued supply of more easily exploited.

It’s abhorrent to think, and I take no joy whatsoever in thinking it, trust me, I cannot think of a concept I’d rather think about less, nonetheless it is currently the best explanation I can arrive at. I just cannot see any other rational explanation as to why these MEN would be so concerned with what goes on inside women.
Aaron
Totally agree, it was always about control of their mentally enslaved congregation and as a means to boost numbers, which is the same reason nearly all religions if not all that oppose abortion also oppose contraception. Note women in all major religons were traditionally 2nd class citizens / property and played no signiifcant leadership role. If she died in child birth, no problem marry another one. But if the husband died, well she was spoilt goods as well as older, what "man" would want her. Perky young virgins were always the #1 and in many cases only choice.  

The one thing modern civilised open society has learnt is, that there are simply some things men need to stay out of. You had your fun, fully conscensual or not, now FO!
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@RTT_Rules: Why should I just accept your assertions about what is and is not relevant?
Because I (and others seem to agree) that comparing beating your direct family members with abortion is rather brain dead stupid. How can something be relevant if its stupid?

Anyway, so rather than replying to that comment, why not focus on the questions asked which are completely related to the topic?
RTT_Rules
You're absolutely correct.  Abortion is not like beating your direct family members. It's hiring someone to kill them.

So I can absolutely see why you think it's brain dead stupid to have any reservations about the practice.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Your wife wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

Your daughter wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

The reason is irrelvent, the term of the pregnancy is irrelevent.
RTT_Rules

Your cogent and rational arguments have completely convinced me.  

As you say, the reason and term of the pregnancy is irrelevant.  So even if she were nearly nine months pregnant, I would not only give my permission, but I would use my hypothetical medical training as a surgeon to extract the baby and dismember it for her.

Wait, that would be murder.

So morally speaking, I need to dismember her baby while it's still inside, and then extract it.  Totally different and not like murder at all.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Your wife wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

Your daughter wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

The reason is irrelvent, the term of the pregnancy is irrelevent.

Your cogent and rational arguments have completely convinced me.  

As you say, the reason and term of the pregnancy is irrelevant.  So even if she were nearly nine months pregnant, I would not only give my permission, but I would use my hypothetical medical training as a surgeon to extract the baby and dismember it for her.

Wait, that would be murder.

So morally speaking, I need to dismember her baby while it's still inside, and then extract it.  Totally different and not like murder at all.
Sonofagunzel
Ok, so you have harped on for two pages now about your anti abortion comments, then said you are not anti-abortion but continue with your hypotehical senario's that are completely irrelevent so I asked you two very clear questions OT and you have doged giving an answer.

So my take on this is

1) YOU are Anti-Abortionist, absolute.

2) YOU want a controlling say over your wife's and/or daughters body and expect all men to have similar control

Yah, welcome to the 15th century.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Your wife wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

Your daughter wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

The reason is irrelvent, the term of the pregnancy is irrelevent.

Your cogent and rational arguments have completely convinced me.  

As you say, the reason and term of the pregnancy is irrelevant.  So even if she were nearly nine months pregnant, I would not only give my permission, but I would use my hypothetical medical training as a surgeon to extract the baby and dismember it for her.

Wait, that would be murder.

So morally speaking, I need to dismember her baby while it's still inside, and then extract it.  Totally different and not like murder at all.
Ok, so you have harped on for two pages now about your anti abortion comments, then said you are not anti-abortion but continue with your hypotehical senario's that are completely irrelevent so I asked you two very clear questions OT and you have doged giving an answer.
RTT_Rules
The problem you're having is that you didn't get the answers you expected, and you don't know how to counter the answers you did get.  

You, on the other hand, have not answered any of my questions.  Not the hypothetical, nor any of the other questions I have asked. You ignore them, or assert my questions are irrelevant but provide no reasons.  

You just have no answers.

So my take on this is

1) YOU are Anti-Abortionist, absolute.
RTT_Rules
You can't read.

