First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
GOP legislation against abortion
28846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
That's the gulf isn't it? Talking about someone as if they were an unwanted bill. Our disagreement is fundamental.

Addressing economic woes is a way to remove one of the most heavily used excuses but framing it as a mercy killing... Unconscionable.

It's understandable when a lot of influences say you can 'have it your way' and prioritize freedom over responsibility. When you come from another country where things are done differently it looks alien, inhuman, inhumane.


Probably so. I don't really consider an organism that has no heartbeat or brainwaves as "someone" until they get to that stage. Once they reach the point of maturity and have left the womb of the child - what's next? That's something you haven't quite answered yet.

I've, personally, lived in an orphanage when my mother died. I was transferred to two different foster homes - one had an abusive father and the other had an alcoholic mother who would try to be inappropriate with the male children she was meant to be taking care of (I was removed from both). I've worked with what would be the "unwanted" children - where their parents would send them to school without having been bathed for weeks or mothers who would let their boyfriends do horrible things do their "unwanted" daughters or neglecting them until the state takes them and throws them into state-run orphanages.

I think it's because of my experience that I believe abortion is probably a better option than the things I've mentioned above. It sickens me when people are so strongly for "life" that they fail to realize what kind of life that they're wanting for the child that ends up in a home that didn't want them. In a way, it is a mercy killing.

Of course, this is just in the cases that they "had plans" or "couldn't afford a child" .. which, as I've mentioned, isn't the most common cause for abortions these days. It still happens, sure. Those who are against abortion have already won, essentially, without needing to make it illegal.


If anything is worth doing it's worth doing right. In in the words of Adam Savage, it's worth overdoing.

Trust me when I say I know what you are talking about but I do not think terminating them is the answer. It's not even the beginning of a solution in my view.
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17

MysticGon wrote:
Trust me when I say I know what you are talking about but I do not think terminating them is the answer. It's not even the beginning of a solution in my view.


I guess this is where you and I will agree to disagree, of course.
I believe it should be the mother's choice to decide one way or another if she wants to take on the burden of a child. I see whatever festers within the womb as a "parasite" (not in the clinical definition of the term) until it is born. Whether a would-be mother wants to carry that or not should be up to them.

As for the example we were discussing ("you had plans!"...etc) - statistically, that's not the normal case scenario for abortions. But I don't believe we should do anything outside of limiting abortions to before brain activity. The consequences of a child being born into a situation where they're unwanted yields far more dangerous repercussions than simply terminating an organism that isn't yet a "child" or even human yet.
15786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17

MysticGon wrote:

If anything is worth doing it's worth doing right. In in the words of Adam Savage, it's worth overdoing.

Trust me when I say I know what you are talking about but I do not think terminating them is the answer. It's not even the beginning of a solution in my view.


While I can get behind fixing the systems behind adoptions and orphanages and financial support for poor parents, until we get to that point, the fact that those systems can be fixed does not help the people suffering through them right now. In many ways, abortion is a short term solution, but taking away the short term solution without the long term solutions already in place (in a functional, healthy manner) isn't helpful.

Fix these systems, then we can talk about the possibility of outlawing abortion.
28846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
Trust me when I say I know what you are talking about but I do not think terminating them is the answer. It's not even the beginning of a solution in my view.


I guess this is where you and I will agree to disagree, of course.
I believe it should be the mother's choice to decide one way or another if she wants to take on the burden of a child. I see whatever festers within the womb as a "parasite" (not in the clinical definition of the term) until it is born. Whether a would-be mother wants to carry that or not should be up to them.

As for the example we were discussing ("you had plans!"...etc) - statistically, that's not the normal case scenario for abortions. But I don't believe we should do anything outside of limiting abortions to before brain activity. The consequences of a child being born into a situation where they're unwanted yields far more dangerous repercussions than simply terminating an organism that isn't yet a "child" or even human yet.


That's pretty much the size of it. But I respect and appreciate your perspective knowing how personal it is.
187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17
On the other hand dead children never earn an income, pay taxes have birthdays or more children. Where do you think the money to fund the current SSI, Medicare, Medicaid system comes from?
187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17
Germany and Japan are going through the exact same thing with below replacement birth rates. Their entire social support system is on the verge of collapse. Without a healthy growing population there is no way to maintain any sort of welfare state.
15786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17

loganthered wrote:

On the other hand dead children never earn an income, pay taxes have birthdays or more children. Where do you think the money to fund the current SSI, Medicare, Medicaid system comes from?


And on the other hand, unwanted children have an immediate and direct cost to taxpayers as well as helping to lock people into low income/low wealth positions. When you are demanded to raise a child before you are financially able to, the burden in part falls on the US taxpayers and in part changes your decisions to provide an immediate benefit for a long term sacrifice. For example, dropping out of college to raise a child. The parent will often pay significantly less in taxes and draw significantly more from welfare systems such as Medicare/Medicaid.

Also, you are positing that a woman who has an abortion never will have a child again. I highly doubt that is the case. A girl in high school getting an abortion is not saying "I choose to never have a child", she is saying "I choose to not have a child today". What strain does it put on the economy for her to instead have a child when she is 27 after graduating college, getting married and finding a well paying job which she is able to maintain following her maternal leave? Her child will also grow up in a more financially stable household, be more likely to have two parents instead of one and be more likely to go to college and find a good job of their own.

