Who let the rightwingers off from their leashes, this time?
Another Salon article, liberal bias, perhaps, but can the factual information contained in the article be denied?
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/15/alabam … red-state/
So, now they are "gunning" for Roe vs Wade, and with the right wing tribunal Trump created to replace the Supreme Court, an overturn may not be so far fetched
This is just a harbinger of what the GOP has in store for all women across the nation. How do you like it?
Roe vs Wade is not going to be overturned...
Although we have some religious nut jobs out there attempting to push their beliefs on everyone...The constitution will over-rule their beliefs...
I am hoping this gets looked at by the SCOTUS quickly, so it can be shot down.
I hope that you are right as a coat hanger hangs in the balance.
I hope I am right as well...
Roe vs Wade is a pretty solid decision by the SCOTUS...so I am confident that the current SCOTUS will not over-turn it. I think they will end up deciding these new laws are unconstitutional and they will have to be revoked.
They will because right-thinking people will protest such draconian laws. However, the Deep South in the United States have a far different culture than the rest of the country. The Deep South is a bed of atavistic ideology. Think Bible Belt folks! People in the Bible Belt think & believe far differently than the rest of us...…….
Yes. I mentioned something to that effect in an earlier post...These outlandish laws are coming from a religious belief and not supported by the constitution. So, I am of the opinion that they will be over-ruled and hopefully much sooner than later.
Women AREN'T about to let their reproductive rights be REVOKED by a totalitarian, backward Republican. Most women believe in abortion. They know the benefits of reproductive choice. No woman in her right mind is about to have Roe vs. Wade overturned. WE feminists & other modern women have FOUGHT TOO HARD for this!
It WILL be shot down. America is becoming a progressive state, especially in terms of women. There are only a few retrogressives out there. Even conservatives are pro-choice & pro-equality in terms of human rights. It is only the reactionaries, fundamentalists, & retrogressives who want to turn back the clock on women's reproductive rights & general rights.
I suspect it will come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and how he votes.
Will he go with the four conservatives who will probably vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Or will he stick with the four liberals to avoid the massive civil unrest that overturning the law will trigger?
Some pundits think the Supreme Court will make it a states rights issue. They will allow some states to make abortion illegal again while others will keep it legal.
I don't know...I don't think this one is going to be split down the middle...I am thinking it will be more of a 7-2 or 8-1 for upholding Roe vs Wade.
Can you tell me why you think it will be that strongly in favor of upholding it?
The court has been very split down the middle on quite a few issues in recent years as moderates have retired. We're now left with just liberals and conservatives.
Roe vs Wade is a strong sound decision. So I think that it will be difficult to justify over-turning from a legal stand-point...It would have to come from a religious stand-point...and even the conservatives are not that religiously strict to make a change in a sound legal decision.
When you have folks like Pat Roberson saying it is over-board, I would have to say even conservatives are not fond of these new laws.
This Supreme Court journalist with 30+ years of legal experience makes a compelling case that SCOTUS will erode abortion rights rather than dump Roe in a single decision.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- … story.html
I am hopeful that this person is wrong. We have come a long way in the last 30+ years, and it would be very sad for us to revert back to a less enlightened mindset.
In the age of Trump what was once thought of as impossible can now occur tomorrow. The Rightwinger ,by very definition, fears modernity.
I don't agree. What you are referring to is more of a minority opinion among the extreme right...just as there is outlandish minority opinions from the extreme left.
A greater majority of people are more moderate +/- some personal views that lean left or right.
A good example is displayed in the popularity of Joe Biden over the other democrat candidates. Joe is more of a moderate Democrat than most of the others running.
Hi, Promisem, I like the new look.
I don't know which way Chief Justice Roberts will vote, but one thing is certain, massive protest and demonstrations will sweep conservatives and rightwingers out of office if this comes down the wrong way and that may well be the silver lining here.
Thanks, Credence. Somehow it makes me look a lot younger than I actually am.
I agree that a vote to overturn Roe will likely lead to massive protests unlike anything we have seen in a long time. It will certainly galvanize a lot of people into political action.
Then again, I don't believe SCOTUS is dumb enough to unload the entire thing. Maybe they'll simply weaken it somehow.
Honestly, I hope it's overturned so that people in this country will wake up and realize that voting is important and has real consequences.
But, it will be such a HARD lesson that I would prefer that people would not have to learn.
It will be hard, but if that's what it takes to open people's eyes to what the right-wing wants in this country, perhaps it's best for the future of humanity.
America has gone too far to let a bunch of retrogressives overturn the abortion law. There is no way in hell that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Women are ever vigilant regarding this. Women want their abortion rights.
Let's go beyond hope, Crank. Let protest to ascertain that such a draconian law WILL BE OVERTURNED. This woman governor in Alabama is what I deem to be a gender traitor. In my estimation, any woman who is against abortion is a gender traitor.
I see problems, while I hope that any challenge to Roe Vs Wade is repulsed, with the make up of the court it may allow for the states to individually decide how they would approach the issue.
But, the Rightwingers as a group will never be satisfied until they control each and every womb from coast to coast.
The poster you are responding has LFL. People with LFL are against abortion. They are even against birth control. They are staunchly pro-life. They believe that if the woman & girl becomes pregnant, they ought to have the child. They believe that the purpose of sex is procreation, no more no less.
So you believe that women should have UNWANTED children...……….
VEHEMENTLY DETEST SUCH AN ATAVISTIC LAW! You know that Alabama is in tie with Mississippi as being one of the most backward states in America. I am totally against the gender traitor governor who wants to implement this draconian abortion law. However, the "governor" indicated that there will be legal huddles regarding this law which is good. Right thinking people have to fight against this atavistically draconian law. I am staunchly pro-choice- in fact, I believe in abortion on demand (within reason of course). I believe that no woman or girl should endure an unwanted pregnancy- that is beyond evil.
I have never understood this obsession that Evangelical Christians have with abortion. In Judaism, the life of the mother is put ahead of the child, and the child is only considered a person upon birth.
What is it that bugs fundamentalist men so much about women having a sex life?
At the back of this clamp down is the idea that if women can't have an abortion, they won't have sex.
And pigs fly.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. You are right in your premise. According to reactionaries & retrogressives, a "good" woman has "sanctioned" sex while a "bad" woman expresses her sexuality. To these reactionaries & retrogressives, if a woman expresses her sexuality beyond what is "sanctioned", if she becomes pregnant-well that is the punishment & she must bear it.
The next to your last sentence expresses the point of many reactionary & retrogressive men who are against women having sexual autonomy. Somehow such men are threatened by a strong, sexually autonomous woman.
Nice to see you Tess, thanks for dropping in.
Evangelical Christians are phonies. They claim that they follow God and Jesus, but they worship only Trump and Right wing politics. A most detistible, hypocritical lot.
I wish that they were as concerned about the children after birth as they seem to be about the prenatal stages.
This is a back door assualt on women's rights. You control their reproductive prerogatives, what is next?
From our Neaderthol Rightwinger there is an innate fear of female sexuality.
I never hear so many drastic options to control male promiscuity.
I was just thinking about all this stuff, so it's rather coincidental that you said this.
I do not understand - at an emotional level -- the hatred and resentment against women having abortions, the hatred of paying taxes, of helping those who are poor, and many other things.
It seems to me to be people who have somehow mislaid thei part of themselves that is human.
I truly do not understand it. I cannot even begin to relate to that level of inhumanity.
It is nice to see you in the forums. Welcome Tessa.
Oh, some topics just make me interact! But, also, I've been working on some other stuff for a while now. I have half a book more to go, then I have to fix up all my other books, and then I'm back writing for hubpages.
And thank you for the welcome.
I think understanding at an emotional level was an appropriate choice of words Tess. Usually, true understanding must start at some foundational level, and I can't think of a more foundational level than that of emotions.
Consider this; Put aside the fanatics and true hypocrites, the panderers and the bandwagon riders, the true backward-thinking hillbillies, and think of someone that truly and honestly believes something.
On the abortion issue, some honest good folks truly believe that abortion is murder. They are not all backward thinking people or dumb snake-handling hillbillies.
Do you suppose that in their true belief any argument about cells or zygotes or women's choice would change their minds? Wouldn't they be hypocrites if it did?
So to reach an emotional level of understanding, step into those folk's shoes, think of something you truly and honestly believe; as seriously as murder is murder,
Would you change your mind because someone told you that you were wrong? Would you be a backward-thinking hypocrite if you didn't change your mind?
Our emotions come from our beliefs, and our beliefs are based on indoctrination, our socialization, the things that were told to us when we were very young, and the chatter we heard from our peers.
If we consistently hear that something is wrong, we believe it.
Unless we apply thought, examination, analysis, etc.
So the reason I do not understand this is a) I cannot understand how these people have arrived at the conclusions they have when they live in the 21st century and b) I have spoken to so many many with these kind of belief systems, and in the face of all evidence, they continue to hang on their beliefs.
At an emotional level, I cannot grasp that kind of insistance. My mind just goes blank.
I don't think it's so much backward-thinking (and I don't think I have ever accused anyone of being a hypocrite). I think it's more non-thining. Or the Dunning/Kruger effect.
I think the people who insist that abortions are wrong on one hand and then use abortion to rid themselves of their problems have been indoctrinated to believe it is wrong and are at war with themselves.
The negative descriptors I used weren't your words Tess, they were ones I have seen used throughout this thread. Sorry if it sounded like I was attributing all of them to you.
"I think the people who insist that abortions are wrong on one hand and then use abortion to rid themselves of their problems ..."
Those would be the hypocrites spoken of, not the "honest good folks" I mentioned.
I agree with your point about indoctrination, and regarding abortion, I think that indoctrination is religion. However, do you think you can "apply thought, examination, analysis" to prove that indoctrination is wrong?
I think you can only prove it is wrong - in your opinion. If you were to compare your reasoning to that of a religious scientist, or mathematician, or Nobel prize winner, (of which there are true religious believers), would you consider your opinion more valid than theirs?
My only point is that I think ascribing the negative descriptors seen in this thread to all pro-life believers is as wrong as you think their belief is.
ps. I am always a bit surprised when I see the Dunning/Kruger effect injected as an explanation or validation. It can apply as validly to the user as it may to the object of its use.
"I am always a bit surprised when I see the Dunning/Kruger effect injected as an explanation or validation. It can apply as validly to the user as it may to the object of its use."
With this I can sympathize. I have attempted, several times, to start a discussion on the definition of "human" or "personhood" in these forums, relative to the question of abortion. It seems to me to be the key, core, matter of the whole debate...but no one is interested in such a discussion. The question is either already settled in other's mind OR is simply ignored in recognition that they might lose their stance on abortion as a result of forming an opinion on the topic. Dunning/Kruger, then, and with a vengeance.
Uh oh, could even this be another example of that "vengeance?
It appears that what you describe is your attempt to use scientific explanation and definition to disprove a religious belief.
To this, I would say the truth of your definition doesn't matter. A pro-life belief would probably accept your 'clump of cells' or zygote definition as correct, yet to them, they still constitute a life.
Considering the long and ongoing, and unsettled, debate about when life begins, how can you prove they are wrong, beyond the proof of your opinion? If you can't disprove God, then how can you disprove their belief that your zygote is their life beginning?
You can pick at the edges using the scientific evaluation of when that clump of cells could constitute a complex living organism, but couldn't that be countered with the fact that even a single cell is a living thing?
I see this issue as simple as two sides each arguing that their belief is the right one, while neither can prove they are right.
What if your zygote argument was accepted, would it change anything about the abortion debate? Consider this recent Alabama "heartbeat" law. One of its criticisms is that your zygote will develop a heartbeat before that six-week period when it is most common for a woman to discover she is pregnant. Would you call it a life if it has a heartbeat?
If you would consider a heartbeat a life, then what you are really arguing is where to draw the line between murder and the evacuation of cells. Good luck with that.
You have hit the nail on the head here.
My take on abortion is that it is an area where everybody gets to make up their own mind. I, personally, would never have an abortion. Howver, I absolutely and utterly, to the nth degree, believe that everybody has the right to make this decision for themselves. If they want to go ahead, then they should be able to.
Nobody knows when life starts, and my only objection is to abortion in the third trimester.
"Life" starts, in the egg, sometime during the fetal gestation period. Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and they are living cells; they are "life".
It starts, in the sperm, when it is produced, with males producing sperm most of their lives.
So if "life" is the determining factor, ALL abortion is murder. Of course, that opens the discussion to the "murder" of plants, insects, cows and any other life form.
You just made me laugh. In Sweden (or some other Northern European country - I've forgotten), last week it was made illegal for children to be fed Vegetarian diets, because it causes nutritional deficiencies and some of the children die.
It's all very well to become a vegetarian because eating meat is murdering the animal and eliminating a fetus is murder. But, yes, we're murdering plants as well when we eat them.
We live in a dog-eat-dog world...
