Political Matrix

[Daverz]

No.  It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility and support a "procedure" I find unethical.  If she cannot afford an abortion she can keep the child or put it up for adoption.   But to think she should be shielded from any undesired consequences is not good public policy, IMO.

I fail to see what possible public policy is served by forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term.  A pregnancy is not a trivial thing and can have serious health consequences.

[oabmarcus]

No.  It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility and support a "procedure" I find unethical.  If she cannot afford an abortion she can keep the child or put it up for adoption.   But to think she should be shielded from any undesired consequences is not good public policy, IMO.

But, there won't be additional taxes charged on you. I can't imagine that helping a few unlucky people will have a drastic effect on the budget, right? We are 14 trillion in the hole, the marginal cost is negligible.

[Lethevich]

Wait, why is it funny. See, when you say something totally out of blue like that, it kind helps to give me a full expanation. Why is my accusation kind of funny? Why?

You really can't guess? You're prioritising the convenience of a person over the life of a foetus.

[Franco]

........which is an argument that can be put forward in most situations. Why should I pay for a war I am in disagreement with etc etc in absurdum

Not really.  A war is something that is usually the subject of elections - i.e. we elect a president on how he will handle such foreign policy issues.  And national defense is one of the primary purposes of government.  Paying for abortions is not.  Nor are abortions comparable to a heart attack or other legitmate health care condition, paid for by government health insurance.

The vast majority of abortions are the result of irresponsible behavior at some level.  No one chooses to have a heart attack but people have unprotected sex all the time, and expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.

[oabmarcus]

You really can't guess? You're prioritising the convenience of a person over the life of a foetus.

if you deliver a fetus, is it a person? When is a person a person? Is an embryo a person? should we also ban the stoppage of sperm that is on its way to reach the egg? i.e. ban condoms? tell me where to draw the line.

[The new erato]

Not really.  A war is something that is usually the subject of elections - i.e. we elect a president on how he will handle such foreign policy issues.  And national defense is one of the primary purposes of government.  Paying for abortions is not.  Nor are abortions comparable to a heart attack or other legitmate health care condition, paid for by government health insurance.

The vast majority of abortions are the result of irresponsible behavior at some level.  No one chooses to have a heart attack but people have unprotected sex all the time, and expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.

I can see your point but you also vote for what kind of social system you want. And irresponsibility aside (and all unwanted pregnancies surely aren't the result of irresponsibility) one need to consider the wider consequences of a system with lots of unwanted babies, however one feels about the conduct of people involved. IE: Are you sure that in the long run, the alternative isn't costlier to you?

[Lethevich]

if you deliver a fetus, is it a person? When is a person a person? Is an embryo a person?

A foetus can't take the choice over whether it is killed or not - a person can. It's just a distinction of consciousness - all are "alive", although obviously the further back you go the more far removed it becomes. A foetus is quite simply a small baby that a lot of people think is okay to kill.

Edit: elaborated.

[Franco]

But, there won't be additional taxes charged on you. I can't imagine that helping a few unlucky people will have a drastic effect on the budget, right? We are 14 trillion in the hole, the marginal cost is negligible.

Taxes going to pay for abortions will be money taken away from something more suitable for government to be doing, like national defense or border security, or (here's a radical idea) paying down the national debt - otherwise more taxes will have be collected. 

And you missed the last part of my argument - it is not good public policy to encourage or enable irresponsible behavior. 

[Daverz]

Not really.  A war is something that is usually the subject of elections - i.e. we elect a president on how he will handle such foreign policy issues.  And national defense is one of the primary purposes of government.  Paying for abortions is not.  Nor are abortions comparable to a heart attack or other legitmate health care condition, paid for by government health insurance.

It's as legitimate as any other procedure that effects health. 

The vast majority of abortions are the result of irresponsible behavior at some level.  No one chooses to have a heart attack but people have unprotected sex all the time, and expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.

I get it, I get it.  It's all about slut shaming.

A lot of people engage in behaviors that lead to to those heart attacks, and to diabetes, liver failure, etc.  Smoking, alcoholism, bad eating habits, lack of exercise, etc.

[Franco]

I can see your point but you also vote for what kind of social system you want. And irresponsibility aside (and all unwanted pregnancies surely aren't the result of irresponsibility) one need to consider the wider consequences of a system with lots of unwanted babies, however one feels about the conduct of people involved.

While all "unplanned pregnancies" are not due to irresonsible behavior, I'd say the vast majority are.  Out of the approximately 1,000,000 abortions performed in the US each year I think only a tiny number are for rape or incest. 

There are many many couples who want to adopt a child. 

[The new erato]

While all "unplanned pregnancies" are not due to irresonsible behavior, I'd say the vast majority are.  Out of the approximately 1,000,000 abortions performed in the US each year I think only a tiny number are for rape or incest. 