2) YOU want a controlling say over your wife's and/or daughters body and expect all men to have similar control
RTT_Rules
Once again, the problem you're having is that you didn't get the answers you expected, you can't counter the answers you did get, and so you have to put words in my mouth.

Yah, welcome to the 15th century.
RTT_Rules
And because you're unable to counter what I've actually said, you resort to slurs.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Your wife wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

Your daughter wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

The reason is irrelvent, the term of the pregnancy is irrelevent.

Your cogent and rational arguments have completely convinced me.  

As you say, the reason and term of the pregnancy is irrelevant.  So even if she were nearly nine months pregnant, I would not only give my permission, but I would use my hypothetical medical training as a surgeon to extract the baby and dismember it for her.

Wait, that would be murder.

So morally speaking, I need to dismember her baby while it's still inside, and then extract it.  Totally different and not like murder at all.
Ok, so you have harped on for two pages now about your anti abortion comments, then said you are not anti-abortion but continue with your hypotehical senario's that are completely irrelevent so I asked you two very clear questions OT and you have doged giving an answer.
The problem you're having is that you didn't get the answers you expected, and you don't know how to counter the answers you did get.  

You, on the other hand, have not answered any of my questions.  Not the hypothetical, nor any of the other questions I have asked. You ignore them, or assert my questions are irrelevant but provide no reasons.  

You just have no answers.

So my take on this is

1) YOU are Anti-Abortionist, absolute.
You can't read.

2) YOU want a controlling say over your wife's and/or daughters body and expect all men to have similar control
Once again, the problem you're having is that you didn't get the answers you expected, you can't counter the answers you did get, and so you have to put words in my mouth.

Yah, welcome to the 15th century.
And because you're unable to counter what I've actually said, you resort to slurs.
Sonofagunzel

You proposed unrelated questions which are nothing to do with Abortion, others also called you on it. I called BS and explained the welfare system in place and you then wanted to add BS to BS to make Horse $hit but saying what if we are not in Australia. You say this while I'm in India driving past millions of people living in rubbish, where BTW abortion is legal and encouraged when the mother has no hope of supporting the child. So correct, your questions are not just irrelevent but really just plain stupid (others have also agreed). So lets focus on questions OT?

I'll ask again for you, all fairly simple.

Regardless of the reason or term of the pregnacy
1) Your wife wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?
2) Your daughter wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?



Both very simple, neither imply pro or anti abortion support. Just a simple condition on where you, husband or father feel you stand in the abortion debate in regards to who has the right to make the decision.

Did I resort to slurs? No, I just indicated that your failure answer sort of implies you don't want to implicate yourself on your extremist view on abortion which a number of others here have already said is outdated and aligned to controlling portions of religions that still think they are in the middle ages in many aspects of their ideology.


So will you answer either or both questions?


Your ball!
  WimbledonW Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Poland has an interesting approach to Abortions ever since the Right Wing government came to power.

Firstly, abortions are severely restricted.

Secondly, child welfare - "endowment" is generous after the first child.

The aim is apparently to maximise population, it seems.

The looming change to the first matter in USA belongs to the first category. Poor states in the USA presumably cannot afford to pay much child endowment in the second instance.


Child Endowment was introduced in Australia in 1941 at the rate of 50c per child. It was later converted to Family Benefit A.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@RTT_Rules

I find your response very strange.

I don’t think you actually read and understood what I wrote in my last two posts.

For example (and I could also raise many others) one of my responses was “You can’t read”. You didn’t even ask me what I meant by that.  That shows that, although I have already told you where I stand, you feel entitled to ignore it, lie about it, and you don’t even care that I called you on it. You didn’t even try to defend yourself.

