QOD
If Abortion is wrong and the Federal Government should make it illegal, please tell me why the federal government then should not provide health care for that child until 18, child support until 18 in the form of direct checks or through federally funded adoption/orphanages?
If our goal is to protect the innocent, then there is no reason why all children shouldn’t be treated equally or at the very least a minimum standard that gives them a fair chance at pursuing happiness as the Constitution states
One of the suckiest pro-choice arguments I have ever heard.
But your point is nonetheless valid: “protecting life/the innocent” is a very flexible rule in wingnut-land.
The argument I like is “If abortion is a crime why not charge the mother?”
But you won’t hear that argument in America because the pro-life crowd suddenly loses their convictions when they consider losing women’s votes forever.
Like in El Salvador where women who had abortions are doing 30 years time. I imagine the womens vote isn’t so big in El Salvador.
I dare any US pro-lifer out there who thinks “abortion is murder” to come out in favor of El Salvador style laws in the US.
Now, no doubt some hard-core wingnuts will take me up on that challenge. If so then how hard are you lobbying your pro-life candidates for that change?
Pro-life is not Pro-child.
The people chastizing the welfare mom for having six children are the same people who praised her for not having an abortion.
They won’t go after women because in the pro-life world women are victims and abortion is an impulse buy. To them woman are incapable of rational thought and must be protected from themselves.
And actually paying for these childrens’ healthcare? Well, we’ve all heard the ‘they shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford to raise them’.
Which brings us full circle…
They’re not pro-child, they’re anti-sex. See, they’re not getting any, and they hate the idea that someone might have sex and get away with it. Pure jealousy, that’s all. Wingnuts are jealous that people have sex and like it.
I am always amazed that people who use code words like “pro-life” which really signify nothing, no matter how good the intentions of some of the people may be, are the same people who spend trillions of dollars funding the largest war machine that has ever existed and are more than willing to send all those unaborted babies into war zone after war zone against other unaborted babies:
In wars that their own rapacious policies helped to create.
How humane is that, how many of them get to pursue happiness? I can tell you it is very hard to do as a dead 23 year old….
The people chastizing the welfare mom for having six children are the same people who praised her for not having an abortion.
… and are the same people who built new prisons to lock up the fathers for non-violent crimes, and then chastise both parents for not being able to support their children.
…and are the same people who think we are spending too much money on education.
…and are the same people who vote down sex ed in schools.
… and on and on…
more than willing to send all those unaborted babies into war zone after war zone against other unaborted babies
But in wingnut-land, “post-natal abortion” is OK.
Because it’s the safest comment I can make: pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution, dv, it’s in the Declaration.
Otherwise, as a believer in abortion rights, I have to go with the very first line in comment one.
DV forgot his coffee, I guess. Abortion does not affect you (unless you need one), so why think about it?
I think (and write) about it quite a bit, vC.
But dv’s post wasn’t really about abortion, now is it?
It’s a straw man to argue for Federal responsibility to take care of all children until they’re 18.
Unfortunately for his argument, it is not implied anywhere in the Constitution that the Federal government has a responsibility to take care of your children, or mine.
But if you persist in wanting a simplistic answer, here’s one that’s cheaper than either abortion or raising every unfortunate child: mandate that any post-pubescent, pre-menopausal woman who receives Federally funded assistance be on a government supervised regimen of Depo Provera contraceptive shots. (I’m not personally advocating that, but it makes more social and financial sense than dv’s original proposition.)
Why not just say reassert Buck v. Bell and sterilize all the undesirable liberals. I am not joking, they used to say that. I just spent this morning reading through the case notes and discovered that it has never been overturned and there is still a sterilization program “offered” to women under the family planning act but that can be done without consent if deemed appropriate by a medical authority.
That is also what Oliver Wendell Holmes thought when he noted “Three generations of imbeciles is enough…” without every seeing the people.
Why not ask the wingnuts about that? They wrote Buck v. Bell and it has never been overturned. Why not overturn that? Why not overturn the family planning act that George H.W. wrote?
If you truly believe in a humane society, why not strike at the root of the problem, which is eugenics.
And eugenics is still a potent force in society….all those who do not fit in can be eliminated. I spent an hour last week listening to a prominent “bio-ethicist” argue the same point that Schmidt made in Germany c. 1937. (I am using the term in quotes because there is nothing ethical about it.)
His argument ran like this “post natal” abortion can be accomplished through wars…through disease….through enforced poverty…..through starvation…..eugenics…in the end it will create two species of human, one a beautiful intelligent elite, the other a drone like short regressive species that does all the work; all the races will have melded into one, but two distinct species will emerge. Those that cannot or do not adapt can be removed through war or eugenics. He was referring to the Bravo Report on Human Evolution and thinking of ways to make is “socially applicable”!
Von, that is why you should think about abortion- because it is increasing being argued by “respectable” scientists that it should not be restricted to babies and should include the undesirable social classes of any age. Your credit score and bank account in the world order he was discussing determines your fitness.
No, I agree that DV’s argument is silly.
I just think the abortion non-issue is akin to the War of Drugs…it’s just another war on your neighbor.
Von,
I agree. I think there is real class warfare in what these people are suggesting. It is macabre and genocidal, and is what fascist states do. “Your neighbor costs me 20,000 reichmarks a year in taxes, for the state to maintain, why not do the humane thing for him?” That is an actual quote from a poster and it is the exact same attitude I am seeing from the wingnuts. Kissinger formulated this theory best when he declared US citizens and the other poor brown and white people of the world “useless eaters.”
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” ~ Ronald Reagan
Can someone answer a question for me? Why is it that you can call a Planned Parenthood, make a donation and specify that your donation ONLY BE USED TO TERMINATE A MINORITY BABY!?
You can’t; they won’t take it.
And don’t tell me about that prank phone all where some college wingnut group suckered a remote Idaho Planned Parenthood office to say yes to the donation.
What a load of crap! Does that answer your question, Bundy?
Al,
If you care so much about life advocate that Buck v. Bell be overturned. I am looking for a movie called “Tomorrow’s Children” made about forced sterilization to post online.
I am less interested in the personal choices a woman makes than I am in what the state can FORCE or COERCE a woman or a man to do.
“I’ve always wanted a girl who whould have my abortion.”
Geez, what a loon!
it wasn’t a straw man actually. It was a valid questin, abortions stem from unwanted pregnancies. So if the person doesn’t want to have the zygote continue on to be a child but our government says it has to.
The government should be prepared to take on the burden it has caused by not being able to stay out of it in the first place