No contraception is 100% effective.

[Franco]

It's as legitimate as any other procedure that effects health. 

I get it, I get it.  It's all about slut shaming.

A lot of people engage in behaviors that lead to to those heart attacks, and to diabetes, liver failure, etc.  Smoking, alcoholism, bad eating habits, lack of exercise, etc.

Most people did not cause their diabetes, but were diagnosed at an early age becuase of genetic makeup.   We have laws against smoking in public buildings precisely because we do not wish to encourage that behavior, and government funded nutritonal guidelines to encourage a healthier lifestyle. 

Public policy is based on these kind of issues, taxing what you don't want to encourage (energy consumption, cigarettes, etc.) and subsidizing only what is beneficial for society (healthy eating, energy conservation, etc.).

[Franco]

No contraception is 100% effective.

Right, but using no contraception is more likely to lead to a pregancy than using some kind of contraception. 

[Daverz]

While all "unplanned pregnancies" are not due to irresonsible behavior, I'd say the vast majority are.

I don't know that, and neither do you.

There are many many couples who want to adopt a child.

There are a lot of children who go unadopted.  In any case, I don't see ensuring the supply of adoptable children as a humane reason for making it difficult to get a legal abortion.

[Franco]

There are a lot of children who go unadopted.  In any case, I don't see ensuring the supply of adoptable children as a humane reason for making it difficult to get a legal abortion.

There are certainly not enough healthy infants available for adoption.  And the process of adoption is much more expensive than having an abortion - it can be as high as $20,000.  Adoption is something government ought to be helping to fund, not abortions.

I don't advocate making abortions difficult to get, just that they are paid for by the people wanting them.  If that makes it difficult for some people, it is my view they should be more careful if they cannot afford the consequences of their actions.

[Todd]

should we also ban the stoppage of sperm that is on its way to reach the egg? i.e. ban condoms?

I get it, I get it.  It's all about slut shaming.

Tired, knee-jerk, so-called "liberal" chestnuts that get trotted out every once in such a "debate."  71db tried the first one earlier, and the argument is as hollow now as it was a few hours ago.

At least I now know clearly who some of the "liberal" nuts on the forum are.

I don't know that, and neither do you.

This is a blatantly dishonest response; indeed, it is responses like this that make some people impossible to take seriously on this subject.  Below is a quick snippet from Wikipedia.  Yes, it's Wikipedia (though the source is cited), and yes it's old, but I'd be more than surprised if the reasons have changed in the intervening years.  To those who might maintain that the reasons have changed, I'd love to see some facts to back it up.  Abortion is unambiguously a form of birth control, and its demand is driven overwhelmingly by irresponsible behavior. 

(Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions for more info.)

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]
•   25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
•   21.3% Cannot afford a baby
•   14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
•   12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
•   10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
•   7.9% Want no (more) children
•   3.3% Risk to fetal health
•   2.8% Risk to maternal health
•   2.1% Other

[Daverz]

Most people did not cause their diabetes, but were diagnosed at an early age becuase of genetic makeup.

That's Type I diabetes.

We have laws against smoking in public buildings precisely because we do not wish to encourage that behavior, and government funded nutritonal guidelines to encourage a healthier lifestyle. 

Public policy is based on these kind of issues, taxing what you don't want to encourage (energy consumption, cigarettes, etc.) and subsidizing only what is beneficial for society (healthy eating, energy conservation, etc.).

Oh, this is that Nanny State people complain about.

What behaviors do you want to effect by public policy?  It seems to be primarily sexual behavior you want to punish.  There are much less punitive ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and they work.

[mc ukrneal]

A foetus can't take the choice over whether it is killed or not - a person can. It's just a distinction of consciousness - all are "alive", although obviously the further back you go the more far removed it becomes. A foetus is quite simply a small baby that a lot of people think is okay to kill.

Edit: elaborated.

But this would imply (taking this further) that people who carry out abortions, support them, and allow them to occur (the mother and other family members) are murderers and should be equated with other types of murderers. This is not the case, and most people would not advocate this. 

I really think this particular issue does not turn on whether we value life or not (all sides would pretty much agree on this point in a general sense), or whether we define the terms correctly. It comes down to some fundamental beliefs and values (many of which are incompatible).

Personally, I don't see how this particular issue will ever be completely resolved unless: One side gives in, the sides can come to an agreed upon compromise, or one side disappears for some reason or the other side 'wins' (or one side is politically and perhaps militarily squashed). The liklihood of any of these seems quite low to me and so these issues would seem to be with us until some breakthrough takes place that changes the entire dynamic of the discussion.

[Josquin des Prez]

I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".

Odd behavior, IMO.

Its not just regular liberals though, politicians do the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM&feature=player_embedded

[Philoctetes]

Its not just regular liberals though, politicians do the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM&feature=player_embedded

It's not just liberals either, to clarify.