A plant, insect, or cow will never grow to the point of being able to say "I'm glad I was not aborted" but today we have many people who do say that to everyone who says they should have been aborted.
Now what the hell do we do? I agree with your comment.
Hah! First, it's not about my belief, but a common definition based on facts and truth. Facts and truth that are not included in the scripture of any religion I'm aware of, but instead picked up by osmosis from a lifetime of religion, and required to substantiate the ban on abortions.
Second, it's not about life, it's about being a person, a human being. We throw away living tissue from our bodies all the time - when does that fetus become a person rather than a lump of growing flesh? And when answered, can you support that with anything but "Why, it's obvious!"?
So you're right - it's about when does abortion go from evacuation of unwanted living cells to murder. And it is not a topic that seems to invite discussion.
I did get into "life," person," and references to "common definition," but only in addressing my overall point about possible honest sincerity of beliefs, not as an entry into the abortion/murder/zygote debate.
So, I won't get into that debate now either. But I would guess at why your point of crossing a line might not be a welcome discussion. Perhaps, for pro-life believers it is comparable to being 'a little bit pregnant.' You either are or you aren't. It either is or it isn't.
Well that's because you are basing your words on an opinion and a belief - not on hard science.
Hard science would mean that you actually provide empirical evidence that the baby becomes a person when it is still a sperm or nothing more than a fetus.
In the Jewish religion, the life of the mother is put a head of the fetus. That is because the mother is already in this world. Until the child is actually born into this world, it is not considered a person.
Now you can argue that with a Rabbi, if you like, but both of you would be arguing about a belief - an opinion. Neither of you could provide one bit of evidence as to when, exactly, life starts.
"Hard science would mean that you actually provide empirical evidence that the baby becomes a person when it is still a sperm or nothing more than a fetus."
Disagree. That point will be a defined event/time, not a "hard science" finding. One could even start, for instance, considering whether Koko (the gorilla that learned sign language) is a "person" (not to be confused with a "homo sapien" or "human". Or discussing whether a human infant, born without a forebrain and incapable of human thought process, is a "person". Was Terry Shiavo, without cognitive function, a "person" and entitled to all the care we can provide?
Google Plus habit. When one has to sit and explain the obvious to people, and one just no longer has the words, so much easiser to say Dunning/Kruger.
Why would I want to waste my time trying to argue that nobody knows when life begins in the fetus. I think it's apparent by the third trimester, and I have strenuous objections to that.
I also think, that unless there are very strong medial reasons, abortion should only be permitted in the first trimester. However, that is my opinion, and I'm aware of that. I would never insist that my opinion (as opposed to a fact) take away someone else's ability to decide for themselves.
I am fluxmoxed by people who insist that their belief or opinion entitles them to tell other people what to do.
Do you have an opinion on human sacrifice? Female genital mutilation? Dog fighting? If so, would you find that your opinion entitles you to forbid others to engage in the practice?
Society, and it's laws, is chock full of areas where an opinion is all that's necessary to deny others what they wish to do.
I prefer to deal with secular ethics.
Using this method of decision making (with regard to morality), one takes the greater good for the greatest number over the longest period of time.
Ethics change depending on the situation.
Some decades back, a plane crashed in the Andes. The people survived by eating the other passengers. Was that right or wrong?
Female genital multilation? Is it ever right? Is it for the greater good? Will the lives of all these women contribute to the well being of the tribe as a result of genital mutilation.
Ethics are always situational.
It has very little to do with opinion.
It has to do with an examination and analysis of the action mutliplied many times over to understand how the eventual outcome of these particular actions will affect society as a whole.
"I prefer to deal with secular ethics."
So do I. Big time. But that very often isn't possible, and abortion is one of those times.
"Using this method of decision making (with regard to morality), one takes the greater good for the greatest number over the longest period of time."
Disagree, for very often ethics also requires protection of the minority from the ravages of the majority. Excess taxation in order to provide charity is one of those times; it is very seldom ethical to steal - to play Robin Hood and simply take from someone because we feel their wealth should be spent contrary to what they wish - and forced charity is not one of those times. Ethics must always consider not only society as a whole, but individuals as well. IMHO, the individual often trumps the group - that's a major part of being free, and the converse is complete communism (which we know fails). Not always, certainly, but often enough that it is a major concern.
"It has very little to do with opinion."
Highly disagree, for ethics and morality is always about opinion. Not simple fact.
Is it ethical to remove a child from a parent because they spank their child? Is it ethical to force religious beliefs in order to preserve their eternal soul? And, of course, is it ethical to deny an abortion because it means murdering a child as opposed to a few months of discomfort? All answers, yes or no, depend on opinion, not fact. Even vaccination is opinion in that this study is true and factual and this one is not.
Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
For a society to be stable, the minority have to be included. That is for the greater good. That means the greater good of the whole - not the wishes of the majority.
When the mega-wealth of individuals impacts negatively on the stability of the group, then those individuals become dangerous to the group.
It you consider tax to be stealing, I consider underpaying workers to be stealing from workers, and I consider overcharging on products to be stealing from buyers. In fact, I consider profit to be stealing.
Wages, salaries, etc. are ust reward for work, and in a sustainable business, where income and outgoings are equal, there is no issue. When there is excess, then it means that products were overcharged and labour were underpaid. That is theft.
Damn, that's two in a row Tess.
I wouldn't say "fluxmoxed," (flumoxed,?), but I think I understand and agree with your closing statement.
A huge part of the issue for pro-lifers boils down to the fact that the human life in the womb doesn't get a chance to choose its destruction or not.
And you know what? Children don't get to chose which parents they have, which country they are born into, what food they are going to eat, and whether they are born with good looks, genius, and great talents.
Don't you think that pro-lifers need to get real?
I think you need to get real Tess. It sounds as if your problem is with God. That is way beyond what we can work through together, on a thread or two. I wish you the best, but it is time for me to move on from this discussion.
I'm an atheist - a very hardcore one. I don't think there is any chance at all of there being a God. Just wishful thinking.
If your only objection to abortion is because you think a non-existent god objects to it, I'm afraid that isn't a good reason.
The choice of life or death is a bit different than the list mentioned.
There is a big difference in the list and the choice to live or die. It is utter arrogance to say that an unborn life must die because children do not get to make those choices. The human responsibility to protect the most innocent among us is dismissed by relating them. Of course, the egotistic acting to destroy people for those reasons has happened on both large and small scales throughout history, but that fact does not make it reasonable.
There may be some but I do not know of any abortion activists who say they themselves should have been aborted, and if they did it would be impossible to believe them because they obviously do not believe they should die now. I hope they would not make that choice, but the point is, they have not made that choice for themselves.
That science and technology continue to tell us more and more about life in the womb and about abortion (in spite of prior claims) is a lot to be thankful for, and I am thankful that victims of the lies about abortion can find hope and help in pro-life organizations reaching out to hurting hearts. Many who accept the help were afraid to seek it out because science and society has lied to them about the issues.
" It is utter arrogance to say that an unborn life must die because children do not get to make those choices."
Your position is absurd.
If you want to apply one kind of reasoning to one thing, then you have to apply that same reasoning to something else.
A fetus is not a baby, and it is not a child. By the same token, a cell on your skin or a bacterium in your tummy is alive, but it is hardly sentient to the same extent/degree that a human being is.
A fetus that is under three months old is not alive in the same sense that a baby is. It is a matter of degree.
Your view is based on what you think your god says. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that this god exists. This is your belief.
And that's fine.
You can believe it, and you don't have to have an abortion.
But you do not have any moral or ethical right to determine the laws of every other religion and non-religion in the world.
Jews believe that the baby is only alive at birth, and that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn fetus.
Who are you to inflict your religious view on anyone else?
Last time I looked, freedom of religion meant freedom to practice it - not force it on other people.
If the article amounts to saying that politically minded people of the right are now aiming to bring down Roe v Wade it couldn't be more wrong. There is nothing new about that aim. The effort to reverse it is a long-standing objective benefitting from what ever newer technology reveals about the life of the unborn and by educating with facts about the effects of abortion on a woman's body, emotions, and future, as well as education on options that most women will choose from if given the opportunity.
Today there are very few who would be duped into a clothes-hanger abortion because the consequences are well-known. What isn't so well known are the dangers lurking in abortion clinics. All have the opportunity to get help from a pro-life organization if they want it. The truth about the races affected by abortion and the historical motivations behind it are an eye-opening lesson for most. So much could be written to counter the lies abortion clinics tell girls and women (not to mention the truths they simply leave out), but no, there's nothing new to see here re the target.
Sorry, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and have been watching too many propaganda videos.
While people might not be duped into using a clothes hanger (though that assumption is just that, an assumption - particularly given the repression of sexual education in this country), the poor will be forced to have their abortions in back alleys, one way or another. How do we know this? Because that's what happened before abortion was legal.
Totally agree. In response to RL's logical premise, there are women who are abusive to their kids because they didn't want them. Besides being abusive, they throw their kids out as early as possible because they can't stand their kids any longer. They are also neglectful to their children because they didn't want them. There are also children languishing in institutions & foster care systems because they were given away by their mothers. Yes, abortions should be kept legal. In fact, I strongly contend that abortion should be...……….ON DEMAND!
Do you favor or oppose the Alabama law, which is the subject of the thread? Do you think abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest?
Oppose is such a mild word. I vehemently abhor such a "law". The gender traitor who wants to implement such a law, should been ostracized or worse. Abortion SHOULD NEVER be illegal at all. Abortion should be performed up until the time the fetus becomes viable outside the mother's womb. To reiterate, abortion is FAR MORE HUMANE than to have an unwanted child to be abandoned, abused, or...…..WORSE. Only a reactionary/retrogressive person would be against abortion.
I agree that abortion is acceptable up until the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother's womb.
That's actually a moderate view of abortion and not conservative or liberal.
I agree with you you on this. I think there is a point at which an abortion becomes unethical. Unless there are really exentuating circumstances for it, there is no need to wait until the child is virtually fully formed in the womb before having an abortion.
I am pro-choice and also agree with this statement. I think that in order to get a third trimester abortion, the circumstances must be extra-ordinary.
And we also need to consider that technology is changing how we view abortion in the sense that a fetus can be viable at an earlier and earlier date. However, we also need to debate if birthing a 20-week fetus is a good thing, given how expensive it is. Our health system and economy simply cannot support such things.
You say you are pro-choice, but in a way, you also are partly anti-abortion because you believe in restrictions during the third trimester.
My real point is that you along with many other people -- except for the usual extremists on here -- are moderate about abortion.
Moderates are neither 100% pro-choice or 100% anti-abortion. They lie somewhere in-between.
Which is why the Alabama law is so stupid. Anyone who opposes abortion in the case of rape and incest is out of touch with reality and morality.
RT, there are deleterious effects of unwanted pregnancies. There is emotional, mental, psychological, & even psychic damage. There is also educational opportunities destroyed, hence later career opportunities. There is an incidence of permanent impoverishment for women & girls because of these lost educational/career opportunities.
There is also a high incidence of abuse because the mother have to care for a child that she didn't want in the first place. Unwanted children aren't nurtured in the way that wanted children are. They also tend to be neglected & throwaways. Children who are unwanted will be throwaway children i.e. being forced to leave home as early as possible. They are also scapegoated children. Mothers of unwanted children aren't going to be vested in such children.
Such children are also given away to people who really don't care about them. They are put in institutions where they languish or in foster homes where they are abused or catch hell in other ways. No, I don't buy the argument that abortions adversely affect women-WRONG! There are NO DELETERIOUS affects of abortions on women. It is FAR MORE HUMANE for a woman to have an abortion than to endure an unwanted pregnancy where the child is abused or given away to some institution or foster home where h/she languishes or suffers other types of hell. It is RESPONSIBLE to have the abortion while it is IRRESPONSIBLE to keep the unwanted child or give the child away. Smart, intelligent women have abortions because they know that they aren't ready for motherhood.
I think the main problem is both sides go too far in defense of either pro or anti abortion. In doing so, they embolden the other side to push the envelope further and further. It's difficult to look at pictures of the development of a fetus and support ideas of abortion by the time it is developed and responding to outside stimuli, and support the idea of abortion even after that date, except in the case of the endangered health of the mother.
I am pro choice only because a woman should be able to make decisions for her own life but, for the life of me, I cannot understand advocates of up until it can survive on its own outside the womb.
I would never fault a woman her decision but such stated stands are difficult to follow.
So you also are a moderate on abortion.
I think many people are, but they don't get heard enough over the shouts of the far left and far right.
It seems those on the pro choice side don't know what is happening, so I'll try and explain.
Many people on the pro-life side don't like abortion, but now it is felt those on the pro-choice side have gone too far.
Remember that Roe v. Wade was sold the American public based on the lie of it only being used in cases on rape or incest.
The images of the Virginia governor saying a child who is born should be made comfortable until the mother and doctor decide if it should be killed. This is infanticide. There is no other rational way to explain it.