So I’m in two minds here:

Do I:

  1. Insist that this be a fair and civil discussion, where we all respond in good faith to each other’s arguments and questions, and not resort to slurs and ad hominem attacks, OR
  2. Treat this as a mere intellectual debating challenge, and proceed to answer your question in the way you have dictated, even though you seem to feel entitled to:
  • completely ignore my points and my questions
  • dictate how I answer your questions and what I can take into account
  • ignore the fact I have already answered your questions (at least three times)
  • ignore the reasons I have given as to why I think your questions are not relevant or misplaced
  • put words in my mouth when I don’t answer the way you want me to
  • hurl slurs and other ad hominem attacks at me merely because  (you think) I have a different view to yours
  • require that I just accept your assertions
  • lie about the fact that you are doing the above, and
  • do all of the above even though I have been treating you all with civility and engaging with your points with reason and in good faith, even though none of you feel the need to reciprocate.


HERE’S WHAT IM GOING TO TO DO:

For now, I choose the second approach. This should be fun. I’m fairly confident you will still manage to tie yourself up in illogical knots and deflections. I’ll still point out your behaviour to you, I might even sink to your level if I think it’s funny.

All I ask is that you remember what I’m arguing about, rather than just assume what I’m arguing about. I’ve told you plainly in earlier posts, so you have no excuse.

If it ceases to be fun for me, I’ll insist on the first approach and I will withdraw if you don’t agree to it and abide by it.  I will unambiguously let you know if I get to that stage. You will then have a choice between a victory dance, or acting like a decent human being and continuing the discussion  in good faith and without the vitriol.

YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE TOO.

If you’d prefer the first approach, great. I would too. Just let me know. But if you claim to have been following the first approach all along, I will know that you’re either lying or lack self awareness, and that you really prefer the second approach.

MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION

So here’s my (fourth!) answer to your question. All of my answers are consistent, and I stand by all of them. In my view, this fourth answer is the least relevant to what I’m arguing. I’m only giving it to you because you insisted.

Here it is:

Assuming she is over 18, she would not need my permission - in the same way that she would not need my permission to do any other legal or illegal act that does not involve my physical self or my property.

So have at it. What does that prove?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@RTT_Rules

I find your response very strange.

I don’t think you actually read and understood what I wrote in my last two posts.

For example (and I could also raise many others) one of my responses was “You can’t read”. You didn’t even ask me what I meant by that.  That shows that, although I have already told you where I stand, you feel entitled to ignore it, lie about it, and you don’t even care that I called you on it. You didn’t even try to defend yourself.

So I’m in two minds here:

Do I:

  1. Insist that this be a fair and civil discussion, where we all respond in good faith to each other’s arguments and questions, and not resort to slurs and ad hominem attacks, OR
  2. Treat this as a mere intellectual debating challenge, and proceed to answer your question in the way you have dictated, even though you seem to feel entitled to:
  • completely ignore my points and my questions
  • dictate how I answer your questions and what I can take into account
  • ignore the fact I have already answered your questions (at least three times)
  • ignore the reasons I have given as to why I think your questions are not relevant or misplaced
  • put words in my mouth when I don’t answer the way you want me to
  • hurl slurs and other ad hominem attacks at me merely because  (you think) I have a different view to yours
  • require that I just accept your assertions
  • lie about the fact that you are doing the above, and
  • do all of the above even though I have been treating you all with civility and engaging with your points with reason and in good faith, even though none of you feel the need to reciprocate.


HERE’S WHAT IM GOING TO TO DO:

For now, I choose the second approach. This should be fun. I’m fairly confident you will still manage to tie yourself up in illogical knots and deflections. I’ll still point out your behaviour to you, I might even sink to your level if I think it’s funny.

All I ask is that you remember what I’m arguing about, rather than just assume what I’m arguing about. I’ve told you plainly in earlier posts, so you have no excuse.

If it ceases to be fun for me, I’ll insist on the first approach and I will withdraw if you don’t agree to it and abide by it.  I will unambiguously let you know if I get to that stage. You will then have a choice between a victory dance, or acting like a decent human being and continuing the discussion  in good faith and without the vitriol.

YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE TOO.

If you’d prefer the first approach, great. I would too. Just let me know. But if you claim to have been following the first approach all along, I will know that you’re either lying or lack self awareness, and that you really prefer the second approach.

MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION

So here’s my (fourth!) answer to your question. All of my answers are consistent, and I stand by all of them. In my view, this fourth answer is the least relevant to what I’m arguing. I’m only giving it to you because you insisted.

Here it is:

Assuming she is over 18, she would not need my permission - in the same way that she would not need my permission to do any other legal or illegal act that does not involve my physical self or my property.

So have at it. What does that prove?
Sonofagunzel
A very very very long worded response for you to basically say, "I'm ignoring your Question 1 again as its awkard and I've placed a cavit on Q2 by saying she's +18 to avoid the same similar awkward answer".

What does it prove?
Simple,
- this debate started out as "let women make the choice as 99.9% of the issue involves solely them", but you disagreed with this.
- So the debate then evolved into a discussion that by stating the above you are implying men and especially old men should continue to have control over womens bodies.
- Then to clarify this I simply asked two questions which depsite your response above, you never answered until now and then only half a question with a cavit.

So basically I'm trying to understand whether or not you agree women, all women should be allowed first and final say on what happens to their bodies, because to date you insist on playing dodge ball on this.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@WimbledonW

Interesting post. Is the generous endowment policy explicitly linked to the anti-abortion policy?  It’s a bit strange if it is. We won’t let you abort your first child but we will only help you pay for your later children.

In relation to the potential overturning of Roe v Wade, you seem to be aware that:
  • this does not mean that abortion becomes illegal
  • it does mean that each US state can determine it’s own abortion laws.
By the way, I know that may have sounded condescending when you clearly already knew - rest assured it’s not you I’m talking down to. (Yes that’s the sound of me sinking to their level).

Anyway.

The issues raised by your post are far more interesting and possibly more difficult than the moral or legal question. As a policy matter, if the state has severe restrictions on abortion, should it also have generous means-tested child support?

Most Republicans would say no. They say no either because:
  • they would rather have lower taxes than help the poor, or
  • they believe child support encourages single motherhood, and fatherlessness is one of the leading indicators of poverty and other bad outcomes later in life, and on that basis they believe that such welfare may actually be counterproductive, ie it makes poverty worse not better.

I used to be pretty sure that Republicans were really all about the first reason. But there do seem to be some pretty good stats and studies that could support the latter argument. Thomas Sowell wrote on of them, I think.  I’m not convinced yet, just open-minded.

Clearly, single parenthood is, on average, not as good for the child as having two parents living with the child in a stable relationship. (Cue the shock and horror from the lefties on this forum). Single parenthood should not be encouraged.

However, does that justify not providing child support to single parent families?  Doesn’t that make the problem worse for the child? I still lean strongly towards the view that is the answer is “no” and “yes” respectively. Maybe the better solution is to design the payments in such a way as to  not make it attractive for women to voluntarily enter single motherhood - for example by not counting the some or all of the fathers’ income and assets in the means test (so she doesn’t lose the child support if the father is supporting the child). I’m sure there are better ideas than that.

Now, should freely accessible abortion form part of that policy?  Maybe, but I would say that freely accessible abortion should only be available early in the pregnancy - not sure exactly when the cut off should be, but maybe it could be just before the foetus develops the capacity to feel pain.

As I said, this is an interesting policy topic. What is best for society overall?  What is best for the mother?  What is best for the child?  How do we encourage two parent families without screwing children of single parent families? How do we encourage (or force) fathers to support and be there for their children?

This is the intelligent way to argue for abortion. The practicalities and overall policy and societal impact. As soon as abortion is framed as primarily a moral issue or as an issue of “women’s rights”, pro choice advocates are choosing to argue their weakest point, and on the logic of rights and morals, they lose. In my view, the Democrats and people like Manny, Valvegear, Aaron and RTT_Rules are idiots to frame their arguments in terms of womens rights. Not because women don’t have rights to bodily self determination, but because the woman’s body is not the only body, not the only person, affected by abortion. The baby is affected - killed - in the process. It’s hard to argue that being killed is fair, especially given that the baby is there because of the actions of two adults who just wanted a bit of fun.