It is not as simple as increasing the population. The population of middle/upper class people needs to increase, especially relative to those in poverty.
26469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/29/17

loganthered wrote:

On the other hand dead children never earn an income, pay taxes have birthdays or more children. Where do you think the money to fund the current SSI, Medicare, Medicaid system comes from?


Really? Jeez, just as many people pay into the Government services, so are there people to benefit from them. A society where there are many more dependents than independents is a risky one. On the other hand, you have less people being a drain on the taxpayers who would most certainly be immediate burdens as soon as they are born.

This is less an argument for children and more of the logical reasoning of this and having children in general.



loganthered wrote:

Germany and Japan are going through the exact same thing with below replacement birth rates. Their entire social support system is on the verge of collapse. Without a healthy growing population there is no way to maintain any sort of welfare state.


There are also several countries, a great deal of them in Africa or Asia, where the working population would be severely burdened by the amount of children. Stating an extreme does not make the opposite better. In any case, I doubt abortion would be that popular. Those countries are having less sex in general or practicing safe sex, not having more abortions.
187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17
These arguments are all defeated by a stable family raising children. Single parent homes do use tax funded programs but not at the rate of orphanages. Plus you don't get a natural born citizen that gets education and then progresses into a working adult that pays taxes and contributes to society. Without a growing tax base people like you and everyone older doesn't get to expect any of the established societal benefits that retirees currently enjoy.

In short I hope you expect to work until you are 95 because there will be no benefits for you and you will have to live off of your savings. The pool of working adults won't be large enough to sustain the current level of benefits if the current population gets older and there isn't enough people paying into the system to support it.
26469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17

loganthered wrote:

These arguments are all defeated by a stable family raising children. Single parent homes do use tax funded programs but not at the rate of orphanages. Plus you don't get a natural born citizen that gets education and then progresses into a working adult that pays taxes and contributes to society. Without a growing tax base people like you and everyone older doesn't get to expect any of the established societal benefits that retirees currently enjoy.

In short I hope you expect to work until you are 95 because there will be no benefits for you and you will have to live off of your savings. The pool of working adults won't be large enough to sustain the current level of benefits if the current population gets older and there isn't enough people paying into the system to support it.


Do you expect stable family raising to arise out of someone seriously considering abortion? And couldn't the orphanage statistic be used for abortion? After all, that is another option for those when abortion is no longer legal, and that clearly means that there would be considerable strain nonetheless. Although, in all fairness, terminating a pregnancy or intentionally giving a child up for adoption aren't done all that often.

We're at a point in time where jobs are being limited due to the growing efficiency of technology, especially in labor heavy fields. Economics teaches that you can only put so many people in a single warehouse or factory before it reaches peak efficiency and you have extra wheels getting into each others way. At most points in history, we are having many more births than deaths, which is especially true in America, and I do not see that as better than a limiting population, and it is vastly more of a problem due to resources we are consuming being finite and the problem actually existing.

In any case, this problem does not really "exist" in America, and the places where it does exist is not due to mass rates of abortion. Being a career and wealth oriented society will do that to a country.

I am not sure what you are advocating though. I believe that most restrictions are reasonable. Abortion is not a decision to be made lightly.




15786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17

loganthered wrote:

These arguments are all defeated by a stable family raising children. Single parent homes do use tax funded programs but not at the rate of orphanages. Plus you don't get a natural born citizen that gets education and then progresses into a working adult that pays taxes and contributes to society. Without a growing tax base people like you and everyone older doesn't get to expect any of the established societal benefits that retirees currently enjoy.

In short I hope you expect to work until you are 95 because there will be no benefits for you and you will have to live off of your savings. The pool of working adults won't be large enough to sustain the current level of benefits if the current population gets older and there isn't enough people paying into the system to support it.



Please explain to me what you mean by the bold, because the way I'm reading it has it becoming one of the most baffling things I've ever read.

The rest of your post doesn't really counter anything I said. If these people are drawing from the system, they aren't really paying into it very much and they certainly aren't paying into it as much as a hypothetically identical family which waits until they are financially stable to have children (which is likely to be a post-abortion reality). We don't need more poor families. That doesn't help anything.
12143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17
Unironically blaming Japan's birth crisis on abortions.

26469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In Jail, On Death...
Online
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17
For the sake of discussion, places like India have a huge problem with infanticide (Not really abortion in a medical sense, but this is to prop of Loganthered's claim about the problems that problems have arisen out of abortions in terms of population). India is one of the fastest growing countries, but it also has an extremely unbalanced men to women ratio, which many say contributes to a sexist and misogynistic society in some parts of the sub continent.

So I imagine that mass rates of abortion should be considered a problem in of itself, as well as a cause of other problems.

I just think this claim when applied to Japan and America is factually incorrect.
Quarlo 
26896 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Shit Face
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17
What the GOP needs to understand is that their freedom OF religion also means we have freedom FROM their religion.
28846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/17 , edited 1/30/17

Quarlo wrote:

What the GOP needs to understand is that their freedom OF religion also means we have freedom FROM their religion.


The GOP isn't a religion... -_-
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.