The New York legislature clapping and cheering clapping when they took all restrictions off of abortion, even it a child was in its third trimester, was horrifying.
These images and attitude enraged those on the pro-life side. I've never seen this level of quiet resolve in the pro-life movement. A powder keg of determination has been ignited and it is not going to stop.
The Pennsylvania state legislator who harassed a woman praying outside an abortion clinic simply added fuel to the fire.
So, it doesn't matter if you like the pro-life attitude, disagree with it, hate it or will fight against it. This is reality of the situation.
Nothing anyone can say will change my mind. I won't try to change your mind if you are pro-choice.
Expect many more state laws to restrict abortion and laws being passed to intentionally challenge Roe v. Wade in the court system.
And, if these laws are not overturned, expect a mass exodus of educated women to other nations. I already know young ladies, with the means, and ability to do so, who say they will assuredly go elsewhere if abortion is completely banned. With decisions like this, America will run itself into being a "developing" as the pockets of relative affluence dwindle. This is much more serious than just someone from the other party getting President.
What would you do if women simply left one state that prohibited abortion in favor of travel to one where it is legal? Pregressive states would never allow an imposition as presented by the retrograde ones. Would we create a new "Underground Railroad"? Would the right wing states restrain women from leaving the state if their intent is to get an abortion elsewhere? How far does it go?
Hi Cred, I don't see this so much as a "gunning" for an overturn of Roe v. Wade, but rather as a correction of a huge mistake which was allowed to happen decades ago.
Did you know that 'Roe' never had an abortion? She was a pawn, she was USED by activists.....that should really bother women!!!
Norma McCorvey, (Roe) wrote about all of this; how she was used and how she was caught up in the madness.
The liberal, activist men in long black robes, went from Judges to Jurors and Executioners...all in one day, all in one sweep!
Such power they held that day, they must have truly felt like Gods!
The day I cried wasn't the day Alabama did what they did, it was the day men and women in New York, stood up and applauded for babies not to have to be saved, after botched abortions. They didn't stop there, buildings were lit up to celebrate....finishing off babies!
I cried the day the Virginia Governor described making a survivor of an abortion "comfortable", while the decision, do they finish the job or allow the baby to live, would be made.
In all honesty, the crying part came, but only after the shock, followed by a sick feeling, ending with a shuddering down my spine, subsided.
Does that mean you are for or against the Alabama law? Do you favor or oppose abortions in cases of rape and incest?
I am opposed to abortion. In very rare cases of rape and incest, leading to a pregnancy, a lot of women are choosing to keep their baby and some choose to have the baby and give them up for adoption. If there is a possibility of a pregnancy, then that is addressed the day the rape is reported, correct, well before six weeks/eight weeks?
I have some questions for you promisem. Did you have a reaction to New York Representatives giving a standing ovation to ending the life of an infant that has beaten the odds and survived an attempted abortion?
Did you have any reaction to Gov. Northam's comments? Did him saying, "make the baby comfortable", make the act of possibly finishing off the little survivor, less crude? Did he stress, "making the baby comfortable" enough or could he have stressed it more?
Reproduction means to produce. Isn't a baby already produced? Already a finished product? Why do pro-abortionists, call abortion a reproductive right?
I didn't see an answer to either one of my questions.
I know nothing about your claims regarding New York or Northam. I can only say I support Virginia's law which prohibits third-trimester abortions except in the most extreme circumstances.
A first-trimester fetus is not a "finished product".
You didn't say if you support or oppose the Alabama law. You didn't say if you support or oppose abotions in case of rape or incest.
Do you or don't you?
I responded to your question that I know nothing about your New York and Northam claims. But I explained my position about third-trimester abortions, which met you halfway.
I also responded to your final paragraph using your own quote.
I asked you two non partisan questions that didn't take sides. There is no need for you to start an argument.
So, because I do not agree with you on this, I am starting an argument?
I see how it is, how it always is!
I am opposed to abortion, therefore, I support the Alabama law. I explained the options that victims of incest or rape have. They may choose to keep the baby, they may choose to put the baby up for adoption or they may choose to put an end to the possibility of a pregnancy, the day they go in to report the rape. Which I would think, would hope, would be long before they are 6 to 8 weeks pregnant.
A woman is considered pregnant, long before the third trimester. I was never told that I wasn't officially pregnant until my third trimester. Who told you such a thing?
It's very odd that you know nothing about the standing ovation or the lighting up of buildings in New York over the decision to end a life that survives an abortion. It is also odd that you are not aware of Gov. Northam's remarks, but I guess if you aren't aware, you aren't aware.
Paragraph #1: Disagree with what? I simply asked you two questions.
Paragraph #2: At least you now say you support the Alabama law, which means you also oppose abortion in case of rape or incest. That's all you needed to say the first time.
Paragraph #3: I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply said before that I support the Virginia law that prohibits third trimester abortions.
Paragraph #4: I don't go to right-wing blogs or anti-abortion websites, so I'm not aware of any politicians making comments that upset anti-abortion people.
I don’t go to right wing blogs or anti-abortion sites either, so we have that in common.
Which is one of the reasons this debate will never end. Those "right wing blogs" don't concern themselves with the rights of women; only the right of children (that have done no wrong) to live. While the "left wing blogs" aren't concerned with any right to live, only the rights of the mother.
As long as neither side will discuss what matters to the other we will fight the issue until eternity.
You have made a great point. One must get all sides to best educate themselves...you can't learn anything if you only research into areas that only agree with your views.
It is like attempting to learn to ride a bike after you have already learned to ride a bike..
Why are YOU opposed to abortion? It is a normal medical procedure, no more no less. Do you want women & girls to endure an unwanted pregnancy? Do you feel that women & girls should curtail & ruin their lives, being reduced to living in poverty because they have lost educational & socioeconomic opportunities? Do you want women & girls to have unwanted children that they WILL NEVER LOVE? That is the height of being inhumane. All children should be wanted & loved. I will always fight for abortion rights because women & girls should have THE ULTIMATE control over their reproductive destiny. No girl or woman should ever be a slave to her reproduction.
This fighting against abortion is a slippery slope. First, there is a curtailing of abortion. Next comes birth control. Right minded people, it is TIME to fight these draconian abortion laws. I, as a woman, REFUSE to return to the Dark Ages where women had to sneak to get illegal abortions & when birth control was difficult to obtain. Hell to the no!
I have an aunt who got pregnant as a teenager. She was smart however she had to curtail all her ambitions to care for a child that she wasn't prepared for. She was oftentimes frustrated & took out the frustration on her child. Because of this, I am staunchly for abortion. Women & girls should use their potentials to be the best people. Why should their futures be curtailed because they made a mistake? No woman or girl shouldn't have a forced pregnancy- the thought of this is absolutely medieval & misogynic in its premise. Thankfully, my state of New York isn't like that. Only Alabama, Mississippi, & other retrogressive states want to return to the days when women were in specified roles which included being barefoot & pregnant! The Deep South has ISSUES! In fact, the South in general has issues w/modernity! I should know-my maternal relatives are from the South-wheeeeeew is all I have to say.
I'm not sure that pregnancy can ever be called a mistake. An acciident, yes. A mistake? That would implay that having sex is/was a mistake.
There was some recent research that men who felt inadequate were more likely to be fundamentalists. And, of course, that would tie right in with wanting to make women the property of men.
When men legislate on a woman's body, they are essentially saying that she is the property of a man.
I truly doubt that the men (and women) who have an issue with abortion are all that concerned about the life of the fetus. I think the real issue is that women are having sex outside marriage, and this makes them very angry.
I don't understand that.
It was an accident. I have always believed in women's reproductive freedom. Women shouldn't be slaves to reproduction. As Gloria Steinem aptly stated, a woman's reproductive system isn't her destiny. Women & girls should have be saddled w/children they don't want or can ill afford to care for. Women & girls who have unwanted children suffer emotionally, psychologically, & even psychically.
Of course, pro-life people are opposed to abortion because of their so called moral superiority so to speak. They feel that sex should be linked to procreation. Many pro-lifers are traditional, fundamentalist, &/or even fanatical religionists who feel that sex should always be aligned w/procreation. Many pro-lifers are even anti-birth control. The position of the pro-lifer is that if one has sex, expect to be pregnant & have the child. They also believe that one should have as many children as possible. They also believe in sexual abstinence before marriage.
The idea of so-called nontraditional sex, particularly for women & girls is an anathema for many pro-lifers, reactionaries, & retrogressives, not to mention traditionalists, fundamentalists, & fanatics. They have the Madonna/wanton complex. To them, there are only TWO kinds of women & girls- the so-called pure & the so-called slut. To them, any woman or girl who is sexually active is a so-called slut.
Wow. I'm not quite sure what to say to that, except that I find it bizarre. i can't imagine anyone actually thinking (in this day and age) that procreation is hte only purpose of sex. Wow!
Yes, there are some people who think this way. It is quite unnerving that in this day & age that there are some retrogressive people. These are the type of people who totally eschew any type of contraception & have large to very large families. It is beyond bizarre- it is downright atavistic thinking. Many fundamentalist & extra fanatical religionists believe this & act accordingly, think of the Duggars & other megafamilies. Michelle Duggar equated abortion to a holocaust. Yes, there are still people who have a medieval mindset.
Indeed, it is rather ironic to say abortion clinics are safe places. The response of NY seemed to create the sound of low thunder across the nation.
Well said. Indeed, to say abortion clinics are safe for mother or baby is rather ironic. Thank you for your efforts to help oppose what they promote, the lies they tell mothers, the damage they do. It seemed that the reaction of NY to the issue created a low sound of thunder across the nation.
Pro-life proponents warned Roe-v-Wade would lead to this sort of thing, but as so often is the case re concerning issues, they were and still are mocked for the warnings. Pro-lifers have science and technology on their side today, disproving old theories about babies in the womb. Mothers who were lied to about abortions continue to wake up to the fact that not only was their child murdered, they were lied to and used when they were young and vulnerable.
Support for organizations who offer hope and help to those considering abortion and who have suffered one is growing. Not everyone can be directly involved but all can support their work in some way. Just being willing to encourage a woman to them go learn what help is available is huge.
I think that Roe Vs Wade is a compromise between those who wanted abortion on demand and those that wanted to restrict abortion from the point of conception.
I am pro-choice, not pro abortion. How do you make a woman bring a child to term that she does not want?
If abortion can be avoided as an option, OK. But coercion of woman regarding their choices as enshrined in established Constutional law won't go down well in much of the country.
You simply not going to get acceptance of the conservatives point of view on this thing over so many diverse opinions.
I don't think the pro-choice movement realizes the storm that is coming their way.
Comments by the Virginia governor about keeping a born child comfortable while a physician and mother decide if they want to kill it, and the celebration by the New York state legislature eliminating all abortion restrictions is often played before pro-life meetings.
The motivation is at a level I've never seen before. I've been pro-life for decades. Individuals who would have never given politics a second thought are now raising money for pro-life organizations and engaging in protests.
It is only going to get stronger and spread wider. I don't think the pro-choice movement has any way to stop it.
“The near-total ban on abortions signed into law in Alabama on Wednesday is the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country, but the state is not alone in trying to put limits on the procedure.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics … index.html
Hi Mike, I was in junior high school (middle school) when Roe v. Wade was decided and I was as opposed to abortion then, as I am today. Since that horrible day, I've been speaking against it, marching against it, writing against it. I've been trying to talk friends and family out of it and trying to talk friends and family out of suicide, when they've gone through with it and have so much regret!
Today.....I am shocked as to what human beings are capable of justifying.
I would assume that you also believe that every single woman who has ever had an abortion and any doctor who has performed one is a murderer?
If so, how should we deal with them and how should we deal with those that provide abortions or get abortions in a world where abortion is illegal?
Shouldn't every one of those people be put in jail or given the death penalty for committing a murder?
Is abortion murder or not? If it's murder, then what are the penalties for it? In Alabama, the doctor goes to jail now.
The activist judges and the pro-abortion movement back then, in 1973, didn’t care to know, what this would do to women, long term. It wasn’t studied or thought through, it was an agenda and it was pushed through. An agenda meant more to them, than a woman’s life and well-being. It certainly meant more to them than the rights of the unborn.
So, no, I don’t blame nor do I pass judgement on girls/women who were told, back then, that they were carrying nothing more than a clump of cells.
The actions of those activists back then, has led to the justification of any and all abortions today.
No. Abortion is no more murder than self defense is.
Thank you Tess. Women & girls have a right to have an abortion if they want to. No woman or girl should have to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That is beyond barbaric. This is the 21st century, not medieval times when religion ruled. Civilized societies have accessible abortion.
"In South Africa, any woman of any age can get an abortion by simply requesting with no reasons given if she is less than 13 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects."
From wiki. And we're a third world country!
Europe and other first world countries have no issues with abortion either.
I suggest abortion is murder if a woman aborts the day before she is due.
Yes, I know that's an extreme example, but I say it to make a point. A viable fetus in the final three months of pregnancy, especially in the final month, is too close to being fully human.
That said, I agree with you that it is not murder before viability.
I agree with the South African abortion stance.
"In South Africa, any woman of any age can get an abortion by simply requesting with no reasons given if she is less than 13 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects."
I don't know what was more horrifying. The New York legislature celebrating so much after all restrictions on abortion were taken away or the Virginia governor talking about keeping a baby born alive being kept comfortable while the mother and physician decided whether to kill the baby. There is also Christine Quinn saying when a woman is pregnant, it is not a human being inside her.
I also believe Planned Parenthood videos talking about selling aborted baby parts is also quite horrifying.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … ely-edited
I find it interesting how the people on the left put so much faith in science, and science proves a pregnant woman has a human being inside her.
The immediate goal would never be to overturn Roe v. Wade. Initially, it would be to let each state determine its own laws concerning abortion. Remove the federal government from the equation.
That is the first step.
Put me down as a person who respects life.
I've been banned before because I got too emotional on this issue, so I'll stop here.
Missouri just banned abortion after 8 weeks. One step at a time.
The American taxpayer needs to become aware that if they want to lived in a first world, civilized society, then there is a cost to maintaining that civilized society.
This means that resources and facilities that maintain that society should be paid for by tax.
That includes all medical needs.
I find it humorous someone from South Africa lecturing anyone from any country about living in a first world civilized society.
I think its fair to say South Africa has a huge number of its own ethical problems.
Lets just leave it at that.
I find it humorous that American right wing zealots who are obsessed with guns and war can insult someone from another country about ethics and right to life.
Thank you. The gentleman is clearly unaware that many Americans live in South Africa, that many South Africans live in America (as I did), and that it is not geography that gives one one's values, but a consideration for the well being of others.
And I find it typical of a particular type of American that they make assumptions without checking the facts.
1. I spent 11 years in America as a legal immigrant. However I found it limiting (precisely because of Christian fundamentalism and Republicans) and left.
2. I am a dual German/South African citizen, and have lived and worked in two countries in Africa and three countries in the European Union.
3. I have traveled extensively, speak several langues. I bet you have never set foot in any of the countries I have. I would be surprised if you had ever worked in the rest of the first world. Otherwise you wouldn't make the statement you have just made.
4. Yes, of course, South Africa has a lot of ethical problems. However, free health care, freedom of speech, abortion, etc. are not some of them. To be honest, America is more like a third world country than a first wold country. You wouldn't know that, of course, because you have never lived in either.
5. Nor does the fact that I live in South Africa in any way affect my ability to reason, to have ethics, and to be spot on in my conclusions.
Wrong. It's not the job of the government to provide free stuff for people. Never has been. This is one of the most basic founding principles of our country.
Please do define 'free stuff' and also tell me where, in the founding principles' it mentions people not being given 'free stuff.'
Taxes are meant to be used to lay a solid foundation so that citizens can live in peace and without too much struggle. This is what taxes are supposed to be used for.
Yes, there is disagreement about what taxes are used for, but the principle is that the axes are used for a solid foundation to provide peace and well-being amongst the people.
There can be no peace if people are constantly ill, struggling with bringing up children without the money to do so, being relatively uneducated in a modern world where a high degree of educaton is vital, where there is no clean water, etc.
There are many services that need to be provided by the government in order for a country to function well.
One of the reasons the USA is rapidly falling into third world status is this lack of services.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … ry-100466/
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/nor … ews-23993/
It is absolutely and utterly the job of government to provide an infrastructure that provides for the basic needs of the people if they can't afford it.
If government does not do that, there will be increasing violence.
"Please do define 'free stuff' and also tell me where, in the founding principles' it mentions people not being given 'free stuff.'
Anything received without paying for it. Those "founding principles" not only do not mention government giving away free stuff, they do not mention where government will get it to give away.
You're right - there is considerable disagreement in the purpose of taxes. Some view it as a method of forcing others to pay for what they want but don't want to pay for; some view it as maintaining the nation. The infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.) and the protection of the nation. Not for the exclusive use of individuals that want more than they can afford.
Have you ever studied the history of revolution? Like the French Revolution? The Russian Revolution? The Roman Empire? The British Empire?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ … 180967249/
Every single time, it's inequality that gets them.
What you define as 'free stuff" is NOT free stuff. These are vital services that prevent the state from slipping into violence and revolution.
You have a choice. Either the country provides decent medical care, decent educaiton, decent roads, decent housing, etc. or those who are left behind will ensure the destruction of the entire nation.
Billlionaire Nic Hanuer, along with quite a few other billionaires, note that hte pitchforks are coming. They are growing increasingly aware that the rich will be lynched if the current inequality goes on.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … ats-108014
It is really irrelevant what your founding fathers said. It is actually even irreleant what the constitution says Things change. What worked 200 years ago no longer works today. It might not even be relevant.
America has a choice.
It either uses taxes to pay for the things that are essential to a solid foundation (the way that Israel, Australia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, and other first world countries do, or it will continue to slide into theird world dystopia.
You're right; FREE stuff isn't Free at all. Someone has to pay for it, just not the individual that gets it. And every country that has traveled far down that road has failed, for human nature is to want what you produce, not have it taken away to give to someone else.
It seems odd that Nic Hanuer, along with "quite a few other billionaires", don't give away their billions. After all, it is far better to be alive and only a millionaire than to be lynched. But they don't, do they? It is all hot air without substance...just talk without action.
Yes - America has a choice. Either follow other countries into socialism that has failed everywhere it has been tried or to remain with free people; people that will work for what they want and will grow a stronger country rather than simply line up at the trough for their daily allotment of "FREE things" that someone else worked to produce.
I don't think you have the foggiest what socialism is. The European Union has a far bigger economy than the United States.
Far from socialist countries failing, they have suceeded to an extent that the USA has not. The USA is failing, and it is failing because more and more of its people are falling into poverty.
This idea that other people have to pay for the free stuff of other people is sick. No decent human being has a problem with paying taxes so that ALL people in a country can live with dignity and self-respect.
I certainly don't mnd if a couple of my dollars goes towards free health care for others. Nobody I know does.. It is one of the pillars of a civilized country/community.
The 'products' that I have mentioned are NOT 'free stuff.' They are the essentials of a civilized, well functioning country.
As I pointed out a few posts prior to this, the USA is closer to a third world country than a first world country, and it is sinking fast.
In any event, clearly you have bougth into Libertarian philosophy, and there is nothing I can do about that.
"The EU has a far bigger economy than the US".
Sure it does. "While the two have roughly the same GDP, around €18.9 trillion for the EU and €18.3 trillion for the U.S. at the end of 2015, the EU has a larger population, 507 million citizens versus 319 million"
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/ … ng-the-us/
You might want to research before making claims that aren't true.
"This idea that other people have to pay for the free stuff of other people is sick."
And where do YOU think it comes from? God provided "manna" from heaven? Or does someone else earn it and then have it taken away?
"The 'products' that I have mentioned are NOT 'free stuff.' "
That's what I said. Someone earned it; they paid a price to have it. They just don't get to keep it, as it is removed from the possession of those that paid for it and given to those that did not. That doesn't make it FREE, though - it just means that the end recipient did not earn it.
"As I pointed out a few posts prior to this, the USA is closer to a third world country than a first world country, and it is sinking fast."
You may have made the statement, just as you did that the EU has a "far bigger economy" than the US, but that doesn't make it true. Time will tell whether it works better to reward people for what they do or to take it away from them. Which will produce the largest rise in standard of living? I know where my opinion lies; I assume you believe that if you take away what people work to build it will encourage them to work harder.
Well, yes, exactly. The EU has a larger population than the US. So when the US claims to be the biggest eonomy, isn't that a bit hypocritical? After all, most countries don't have the landmass or the population size of the USA. They also don't have the Reserve currency. After the Reserve currency goes the USA won't find it that easy to retain its trade position.
You might also consider the sentence "
When it comes to measures of wellbeing – and even on many straight economic growth measures — the European Union leads the way."
And that is what taxes pay for!
What do you have against paying for other people's stuff? You're happy with paying for all the wars that America gets into, and that costs a lot more than any of the other 'free stuff?"
This political ideology that some are paying for the 'free stuff' of others is nothing more than the resentment of selfish, narcisistic, ignorant people who don't want to pay taxes. They think that if people don't live in a decent country then somehow they are going to pay fewer taxes. I've got news for you. They'll just pay taxes for more and more wars. And other stuff.
All billionaires and those who earn $1 million or more should pay 90% of their income tax.
They only reason they got that rich is because they underpaid workers and overcharged on goods.
Profit is the difference between real value and inflated value.
When people make as much profit as they do, then they are robbing people blind, and those people do not have the resources to live well. I do not have a single problem with the government taking back what unethical thieving, horrible business owners have taken.
I don't believe the fable about hard work. Most people who are rich did not get rich from hard work. They either inherited it, or they had sufficient capital to make more money.
I fully understand what you believe It's a common libertarian believe. It makes me physically sick. It repulses me to the core
"Well, yes, exactly. The EU has a larger population than the US. So when the US claims to be the biggest eonomy, isn't that a bit hypocritical? "
Still didn't read? The EU has a very slightly higher GDP, but a population that is half again that of the US. So the per capita GDP is far higher in the US, with total GDP the same. Contrary to your claim that the EU has a far larger economy.l
"You might also consider the sentence "
When it comes to measures of wellbeing – and even on many straight economic growth measures — the European Union leads the way."
No argument...as long as one defines "well being" in a manner that makes it true. If, instead, one considers the effect of turning adults into children that cannot care for themselves, or that govt. is destroying incentive to either work OR care for yourself, then that "well being" isn't much any more. Instead, the much vaunted socialistic policies are destroying humanity.
"All billionaires and those who earn $1 million or more should pay 90% of their income tax."
I understand that. You want what they've built, but without the effort to doing it yourself. Greed is a very common aspect of socialism - "You have more than me, so give me what you have".
"I don't believe the fable about hard work."
*shrug* That you don't believe hard work can produce wealth doesn't mean much...except that it may be understandable when coupled with the belief that the wealthy must give up what they've built. Given that, it seems self evident; work hard, earn a bundle, and the socialists will take it away to provide "FREE stuff" for someone else.
Hello Tess, Both of your links were very thought-provoking. Thanks.
It was interesting to note the similarities of the billionaire's thoughts and the Rome historian's -relative to the possible, (probable?), social consequences of such degrees of wealth inequality.
The point is probably good for a thread topic of its own.
So right now more than half of US citizens are on some form of welfare or disability program. The military gets up to 50% disability for sleep apnea which has been proven to be a symptom of nothing more than being fat. The same goes for a multitude of other illnesses. Things brought on by drug use, and smoking. The government is incapable of discerning who the real cases are versus the genuine cases. And everyone is taking advantage of whatever program they can to milk as much money as possible from the system.
This is a recent phenomenon in our nation, and it starts with irresponsible governmental spending programs. You can't deny this, there is a twenty trillion dollar debt that proves it. Any private company that were this far in debt would go bankrupt and all the CEO's would be thrown in jail. But politicians get to do it because they have the power to regulate commerce, and abuse the general welfare clause in our constitution.
The medical field needs to be privatized, it would be a thousand times better. If you want socialized medicine try living in a country that has it, like Cuba or Venezuela.
I find it odd that the same people that want the government out of their wombs are the same people who want that same government to pay for everything.
Feminists feel they don't have to be responsible for keeping a child, but will hold a man responsible to pay for a child that he does not want to keep. This is purely about control and has nothing to do with the rights of children. And science has proven time and again that they are in fact children that are growing inside their bodies.
Onusonus, America has become an entitled society. People have to learn responsibility & accountability. They have to learn to provide for themselves & their families. They also must learn that the government shouldn't assume a parental role. The purpose of the government is to implement FAIR, JUST, & HUMANE laws for its citizens, no more no less. Yes, I believe that women should have abortion right but I believe in sexual responsibility.
I am with you that there is too much welfare & social entitlements in present American society. As a result of too many social programs, there are people who believe that the government should support them, give them housing, food, etc. That is beyond ridiculous. I am of the school that one should do for self. I am of the school that one can become whatever h/she through strategizing, smart work, & sacrificing. There are people who have transcended their original/familial social class. People would rather make excuses than to access their lives & take responsibility!
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. But if you have no viable response then it's always best to resort to insults.
In Googl Plus language (and I was very active there from day one), this was just shorthand for this "This is not worth responding to."
How does one argue about something for which there is no empirical evidence?
No empirical evidence for which? The disability rate, or the abject failure of every country that has implemented socialized medicine? Or are you referring to the women who want the government out of their uterus' yet insist on having the government pay for everything.
??? How has France (where medical attention is 100% free) failed? How has Germany, or Italy, or France, or Australi or Israel or any other country which has socialized medicine failed?
Please do explain.
Since they have implemented socialized healthcare France has accumulated a debt equivalent to 98.4% of their GDP. That is a big failure, and it's only a matter of time before they go the way of Greece and Venezuela. In other words, completely broke, and begging the EU for more money.
And America's is 105.4%, and they have nothing to show for it.
So the moral of the story is that if you want to have less debt, you must socialize your medicine.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta … ebt-to-gdp
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/gov … ebt-to-gdp
I suggest you go and do some traveling and living elsewhere, and stop believing the propaganda the American government tells you.
Are you kidding? France's debt raised by 50% since they implemented socialized medicine and it keeps going up. And you want the US to do the same thing? That will add another 10 trillion dollars annually to the debt on top of all the other ludicrous spending programs that Democrats and Republicans are shoving down the people's throats.
Your fantasies of creating a Utopian society is destroying anybody's hope for a decent retirement, this will kill the middle class.
Wow. I have just proven to you that America has greater debt than France. What is your point?
I have lived and worked on three contients - including the US, the EU, and Africa. I speak with knowledge,experience, and education.
Anyway with your views is an American conservative. And I have no time for them whatsoever.
You didn't prove it to me, I already knew it. My point is you want to double it. Your math doesn't seem to be on par today.
All you Democrats and Republicans want to do is find ways to tell people how to spend their money as if you know what every individual needs for themselves.
And your knowledge, experience, and education is nothing more than an arrogant and elitist mentality. The simplest person in the country knows better what to do with their own money than any elitist in Washington ever will.
Let me see, France has had some form of socialized medical care since 1880, and you are saying that now, nearly 140 years later, France is going to have her debt doubled by having socialized medical care?
Or is it that America is going to double her debt?
I doubt it
What is going to happen is a lot of for-profit business is going to go out of business. Because along with socialized medical care is the fact that the government can sue pharmaceutical companies for excessive profit - or simply deal with companies who produce generic products or simply make laws that medication can never be for profit.
South Africa sued these companies and won.
American companies now provide HIV/Aids medication at very, very much cheaper prices.
There is a reason American health care is so expensive. That's because Americans are so scared of saying that profit is immoral that they will pay anything. It's quite sad, really.
I have an arrogant, elitist mentality because I am stating a fact - that I am more knowledgeable and educated than you are?
Sorry, it's actually the other way round..
You actually think that your individuality entitles your ipersonal self-interest to be greater than the interests of the whole.
South Africa is now using drugs that Americans have paid to research and develop, rather than finding their own, because government has made it impossible for industry to do so.
And you think this is reasonable and that America should do the same. Where will you find the drugs then?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aspe … SKCN1NV24Q
That was them.This is now.
QUOTE: South African drugmaker Aspen Pharmacare on Monday launched a triple-combination tablet for the treatment of HIV in the country where the virus is most prevalent.
QUOTE: The company’s new Emdolten drug is a once-a-day tablet in the form of dolutegravir, an antiretroviral medication that counters the drug resistance that often develops with older HIV treatments, Aspen said.
QUOTE: Aspen, which pioneered the development and manufacture of generic antiretrovirals (ARV) in South Africa, said that using dolutegravir was safe for men, women who are not of child bearing age and child-bearing women using contraceptives, adding that these groups represent more than 70 percent of HIV patients.
QUOTE The company launched Aspen Stavudine - its first generic ARV drug in August 2003 - at a time when the country was grappling with a high rate of HIV infection.
That's 16 years we've been manufacturing our own.
The real truth is that because America has financial expansionalism policies, it wants to expand to other countries. Starbucks was refused. Some others were as well.
This country built the richest middle class in history based on the premise of motivation by self interest. No form of innovation has ever came by government edict.
The fact that you want pharmaceutical companies to be sued for making too much profit is laughable. Making profits is the very thing that has caused us to find cures for nearly every disease out there.
If socialized healthcare is so great why does the government have to put a gun to our heads and force everyone to pay for it under threat of imprisonment?
It's amazing that people who think we can not pay for doctors, hospitals, and medicine somehow think we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medicine, and a government bureaucracy to administer it.
You may be among the educated elite, Mrs. Dunning Kruger, but I have years of experience in government work, and I can guarantee you that when government takes control of any good or service it will undoubtedly become more expensive and the quality will drop exponentially.
"It's amazing that people who think we can not pay for doctors, hospitals, and medicine somehow think we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medicine, and a government bureaucracy to administer it."
Not at all, for that "we" that can pay for it is actually "somebody else". That IS the point, after all - "we" don't want, or can't, pay for what we want so force someone else to buy it FOR us.
No, it actually didn't.
It became hugely successful on progressive (democratic socialism) at the end of the 19th century.
QUOTE: Many of the core principles of the Progressive Movement focused on the need for efficiency in all areas of society. Purification to eliminate waste and corruption was a powerful element, as well as the Progressives' support of worker compensation, improved child labor laws, minimum wage legislation, a support for a maximum hours that workers could work for, graduated income tax and allowed women the right to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressi … ted_States
Credence, the ultraconservatives, reactionaries, retrogressives, fundamentalists, & fanatics want women in an inferior role. They feel that women have progressed too far. They feel that women are usurping their male authority so they want women where they can control them. Yes, there are women who are against women's sexual & reproductive choice- they are called gender traitors.
The subject of female sexuality is quite a hotbed topic. Since patriarchal religionist deemed that the full & bold assertion of female sexuality is evil because the mythical Eve caused Adam's downfall. They want to punish women for expressing their sexuality. Religionists deem female sexuality to be quite problematic in one way or another. They are fearful of women's sexual superiority so they implemented ways to deem women's sexuality as inferior because of that fear.
I am going off tangent here. This religious & male misogyny was the underlying reason for the persecution of women in the Middle Ages. Women who were independent & refuse to adhere to the strict dictates of the time were deem as witches, heretics, &/or worse. They were eventually persecuted which made other women get into line, submitting to male authority whether it was the church, society, & husbands/other male relatives. The prohibition of contraception by male religionist attested to the power that women's sexuality had. It was believed that if women were denied birth control, they wouldn't be equal to men in relationships. So this animus against abortion & other types of reproductive freedoms stem from an inherent fear of female sexuality.
When I was 14, my father told me there was a double standard (living in South Africa, but he grew up in Berlin, Germany, in the 20s and 30s where there was a very different standard). Also, having lived in Europe and the UK, there is a very different view of sexuality. Men and women are regarded as sexually equal.
Conservatives and rightwingers are all about "control". If they cant revert Throughly Modern Millie to the whalebone corset in one way, theywill resort to another way....
There is NOTHiNG virtuous about conservative or the rightwing agenda at any level.
If one scratches the surface, people who are pro-life are against ANY TYPE of reproductive freedoms. There are pro-life people who are against any type of birth control except for so-called natural birth control. These people somehow contend that any type of reproductive choice is "against natural law"-"against God". To be against abortion is a slippery slope- it will soon led to trying to outlaw contraception.
Credence, the ultraconservatives, fundamentalists, fanatics, reactionaries, & retrogressives & other atavistic people is using the abortion issue as a talking point & a control issue. In their "minds", they want to appear "morally just". Some of these same people had wives, daughters, lovers, & yes mistresses who had abortion w/o an issue on their parts. THEY even paid for the abortions themselves in order to save face. There is a strong hypocrisy by ultraconservatives, fundamentalists, fanatics, reactionaries, & retrogressives regarding the issue of sex, particularly female sexuality.
An example of this is the Roman Catholic Church which is known for its strong anti-sexual stance. It is also a highly misogynic church which is against any type of female sexual freedom. However, this church has a history of sexual abuse by the clergy. The Roman Catholic Church publicly presents a face of strong sexual chastity & wholesome sexual expression but privately they commit the worst sexual degeneracy which is only recently becoming public. Remember Credence, what is in THE DARK...……...is coming TO THE LIGHT. It isn't only the Roman Catholic Church but other fundamentalist churches as well. Any institution or person that is strong anti-sexual & misogynic has SKELETONS in the closet, NEED I SAY MORE.
Credence, the ultraconservatives, fundamentalists, reactionaries, retrogressives, & fanatics do want ABORTION CONTROL. In fact, they want CONTROL by eliminating abortion altogether. There is nothing commonsense about. It is DRACONIAN if you ask me.
Interesting, the turn this discussion has taken!
Tess, hard work is not a fable to most Americans, it is a way of life and it doesn't end there, common sense and self control are a big part of the equation. Any individual can squander their fortune, whether large or small....whether self made or inherited. Common sense and self control go a long way in seeing us through, all aspects of life. Perhaps if more of both were practiced/utilized, we'd not have so much disagreement and division on multiple subjects.
Ab, although I am a staunchly pro-choice Liberal, I maintain that people have to be accountable & responsible for their actions. I also believe in self-sufficiency & of course self-control. American society is the way it is presently because of lack of self-control. My motto is THINK OF THE RAMIFICATIONS before you act. There is such a thing as DELAYED gratification & mature action. I believe not in hard work but smart work. One has to strategize & sacrifice if one wants to progress educationally & socioeconomically. There is nothing wrong w/wealth. I believe in wealth.
I furthermore believe that the government is here to implement & instill FAIR & HUMANE laws. However, I don't believe that the government should consistently implement social & health programs. I feel that it is UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL to provide for himself/herself & his/her family. The government isn't nor shouldn't be the parent. There is NOTHING WRONG in EARNING one's way.
Gm, although I am a staunchly pro-life Conservative (with Libertarian tendencies) I'd say we have more in common than our last name.
Thank you. Hard work is not necessary. Intelligent work is. The purpose of work is to ensure one's survival and well-being.
With regard to the goverment implementing social and health programs, the only countries that are doing well with happy populations are those that do.
People are born genetically different. One does not supply social programs in order to make things unfair for those who 'work hard,' but to ensure that people don't get jealous, resentful, angry, and begin to murder, steal, become corrupt, etc. because they don't have enough.
Throughout history, there have been revolutions when inequality has become extreme.
Social programs are there for several reasons.
1. There are those who simply can't manage. They're too dumb. They have internal conflicts that prevent them from actualizing their potential. They are cripled, mentally ill, uneducated, whatever. Government helps as much as possible in order to prevent them from turning to crime. Knife crime in London has risen to alarming rate as a consequence of the long term outcomes of Margaret Thatcher's policies.
2. The more educated a society is, the better leaders they elect. The less crime there is. The more stable the society is. A solid education and an excellent education is what keeps a country safe and fully functional. Finland eradicated their private schooling and now has the best educational system in the world.
3. It is the ethical and humane thing to do to provide for those who can't provide well for themselves. One can hardly call oneself a Christian nation on the one hand and then say that the government mustn't help those who cannot help themselves. Regardless of what it looks like on the outside, there is no such thing as people being lazy. There are just people who don't have the capacity to do something.
4. There are times when the individual cannot provide for himself. At this point in time, most countries have a 25% unemployment rate - official or unofficial. This is a result of the computerisation during the last 30 or 40 years, plus the incoming AI (Artificial Intelligence). The only time this BS about hard work (and pulling onself up by the bootstraps) is going to stop is when upper middle class people and professional people suddenly find themselves without a job. And it's happening increasingly now. There was an article about it in the Guardian a few days ago.
5. The purpose of government is NOT to support business and profit making. Nor is it to make war. It is to provide a solid infrastructure for all citizens to reach their potential, and to live in a safe and relatively stress free environment. In order to do that, many things are provided, and those things are different in a 21st highly technological society than they are for a rural 19th century society. As a result of rapid technological change, there will always be people out of work, and that is why UBI is being increasingly looked at. The future isn't coming - it's here.
I lived in America for 11 years. Most people there don't know the ddifference between hard work, smart work, and inhumane work.
You need to google the statistics in terms of happiness, equality, opportunity, health, etc. for America compared to other countries.
Also, not sure if it was you or Tess, but at some point, “staunchly pro-life” was described as anti-birth control/anti-sex life/anti-woman.....let’s be clear, that’s not me!
When I describe myself as staunchly pro-life, that means that I do not believe that babies deserve a death sentence. I do not believe that judgement should be placed on them, by actions which were/are, beyond their control.
Going back and reading some of the comments missed......
another description of a pro-lifer is that they only care about the baby and not the woman.
Again, not true!
My articles on abortion aren’t placing blame on women.....far from it! Progressive activists used a particular woman, Norma McCorvey and didn’t stop there, they’ve continued to use women as guinea pigs, not knowing and not caring what the long term effects would be on them, as a result of abortion.
I’ve talked to many women over the years. I’ve talked them out of suicide, (although a good friend, attempted twice that I know of and came very close the second time) I’ve loved them through their struggles, never thinking any less of them, always being their friend, no matter what!
On the other hand, there are those going through life, lashing out, as the saying goes, 'hurting people hurt people' and that is so true, they are continually lashing out at people in their lives that love them and want the best for them, but they push those people away.
There are no happy endings when it comes to abortion.
I know a good few people who have had more than one abortion. I remember one lady saying to me, "I have no regrets about the two abortions I had. Had I chosen to have the children, I would never have had the life I have had, and I have thoroughly enjoyed my life. It has been a life worth living."
So, yes, there are happy endings when it comes to abortion.
Technology today refutes previous theoretical myths re children in the womb and research is disproving lies people have been told about abortion. Fetal origins research has led to focusing on when and what babies learn before they are born because science has gone way beyond whether they do. An honest look at the issues can be heard:
Because the ever evolving entity called modern science did not understand this information it arrogantly declared that in the womb babies were bits of what amounted to nothing. Though that made no sense, people accepted it because they wanted to do so. It fit their want list in life. But now science itself is proving itself wrong. Mothers who learn this truth too late and have been victims along with their children have hope and help. A beginning for them is found in right to life groups.
Though one's integrity based values will affect consideration of the complex issues, a thoughtful read can be found: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4140221/
A willingness to look past our personal life wants is the only way to honestly evaluate the information we have available to us today. It is an amazing thought to consider what we will learn in the future about life in the womb.
You have made a very powerful argument. I'm glad you posted it.
What has this to do with my personal life? I would never have an abortion. On the other hand, I don't think it's my business to tell other people what to do. You're perfectly free to make your own decisions for your own life. You are, however, NOT permitted to make decisions for other people's lives. Abortion has been around since pre-historic times. Read your history.
Nobody is talking about ending a baby's life. It's just a warped sort of Christianity that thinks this. In Judaism, the baby's life starts at birth - not before.
Abortion has been quite common throughout history and before this particularly warmed idea of Christiantiy became common, nothing was thought of it.
Aborting a fetus is NOT the same thing as killing a baby. And I don't think this is a discussion worth having.
Tess,this was in response to the lady who said, "no regrets about two abortions, had I chosen to have the children, I would never have had the life I had."
Just seemed the fitting response.
Yes, I understand that. I then get a picture of a baby underneath - the implication that the baby was murdered. No baby was murdered. The fetus was removed on both occasions within the first trimester.
And I think my response was appropriate and fitting for the implication that a fetus as a baby. It absolutely is not.
You used the words, “had I chosen to have the children”, in your example, I didn’t use those words, you did.
While I agree with your opinion that a 1st trimester fetus is not a "baby" many do not. But until a discussion and agreement on what a "baby" is there can be no end to the fight over abortion.
Does it not behoove us all to discuss and define that point, based on reason rather than belief or the words of the local shaman?
Science is the popular method of reasoning, but it continues to prove itself to be ever-evolving, disproving its own claims about abortion (and other issues) as time goes by. That people ignore this and continue to allow science to present theory as fact is an important part of the discussion.
Very few scientific theories have been proven wrong, though most have been proven wrong if just the right circumstances/environment are used rather than that which was used to prove it in the first place. Water boils at 100 degrees C, for instance...unless you are at an altitude higher than sea level, whereupon it is less...unless it is a high pressure day, whereupon it could be the same or even more...unless the water is contaminated with something, whereupon it could be higher yet...and so on and so on.
Keep in mind that a true scientific "theory" has been rigorously tested many times by many people; it is not the hypothesis that many people consider to be a "theory".
Consider the anticipatory beginnings, history, and now the outcomes of scientist's claims re antibiotics, the falsified global warming stats and now the evolving predictions based on "true scientific theory" that continue to be proven bogus, as well as what science taught about babies in the womb before science began proving what we now know as fact. Scientific literacy is an extremely interesting study. Even those promoting pseudoscience use the concepts. Samples of it abound, partly because, by and large, very narrow selections are made when theory on data is tested.
That's my point. None of these things have been exhaustively tested. At best we see a peer review, using the exact same computer models that may or may not be flawed. They cannot be considered a "scientific theory" regardless of what media and politicians may call them.
Using the boiling point of water as an example of a test that would be difficult to present with flaws has its uses, but it is important to realize that it is scientists who are using narrowly chosen samples to study theory on data.
This fairly straightforward yet very interesting article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5043322/
is just one giving a good explanation of how reliability is affected by incentives (rewards for publishing and for favorable results), institutional competition, prejudice/self interest, an amazing lack of cooperation and communication between labs, variances in methodology and more, creating expansive conflict of interest issues across the board within scientific communities. Media reports about conclusions really does result in fake news.
Take prehistoric claims, as an example. The old joke is that we cannot know what happened prehistorically since it is "pre" history. In the scientific community, though, we learn from the study of data gathered at "prehistoric" sites. The problem is that much of the history to explain what is at the sites is dismissed by modern science. The article puts it a different way, stating how limited data prevents true investigation. It also presented important questions and awareness raising conclusions.
I agree with the article's assertion that many scientists are aware of the problems and that some grant/hiring committee members try to work against the rushing tide of diminishing researcher merit. That acknowledgement, however, only reflects the problems we face in trusting science.
It would foolish not to be thankful for honest scientific advances, but when it comes to abortion I rejoice that technological advances give people an increasingly truer picture of human life in the womb and what abortion really is like. I'm also thankful to know there is hope and help for victims through right-to-life organizations.
Just curious. Which science degree do you have?
Clinate science has absolutely not being proven to be bogus. 97% of climate scientists prove it is correct.
What is true is that business will lose a lot of money (if not go out of business) and they, therefore, have a vested interest in debunking it. They are beyond evil.
Religion also has a vested interest in claiming that science is wrong. It isn't. Religion will go out the window when people finally accept that science is right and religion is bs.
"Keep in mind that a true scientific "theory" has been rigorously tested many times by many people; it is not the hypothesis that many people consider to be a "theory"."
Ding ding ding...I think this is what too many people don't understand. Also, one study does not make science. Reporters give science a bad name when they release the results of a study with aka "Eggs Each Morning Increases Longevity" Than next week we see "Eggs are linked to premature deaths."
I think many in the general public see this as science contradicting itself, when it's simply two studies--which are often impossible to truly understand without delving into the actual research as opposed to just the news article. Science is a body of evidence and a real accepted theory is damn near fact...with the caveat that science is always open to new evidence that COULD lead us elsewhere.
I just think this is a very important point that needs highlighting.
And why this simple fact which take less than a minute to explain is not taught in every secondary school around the world, beats me.
I think it is taught Brandon, or at least it was in the pre-electricity days when I walked through two miles of deep snow, uphill both ways, to get to school.
I think the real issue is a sometimes laziness and imprecise language usage, and, of course, purposeful misstatement to try to support a position.
Dammit Gus, I'll have to agree with you on this. Only two miles?
These facts definitely contribute, but I really doubt it's taught much.
Hello. I also don't think these specific points are taught enough. I have a Presidential Scholar --yes, bragging--graduating senior and I asked her about this. She stated that, in totality, kids should be learning these points, but they are never really offered up like this in one clear lesson.
I also think that the information so readily available nowadays, makes the learning necessities of scientific literacy a bit different from what could have been taught back in the pre-electricity days of GA and Randy.
Oh, totally. But you're not going to get Christians to agree, and it is only Christians. Other religions don't have this issue.
Of course, they're fully entitled not to have their babies aborted. What they're not entitled to do is make a decision for other people. And, of course, there's separation of church and state.
But they ARE entitled to make that decision, at least given the facts as they have determined them to be.
You would stop a neighbor from executing their small child, wouldn't you? Most of us would take steps to stop animal abuse, let alone the killing of children. And that's exactly what they see abortion as; the murder of children that cannot defend themselves. They are doing just what you and I would do were we to witness infanticide.
Which is why I keep harping on "What is a person", but no one wants to comment. Either pro life OR pro choice - no one wants to examine that aspect, yet it is the very root of the entire issue.
"A person's a person no matter how small," with love, Dr. Seuss.
Choosing abortion is about taking the choice to live away from the most vulnerable among us. Just as predicted by the earliest pro-life groups at the time of Roe v. Wade it has directly resulted in infanticide and now open support for it in some corners. While that is not the only thing that has resulted in infanticide, the topic here is abortion.
Only if you assume that a fetus is a person. If, instead, you recognize that you cannot define the point of "personhood" for everyone, abortion has nothing to do with murder.
States have made that decision, giving various points, but the pro-lifers have declared that they, and only they, can decide when it occurs. Without having any reason at all behind their claim.
Re personhood, "A person's a person no matter how small," with love, Dr. Seuss.
Choosing abortion is about taking the choice to live away from the most vulnerable among us. Just as predicted by the earliest pro-life groups at the time of Roe v. Wade it has directly resulted in infanticide and now open support for it in some corners. While that is not the only thing that has resulted in infanticide, the topic here is abortion.
If the question of personhood is at the root of the issue yet you can't define personhood isn't it reasonable to err on the side of caution and protect life at it's very core? Disagreeing with choosing to err on the side of caution is anyone's freedom, but acting on the choice is ending life.
Life begins at independent viability. A cell formation isn't a person my dear. Pro-lifers aren't about to decide what is best for the majority of us who are pro-choice. We have fought too long to make abortion safe, accessible, &....LEGAL. We aren't about to let pro-lifers take us back to the 1950s when abortion was illegal- NO WAY IN HELL! Pro-lifers have IT WRONG. There are FAR LESS of you than it is US. WE WILL WIN....
No, it is not reasonable. I cannot define it, but I CAN firmly state that a zygote (fertilized egg) is not a person. Yet removing one is an abortion.
I will also absolutely state that a collection of 100 cells is not a person. Nor is the attachment to the womb what makes a person, or the presence of a moving muscle, including the heart. Yet all of these have been used as proof of "personhood", apparently simply so that an abortion can be denied.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that a fetus in the process of being born IS a person. Somewhere between a single cell and that fully developed infant something happens, but it is unreasonable to say that "erring on the side of caution" includes things that are most definitely before that event. IMO, of course.
I will add that RvsW did not "result in infanticide". Certainly babies have been killed...but not as a result of that decision. We have seen fully formed, birthed babies left in dumpsters or killed in other ways, and any actual child taken in an abortion was not the result of the SCOTUS decision.
(The really fascinating part is that the product of rape is not a person, while another one, at exactly the same development, is)
Wilderness, you and I strongly disagree on a wide range of topics. But I have to say that your post has great logic and is one of my favorite ones from you in the many years we have butted heads.
Just don't think me weak for praising you. I'm sure we'll find plenty of other issues to battle over.
The original post has strayed to many other areas of increased governmental control, pro and against. But much of the data given is erroneous, particularly the liberal "facts" about the economy. Far from diving to third world status, the United States has a superior economy for all. There are so many economic issues on which the United States stands above most, if not all, that the counterargument is silly.
Anyone who forges through the commentary here should get his brain straight and read https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in … s/Economy.
For starters, U.S. GDP per capita is 56% more than the European Union.
I am absolutely gobsmacked!! And pudding-whacked!
"Far from diving to third world status, the United States has a superior economy for all."
Having third world status has nothing to do with the economic power of the country. When I was a kid, I lived in the richest country in the world - South Arica. The exchange rate was R0.75 for $1. In other words, our currency was stronger than yours. We were still a third world country.
A first world country provides various resources for its citizens.
1. A strong welfare system
2. Employment rights before business rights.
3. Extensive public transport so that people don't need to own a car.
4. Free or cheap medical.
5. Free education.
6. An accessible legal system for everybody - even poor people.
7. Vast inequality. America is 13th from the bottom.
All these characteristics are available for every first world country in the world - other than the United States.
That it is why many see it as much like a third world country.
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/nor … ews-23993/
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/nor … ews-23993/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … ry-100466/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
These are the opinions of recognized American academics, economists, etc.
Your list of socialistic goals for a first world country makes a fine definition...if you like socialism. If you prefer individual responsibility and personal freedom, not so much, and your concept of how to make that definition says the US is the only "first world country" in the world for it is the only one with a high standard of living AND freedom (although it is cut back every year).
Taking from one person to give to another is NOT the defining characteristic of "first world". It has become the modern socialism, but it does not define what first world means.
There are degrees of socialism. What all first world countries have is something called a 'mixed economy' or 'democratic socialism.'
It is the norm in Israle, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Western Europe. These are wonderful countries to live in, and it is no accident that many Americans, once they have lived and worked in those countries, never go back to America.
Yes. They are wonderful countries to live in...if you like the concept of a nanny state watching over you, ensuring you won't fail, won't go hungry or without needs.
If you prefer freedom and reject that nanny state they are not so pleasant. You obviously DO like the notion, but not all people do - I and a great many Americans find freedom and personal responsibility more important than a government that makes decisions for us and controls most of lives but in return will not allow us to fail.
In line with another thread, this is opinion, and yours is no better than anyone else's. You wish one thing, others wish another, and there are pros and cons plus likes and dislikes to both.
Tess, I live by the mantra that what the government provides, it can take away, as do many other Americans. Our concern with installing a government that will provide necessities in exchange for freedoms is partly a concern for losing those freedoms, yes, but it's also a concern that at some point, this reliance upon government will be used against us.
Would you believe me if I told you that America isn't free.
This is the freedom index.
America actually doesn't rank when it comes to freedom.
https://www.businessinsider.com/countri … rld-2018-4
I have never lived in a country with less freedom than America. In addition, all the countries that have the most freedom have mixed eonomies.
The only way you will learn differently is by actually upping and goingt o live in the European Union or Australia or somewhere with more freedom than the USA and having a mixed economy.
When people have free education, they become well educated, and when they are well educated, they select exellent leaders - not morons like Trump.
Indeed, "Taking from one person to give to another is NOT the defining characteristic of "first world". It has become the modern socialism, but it does not define ...." and that is why other governments want the USA to follow them in doing so.
Perhaps your condition explains the misplacement of your comment.
Here is the OP, (original post); I don't think the thread has strayed to where you are.
The idea is to keep abortions safe & legal. Although there is advanced birth control, it isn't yet 100% effective. 99% yes but not 100% effective. I see abortion as to when accidents occur but only in its early stages. To play the devil's advocate or contrarian yet again, why is the onus of contraceptive responsibility placed upon women? Why it is that it is mostly men who are the MOST VOCAL about abortion? I want to ask one more question,"When will there be effective male contraceptives?" If men used contraceptives equally w/women, the pregnancy rate would be...…….SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED.
The problem is, pro-lifer's don't give a damn about the children AFTER they're born. "Wait, why do you need food stamps or welfare to take care of your children?"
Well, of course, not. That would be rational.
Randy, the abortion issue is quite a contentious one. Pro-choicers believe in safe & legal abortions. They furthermore believe in the dignity of women & believe it or not, in the dignity of children. It is their argument that children should be born...……..WANTED. They also argue that children should be born into homes where they can be taken care of. Pro-choicers want THE VERY BEST for women & children.
Pro-lifers, on the other hand, use the issue of abortion to establish their so-called moral superiority. They exert that "life" is the be & end all. They don't care about women & they certainly don't care about children. They are using the abortion platform to interject "how morally superior they are". They are hypocrites, there are pro-lifers who have had past abortions &/or had their family members have abortions. Pro-choicers are upfront while pro-lifers present a façade...…..
Again, I ask the conservatives, what it is they really want?
Do you want to ban all abortion at the point of conception?
What happens when a woman chooses to end their pregnancy on her own, are you going to forbid their access to RU-486?
Are you going t restrict a woman's mobility to go elsewhere to have an abortion if you know that is her intent?
How much control would you have to place on a woman to comply with your draconian demands? As I say, a fetus does not have much of a chance if the mother does not want it.
Conservatives are so obtuse, Roe vs Wade was a reasonable compromise, why can't you leave well enough alone? Do you really think 21st century women are just going to accept all this stuff sitting down?
I have some further questions.
1. By what moral right do Conservatives force their belief systems on other people? They might believe it is murder but most don't.
2. By what moral right do Conservatives insist that their 'Christian' beliefs are to be imposed on everybody else?
3. By what moral right do Conservatives insist that other people are not entitled to the same standards of law, material goods, medical assistance, and everything else?
4. What makes Conservatives think that they're entitled to more than anyone else?
Tess and Grace....
1. It is the arrogance of so many organized religion that believe that their interpretation of God is the only one, such arrogance. There are virtually thousands of religious and deity interpretations out there, I give the least credibility to those that profess one thing yet behave to the contrary
Conservative say that Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of this country. But, I beg to differ, freedom of religion, means to a large degree no establishment from the Government or any of its authorities. This is part of the excuse they use to justify their imposition on the rights and prerogatives of others.
Arrogance and this extreme conservatism is one and the same these days.
Have you noticed? Where are the answers to the questions I posed earlier?
Do they just scurry away like the roaches when the kitchen light is turned on?
No offense meant, Rightwinger, how about answering the questions, do you even have a solution?
Credence, you are so correct. Ultratraditionalist, conservative, fundamentalistic, & fanatical religionists vehemently believe that THEIR WAY is the only way. They are threatened by others w/more logical, mature, & enlightened views. They are, in fact, schizoid people whose sense of reality is quite false. They are also retrogressive in their views. They live in the past & refuse to grow. They are miserable people who rely on their twisted, toxic religion to explain a one-sided worldview which has NO BASIS in reality.
Ultraconservative, reactionary, & retrogressive people have a backward, insular view of life. They are also emotionally, mentally, intellectually, & psychological immature. They don't know how to think for themselves. That concept is foreign to them. They are authoritarian in their mindset & purview. What they believe, they want EVERYONE to believe. They are narrowminded. Credence & Tess, it is NEVER GOOD to argue w/such people. They AREN'T about to change but they will come to a bad end. They are FEARFUL of becoming logical & enlightened.
A MULTILLION applauses to you Credence2. Ultraconservatives, reactionaries, retrogressives, fundamentalists, & fanatics want women to have VERY LITTLE or NO reproductive choice/freedom. They want women to be slaves to their reproductive system. They are of the school that sexual acts should result in procreation. They view reproductive choice/freedom as...……..SEXUAL LICENSE, even SEXUAL DEBAUCHERY! That is the mindset & purview of the ultraconservative, reactionary, retrogressive, fundamentalist, & fanatic. They want people to return to the "good old days" where people knew their place.
And I have to think that it's because they feel inadequate at some level.
No one who is comfortable with their own humanity imposes impositions on other people.
Really? You actually believe conservatives want women to be slaves to their bodies? You truly believe that conservatives think sex should only be for procreation, as they purchase birth control by the billions? Or do they just want to save our children from murderers that do not value life at all?
Assigning reasons to other's actions that simply fit with an agenda to demonize them but having nothing to do with reality is foolish.
I think conservatives have been indoctrinated and socialized to believe that sex is a sin outside marriage. It has nothing to do with sex being for procreation only.
I never said that once. I think that is bull.
A fetus is not a child. And conservatives don't care about saving children. If they did, they would ban guns and stop having all their young conservative mentally ill gunslingers walking into schools and shooting children.
Conservatives aren't concerned with saving children.
1. They have hangups about sex because this is a left over from their puranical past.
2. They think that if they ban abortion, women will be so scared of having sex that they will stop having sex.
3. That's the same reason they don't want to give away the pill free.
I've got news for you. Women have sex. And in order for men to have sex, they have to have sex with a women (generally).
I'm going to bow out here.
I don't relate to 'reasoning' of Evangelicals,etc.
Tessa, you are on target. Totally agree. Not only conservative men but conservative women. Conservative women feel the EXACT way.
Tessa, Evangelicals come under ultraconservative, fundamentalist, & fanatical. They are also reactionary & retrogressive.
I'm sure you are correct.
The difficulty with these people is that they are unable to see that what they believe is absurd, morally/ethically wrong (it is not for the greater good), and verges on evil.
A recent neurological study showed that evangelicals and people who believed in conspiracies theories had damage in the hypothalmus. Wish I could find the study.
They have the moral Right that all citizens of a society should have; the Right to determine the laws that govern their society.
If it is a just society it will not be governed by the rules of pure democracy and the supporters of any law will only have the Right to try to get their laws adopted.
Yes, but its' the majority - not the minority. Also, separation of church and state applies.
At a certain point, I just can't be part of the conversation anymore. It's circular reasoning all the way.
I think there are two psychological processes involved here, but I don't know what they are.
I've long noticed that when people have been indoctrinated, they don't even realize that they are not rational, not logical,and what they seriously believe to be evidence for their point of view is nothing of the kind.
For me, it's impossible to have a discussion at that level. I can't deal with logical fallacies.
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15- … cies-know/
And yet you have been spewing out logical fallacies from the beginning, and diagnosing people with mental disorders should they disagree with you.
I'm going to say it again. Dunning/Kruger. Bye. I really don't care what you think.
Which is why you feel important and smart enough to keep coming back after you said you were done.
Welcome to the verbal abuse that right-wing extremists heap on people in these forums. It's why so many others have quit posting here.
But a few of us don't get intimidated by bullies. We recognize the deep flaws in their character (moral and intellectual), so we keep posting.
Fortunately, HP has banned the worst ones.
Permanent bans. A famous one in recent history had a long face the entire time he was here (horse-faced).
Yep. Funny thing is, he came back again with a different profile and made the same abusive posts all over again. He didn't learn a thing.
Shame you're going Tess. I wanted to ask where I'm going wrong on the correlation between socialized medicine (dun dun daaaa!) and debt as a % of GDP. Specifically, the fact that I can't see any.
Countries with socialized medicine not only seem to have lower debt to GDP ratio than the US, but also spend significantly less on healthcare per capita. E.g:
US debt is 105.4% of GDP, and its healthcare expenditure in 2017 was $9,111 per capita.
France's debt is 98.5% of GDP and its healthcare expenditure in 2017 was $4,328 per capita (less than 50% of that in the US).
Seems to be true in most OECD countries also (though I gave up after looking at 6) e.g:
UK: debt 87% of GDP, health spend per capita $3,794
Spain: debt 97% of GDP, health spend per capita $3,794
Sweden: debt 39% of GDP, health spend per capita $5,009
Germany: debt 64% of GDP, health spend per capita $4,957
Belgium: debt 104% of GDP, health spend per capita $4,178
Australia: debt 47.1% of GDP, health spend per capita $4198
And if there were a correlation between socialized medicine and debt as a % of GDP, we would expect the US to have the lowest debt to GDP. We don't. We see:
The US has the 6th highest debt as a % of GDP relative to other OECD countries.
The 17th highest debt as a % of GDP relative to all countries in the world.
And the highest health care expenditure per capita on the planet.
So where am I going wrong with these figures? Why can't I see a correlation between socialized medicine (dun dun daaaa!) and national debt as a % of GDP?
(3) https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … 6rank.html
As I'm sure you know, socialized medicine doesn't have enormous profits and revenue going to health insurance companies. So in one way, socialized medicine has a major cost savings.
Government is the solution of last resort. But it's starting to sound like a better solution than out-of-control capitalism.
There is no correlation. I was being sarcastic.
The bottom line is that in the days of yore, taxes were paid to the king for the purposes of the king - not the citizens.
In a democracy, taxes are supposed to be paid to govering body in order for the goverment body to make the country safe and easy to live in for all people.
In a modern civilisation, that means quite a high level of services.
1. One would want one's people to be healthy so that they work well and to prevent disease from getting out of control, e.g. plagues and epidemics. So medical services would be free or inexpensive.
2. One would want everybody to be educated - especially in a a democracy, because when people don't have a high level education, they vote idiots like Trump into office. They also ensure that the country will return to the dark ages. The government would, therefore, use the taxes to enable people to get a free eduation.
3. One would want people to be creative and innovative, so there would be life long education available. One wouldn't have to battle to pay for learning an extra language, pay for a fortunte to learn Adobe Deamweaver, or put oneself into debt to qualify for a big data qualification like Splunk or Tableau.
4. There would be a strong social welfare system or even better, a Universal Basic Income. When too many people get too poor, history has shown that there are revolutions. It is interesting that cartoons, these days, are talking more and more about chopping off the heads of the rich (French revolution). First it starts with laugher of the possibilites.Social welfare prevents crime and violent. It's bull thatit makes people lazy and dependent. The reason some don't want a good social welfare system is because they don't want to pay taxes. Well, hte price of living in a safe, civilized country is taxes..
5. Communications, public transport, the judiciary, etc. are all the costs of a first world civilized coutnry, and educated, well informed, compassionate, humane people realize this
6. It is not hte place of the government to make a profit.
7 Unsurprisingly all this can be done if a country doesn't maintain an army... Those countries which eliminated their military manage perfectly..
Thanks Tess. I confess my "innocent" question was a tactic to draw you back in. I like seeing people around who I agree with
Health, education, innovation, social responsibility, strong infrastructure, less militarization. You're talking my language.
Credence, the solution to abortion is to invent a birth control method which is 100% effective. Also invent advanced birth control for men. So far the onus of birth control is placed upon women. Male & female contraception used conjunctively would drastically reduce the need for abortion. As contraception becomes very advanced, the need for abortion would be at a very minimum level. As for teenagers, they have to be taught to be responsible sexually. They have to taught about the importance of using birth control.
Strictures against responsible/intelligent sex education has to cease. Birth control must be an integral part of sex education. To adults, birth control must be used responsibly. One can't forget to use birth control if they have sex. Don't have UNPROTECTED SEX- USE CONTRACEPTION. However, abortion must exist, especially in extreme cases such as rape, incest, & other violent sexual acts.
Yet, abstinence in order to prevent STDs, is all they teach in too many states in regards to things along these lines. I think it has something to do with those "Ultratraditionalist, conservative, fundamentalistic, & fanatical religionists"
Abstinence teaching is done in the more conservative Midwestern & Southern states. They also teach abstinence education in religious schools. Outside of those, birth control is taught in most states.
You know, I don't think that conservatives are interested in anything beyond control of the sexuality of others. It is a form of misogyny and patriarchal dominance all rolled into to one.
This is not about controlling abortion as it is about controlling sex, the fact that it takes place on a daily basis outside of their purview has to disturb the morally priggish.
If they really care about the welfare of the very young, they would be offering more support after the birth. So they want to hang a woman over a zygote, but neglect, be flinty and stingy with the nutritional needs of infants and young children? Where is the gall in making a women carry a child to term as the result of rape or incest? Is she just an incubation machine, with no opinion of her own regarding carriying such a horrendous pregnancy to term?
If you are serious about chasing after zygotes at the very point of conception, this is more of a war against women's sexuality and by extension just another factor in her freedom being compromised in a way not imposed on men to anywhere near the same extent.
TheSE sorts of people will always have zero credibility in my book.
+1000000000000000000000000000000. However, many ultraconservatives, reactionaries, retrogressives, fundamentalists, fanatics, & other regressives are hypocrites in terms of sexuality. Publicly, they are against abortion & sexual expression but in PRIVATE...…..they are beyond debauched sexually.
Let me add that ultraconservative, reactionary, retrogressive, fundamentalist, fanatical, & other regressive men are misogynic, racist, authoritarian, & other negatives. They are against everyone but themselves. They only want freedom for themselves. They are the definition of...……..EVIL & SELFISHNESS. They are doomed to hell for being non-accepting, judgmental & selfish. Although they are purportedly religious, they are Satan incarnates.
I absolutely agree. It's about controllng sex. And that is all it is about. It's not the babies they are worried about. It's the fact that those 'babies' are proof that the women have had sex.
For some reason this upsets a certain type of person.
I'm not quite sure why.
How many premature deaths--as well as unnecessary diminishing quality of life--were "pro-lifers" responsible for when they cheered on GWB making stem cell research illegal?
I must be missing something. Are any of these comments intended to be extreme or satirical hyperbole?
I hope so, because if some of you folks could hear what your comments sound like, (to non-fanatics), I think you would hope so too.
ultraconservative, reactionary, retrogressive, fundamentalist, fanatical
isogynic, racist, authoritarian
EVIL & SELFISHNESS
doomed to hell
form of misogyny
flinty and stingy
retrogressive in their views
refuse to grow
emotionally, mentally, intellectually, & psychological immature
That's quite a list.
Yeah, well, enacting laws that would send women and girls back to the dark ages tends to upset people.
So do those that legalize murder of the small people in our lives.
Refusal to utilize honest, empathic discourse with an effort to understand often results in such rants and foolish name calling - name calling which produces more of the same from the other side.
Thank you PrettyPanther. Most of the abovementioned wording belongs to me. Yes, I said it. What I have elucidated above aptly describe the types of people who don't want safe, accessible, & legal abortions. I also have a few words but I will contain myself. I was raised to be a lady! I stand by my words & WON'T BACK DOWN!
Perhaps the last one is applicable to those producing such rants?
You forgot witch hunt and hoax, GA.
Oops, I thought you were listing Trump's hyperbole....
I have never heard of a level of consciousness - never mind one of 140. What is it?
According to the late Dr. Hawkins, who was a psychiatrist, a person at a consciousness level of 200 & above can discern truth from falsehood while a person with a consciousness level of less than 200 is unable to discern truth from falsehood. Dr. Hawkins did a calibration of fundamentalist religionists & found their consciousness level to be at 145.
I just googled him.Not hte kind of thing I would read as it is not based on empirical evidence.
For me, it is too easy to go off the beaten track when one begins to accept what cannot be proven as fact. It is the willingness to accept thing without evidence that leads to the very mind-sets we are speaking about.
It was an interesting read, anyway. Thanks.
"4. There would be a strong social welfare system or even better, a Universal Basic Income. When too many people get too poor, history has shown that there are revolutions. It is interesting that cartoons, these days, are talking more and more about chopping off the heads of the rich (French Revolution). First it starts with laughter of the possibilities. Social Welfare prevents crime and violence. It's bull that it makes people lazy and dependent. The reason some don't want a good Social Welfare system is because they don't want to pay taxes. Well, the price of living in a safe, civilized country is taxes."
#4. is (VERY) problematic.
"Whether direct taxation in the form of outright theft, or indirect taxation in the form of inflation, these tactics have been used for millennia to maintain privilege for an elite few at the expense of everyone else."
https://www.businessinsider.com/all-tra … tor-2012-4
Clearly you are unfamiliar with history. Taxes did NOT bring down the Roman Empire. Invasion from the tribes on the border did. Nero partied. Rome burnt.
Had nothing to do with taxes.
Quite apart from that, taxes used by kings and emperors for their own pleasures have nothing to do with taxes used in Republics for the good of we-the-people.
The idiot who wrote the above piece for business insider is an anoymous rip-off artist who rips off people who buy into libertarianism.
You might like to read this thread on him. The man is guilty of fraud and is a conman.
https://thesurvivalpodcast.com/forum/in … ic=16683.0
It turns out that 'Simon Black' is:
Miss Ragini Dhanvantray, aged 45, pleaded guilty on 10 March 2010 to committing the offences and was fined a total of $21,000 – or $7,000 on each of the three charges of authorising the false lodgements under section 401(2A)(b) of the Companies Act, Cap.50. Two similar charges
were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing
Alabama has one of the highest infant mortality rate s in the country.
Not just Alabama, but pretty much every state that recently enacted stringent anti-abortion laws. Many conservatives care so deeply about a fertilized egg, they resort to drastic government intervention. Children and babies? Not so much.
Is a double Doh! just rubbing it in? These issues are serious, and we cannot afford to allow the propoganda from either side run us astray from the real solutions.
Real solutions. You mean like free and easy access to birth control, which has been proven to be the single most effective way to reduce abortions?
It has been my experience that vehement pro-lifers are often also vehemently opposed to free and easy access to birth control.
And as I stated, they care not for the children after they're born.
I think they care about children after they're born, just not enough to overcome their mostly unconscious need to be sure women are punished for having sex for the pure joy of it.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Pretty Panther & Randy. To reiterate, pro-lifers are hypocrites of the biggest order. Publicly, they proclaim against abortion but...….PRIVATELY...……. Let me add if they are male, they are threatened by female sexuality that is outside their narrow paradigm which is procreational, married sex.
I don't think it's so much a narrow paradigm as some sort of sexual inadequacy.. They cannot bear women having sex with other men because it's not them.
If you look at all the pastors who get caught in pedophilia and audultery, with call girls, etc. I think there is something else going on.
They desperately want something they think they can't have. And they resent other people having it. Or they are twisted in some way.
Tess, you are so on target w/your analysis. I was thinking along the same lines. As I have reiterated, there is a hypocrisy regarding pro-lifers. They say one thing publicly to be on a so-called moral high ground but in private, they are so...…...DEBAUCHED that they make the proverbial Satan blush....
Of course, typical pro-lifers are AGAINST any artificial form of birth control. They are of the atavistic school that sex= procreation. They contend that any form of reproductive freedom is UNNATURAL. Have you notice that pro-lifers have large to very large families?
Besides real & easy access to birth control, one has to use birth control effectively. Let me add, that invention of effective birth control FOR MEN would SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE abortions? Put the MALE in the picture. It takes TWO to tango!
Mike, there is a mansion on Sutton Place which is $1,000. There is also an exclusive duplex apartment in the West Village for $100 a month...……….
Just shaking my head...
Do you suppose some pro-life folks might be rationalizing and justifying their judgment with the type of vitriol and rhetoric such as seen in this thread?
Is it impossible that their position might be tied solely to a sanctity of life position, without any consideration for any of these "sex-based" determinations being made here?
These comments remind me of a particular New Jersey poster on these forums that seems, (by her comments), to be a virulent man-hater. What "hater" prefix would fit these comments?
Well, GA, if you can provide a rational reason for a pro-life person who wants to reduce abortions to reject the one solution proven to do so, then I will consider changing my opinion about their unconscious motivations behind said refusal.
We would have to agree to some basics before I could support an offered reason PrettyPanther.
First, I am assuming the "one solution" you are thinking of is birth control, is that right?
Next, going by the inference I get from your response, you are equating all pro-life folks with the religious folks that don't believe in birth control--due to their religious beliefs. Is that correct?
If so, then I don't see them, (the pro-life folks), as the same group you apparently do.
Understand that my perception is not supported by any life experience emerged with religious folks, (but of course, I do have contact with many sincere Christians), but I see the fundamentalist anti-birth control group of pro-life folks as more of a fringe than the norm in the general pro-life advocates.
So with that perception, I would offer a rational reason that they truly believe in the sanctity of life. I don't think, as the norm, it has anything to do with all these sex-deprived, or sex-envious, or sex-anything judgments being tossed around as superior enlightened perspectives.
I know that just by my comments on this thread I am being judgmental, and as a rule, I try not to be. I have been humbled enough times to know I am no better than anyone else. But...
The negative and derogatory attributions seen in this thread reek of snobbish self-righteousness. Heaven help them, (an appropriate phrase, don't you think?), if they ever have to wear those folks shoes in some life instance.
Now you can offer a rational reason to me. Why do you assume you know what their "unconscious motivations" are? How do you know the norm of pro-life folks rejects birth control? Can't their reason just be religious motivations without any birth control or sex-something drivers?
GA, I had a long reply that disappeared into cyberspace and I now don't feel like recreating it. To be clear, I wasn't referring to those who oppose birth control on religious grounds. Notice I said their motivations were "mostly unconscious." I assume that opposition because of a religious belief is conscious. I am speaking of those who say things like women are weak, they can't hold a nickel between their legs, they should develop stronger thigh muscles, etc., in a thread having to do with abortion. This was a couple of years ago, but the poster who said this is still here. I have quite a few Southern Baptists in my family who vote almost solely on the abortion issue. They also use birth control themselves, but are opposed to free and easy access to birth control, even though they have been informed it is the most effective way to reduce abortions. They don't like the idea of encouraging unmarried sex. Apparently, making sure people aren't having sex for pure enjoyment is more important so them than preventing murder. If it wasn't, they would support free and easy access to birth control.
Did you catch the rfefrence to "barnyard sex" in one of these recent threads? That is the mentality I am referring to. Everyone is entitled to their own moral code, but they are not entitled to legislate it upon others, which is what these pro-lifers are doing. I find it ironic that you view us as judgmental, while these people who judge themselves as having such a high moral authority they can force their views upon us by law. Now, THAT is the ultimate in snotty moralizing.
Of course, I can't argue with your personal experiences PrettyPanther. It is also personal experiences that have formed my perception. Apparently, we have just had different experiences.
I missed the "barnyard sex" comment, and it is not that type of perspective I was referring to.
From your response, it appears we are talking about different groups of people. None of those in your response would be in the "norm" I was speaking of. Maybe it is my error to view folks such as you describe to be the fringe and not the norm. So be it. I still wouldn't be comfortable engaging in the denigration I see in this thread.
Well, damn, is my foot in the bucket now? Were my comments part of that "snotty moralizing," or was that directed at the pro-life folks you described?
Either way, I have had my say, and right or wrong I will stick with my view on who I think "normal" pro-life folks are and just leave it there.
The "shotty moralizing" comment was not directed at you.
Please consider why stringent anti-abortion laws are being enacted in states with high infant mortality rates. Also, please consider why certain states have low infant mortality rates. What set of beliefs results in this correlation?
I will consider your points PrettyPanther, but I will have to look around a bit to do so.
However, none of my comments were intended to support pro-life reasoning.
Sounds as if you had an experience with snipping yourself, Gus!
"their position might be tied solely to a sanctity of life position, without any consideration for any of these "sex-based" determinations being made here?"
You're spot on GA. I've watched this debate, and though I understand the objections raised regards those that oppose birth control AND abortion, most of those I've come in contact with who oppose abortion on religious grounds, those I know something about I'll add, typically do so without objections to birth control.
Fact is, I've met 1 catholic couple since childhood that fit into the mold described here, and I've put in more than 50 years.
I'm just over here still trying to figure out how anyone on this planet could justify forcing a child to carry her own sibling to term. I can't grasp the idea that people are genuinely this ignorant.
by R. Fritz 2 years ago
Is it right or wrong even though it is legal?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 3 years ago
Will Trump take the USA backward or forward with women's rights?Some editorials accuse Trump of being sexist but some of his staff members say he supports women's rights. What do you think?
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
Free speech is alive and well in America. The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 (dissenter was Samuel Alito) that Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to picket military funerals. The church contends military deaths are God's revenge for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. So expect...
by Credence2 12 months ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
by JAKE Earthshine 2 years ago
And WOMEN are Furious: Can you imagine, here in the year 2019, this extreme infringement upon a woman's sacred body and her right to control it is now occurring in some of the hillbilly states where women’s inherent rights and progress toward a brighter more prosperous and empowering future spells...
by Credence2 9 months ago
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/Patience, it could be seen as a long read.Your thoughts, please.
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|