It’s particularly stupid when they try to argue (as they have) that abortion should be freely available the whole nine months. They have to argue that, because if they base their argument on womens rights, they lose if they acknowledge that human life begins before birth, because that means they seek the right to kill another human life.

So there’s a tip for those dopey bustards.

They’re so bad at arguing their position that an evil patriarchal 15th century anti abortionist who just wants more kids born so he can rape them (but that’s not a slur, right RTT_Rules?) has to be the one to tell them how to argue convincingly in favour of freely available abortion.

Dismal.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@RTT_Rules

This is getting ridiculous.

I answered your question directly for the fourth time, and you’re still not satisfied.

I tell you what. Make it multiple choice. I’m obviously not saying what you want me to say.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@RTT_Rules

This is getting ridiculous.

I answered your question directly for the fourth time, and you’re still not satisfied.

I tell you what. Make it multiple choice. I’m obviously not saying what you want me to say.
Sonofagunzel
What is getting ridiculous is the means you will go to avoid answering a question, you must be a politican.

YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS

One more time

1) If you wife wanted to have an abortion regardless of reason or age, do you expect to have a controlling input to this decision?

2) If you 16 or 17 year old daughter wanted to have an abortion regardless of reason or age, do you expect to have a controlling input to this decision?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

1. No.
2. Definitely, along with daughterinlawofagunzel of course.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

So that’s answered five times, five different ways, all consistent, and I stand by all of them.

It’s not my fault you were (and still are) asking the wrong question.

Incidentally, I have also given you the answer to the question you should be asking.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

What’s your answer to your two questions?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Trying to keep my posts short for you because you can’t…
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

… read very well.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Happy now?

See how patient and accomodating I am?

You’re welcome.
  WimbledonW Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
@WimbledonW

Interesting post. Tnx.

Is the generous endowment policy explicitly linked to the anti-abortion policy?  Not Yet.
It’s a bit strange if it is. We won’t let you abort your first child but we will only help you pay for your later children. QED.

In relation to the potential overturning of Roe v Wade, you seem to be aware that:
  • this does not mean that abortion becomes illegal
  • it does mean that each US state can determine it’s own abortion laws.
By the way, I know that may have sounded condescending when you clearly already knew - rest assured it’s not you I’m talking down to. (Yes that’s the sound of me sinking to their level).

Anyway.

The issues raised by your post are far more interesting and possibly more difficult than the moral or legal question. Tnx.

Q: As a policy matter, if the state has severe restrictions on abortion, should it also have generous means-tested child support?
A: In the 50 years of Roe has no-one else thought of the Abortion-Endowment Nexus?

In the USA the minimum wage is very low, whereas in AUS it is high.

A characteristic of certain babies is that they are unwanted, including
* result of rape
* result of incest
* result of disability
* result of unaffordability
* result of illegal immigration

In some states of the USA hospitals have doors where unwanted children can be left and get looked after.



Sonofagunzel
  Carnot Minister for Railways

So, let's hear from the woman who started Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger).  A racist and ableist eugenist if ever their was:


The pro-choice premise is largely utilitarian and dehumanising.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

The pro-choice premise is largely utilitarian and dehumanising.
Carnot
I agree it’s utilitarian. I also agree it’s dehumanising but that’s more an opinion or value than a fact.

There is a deep-seated philosophical reason why the left is pro-choice. It’s not the reason they think it is. But that’s some seriously heavy smeg that’s not worth getting into in a forum like this.

As for Margaret Sanger, I don’t know that much about her. I know she’s reputed to have been all the things you said, but I really don’t know. I also don’t really care - even if she set up planned parenthood as a eugenics mission, that doesn’t prove that planned parenthood still secretly has that mission today. It strikes me as being the same kind of reasoning that has lefties tearing down statues of Jefferson et al.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: