Political Matrix

[Daverz]

Tired, knee-jerk, so-called "liberal" chestnuts that get trotted out every once in such a "debate." 

One only has to look back at the language in your posts.  "Slut shaming" is only a colorful way of putting it.

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

How is this kind of rhetoric any more acceptable than some intemperate naughty words.

This is a blatantly dishonest response

If Franco wanted to use statistics, I'm sure he could have found them.

Speaking for myself, I don't give a shit why women have abortions, unless they're being coerced or because they have poor access to contraceptive healthcare.  I'm not in to panty sniffing.

[karlhenning]

I want to be evaluated from what I say.

Yes.

[Lethevich]

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.

Not murderers, of course, but also their decision should be recognised as a failure to prevent a problem before it escalated. It's not murder to kill a pet either, but it's still something to be frowned upon.

I'm not sure it is about such strongly-held belief with a lot of people. My couple of posts in this thread have been playing devil's advocate, for example, and I find both sides have persuasive justifications. One thing I have noticed is that the more entrenched sides are often entrenched in political arguments as well - abortion is the hot subject of commentators of both the USA's major factions.

I don't think the individual's responsibility should be deferred to the government as easilly as "I can do this because the government says it is okay, stop questioning my actions or it will make me feel bad". I feel it self-evident that greater personal responsibility would lower the abortion rate, so how do we cultivate this?

Even if it is banned in the US (highly unlikely) as people like oabmarcus fear, then I am sure that many in the north would hop over to Canada to have it done, and people in the south would either go to Mexico or find charities that would inevitably spring up to help fund their travel. It's what happens in Ireland - women cross over to the north to have their abortions, then hop back.

[Todd]

One only has to look back at the language in your posts.  "Slut shaming" is only a colorful way of putting it.

No, no, that's just the way you misinterpreted it. 

How is this kind of rhetoric any more acceptable than some intemperate naughty words.

It's just useful when identifying nuts to avoid.  There are some right wing nuts on the forum, and some plain old nuts (like Sean) that I also generally avoid.  I suppose you can equate it with the sanctimonious rages that oabmarcus wrote if you like, it's your call.

Speaking for myself, I don't give a shit why women have abortions

Hey, me neither, but I don't want any public funds to pay for the procedure, and I can at least admit that the root cause in most cases is irresponsible behavior.

[mc ukrneal]

Not murderers, of course, but also their decision should be recognised as a failure to prevent a problem before it escalated. It's not murder to kill a pet either, but it's still something to be frowned upon.

I'm not sure it is about such strongly-held belief with a lot of people. My couple of posts in this thread have been playing devil's advocate, for example, and I find both sides have persuasive justifications. One thing I have noticed is that the more entrenched sides are often entrenched in political arguments as well - abortion is the hot subject of commentators of both the USA's major factions.

I don't think the individual's responsibility should be deferred to the government as easilly as "I can do this because the government says it is okay, stop questioning my actions or it will make me feel bad". I feel it self-evident that greater personal responsibility would lower the abortion rate, so how do we cultivate this?

Even if it is banned in the US (highly unlikely) as people like oabmarcus fear, then I am sure that many in the north would hop over to Canada to have it done, and people in the south would either go to Mexico or find charities that would inevitably spring up to help fund their travel. It's what happens in Ireland - women cross over to the north to have their abortions, then hop back.

I agree that when the issue is mixed in with politics and such, you (often) just get a lot of...combustion. For some, it is an agenda of which abortion is one element. We've watched some of those arguments here on this thread.

While I completely agree that more personal responsibility (and education) would reduce abortion, I am conncerned most about the role of government in the issue (and frankly in any issue). And the last issue you mention is a good one (from a practical point of view). That is exactly what some would do (you see it even in the US on tax related items like cigarettes, where people go to other states to buy them and then return). 

Just to clarify, by values and beliefs, I was referring to things like: one's view on the role of government and how much they should participate in daily life, one's worldview, one's belief (or not) in god, etc. Perhaps this does simplify things a bit, but it is where I find the source of the discussion usually needs to begin. Once you get name calling and the like (where we decended to for part of the time here), there cannot be a constructive discussion.

[Daverz]

Hey, me neither, but I don't want any public funds to pay for the procedure, and I can at least admit that the root cause in most cases is irresponsible behavior.

I think this is shortsighted.  It'll probably cost you much more in the end for the various societal costs of more unwanted children, e.g. prison construction.  (This purely utilitarian argument is not mine.  I believe it is a libertarian argument, e.g. Freakonomics. My reasons have more to do with those moral absolutes that JdP goes on about.  Just better moral absolutes than his.)

I gather that you are a libertarian(?) and would not support government healthcare anyway, so I don't know why abortion gets singled out.

But let's take a look at the list you posted anyway:

•   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

To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy, all net benefits to the taxpayer, and ones that I'm willing to kick in a few cents for.

[Daverz]

I feel it self-evident that greater personal responsibility would lower the abortion rate, so how do we cultivate this?

I think the experiment has already been run in the western European countries.  They have better access to contraception and sex education and much lower rates of abortion.  And they also have a more mature attitude towards sexuality.

[Josquin des Prez]

To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy

As responsible as the drug addict who wants to commit himself, at our expense. Of course, responsible would have been not to do drugs in the first place, but to say that would be so mean of us...

[Daverz]

As responsible as the drug addict who wants to commit himself, at our expense. Of course, responsible would have been not to do drugs in the first place, but to say that would be so mean of us...

Aren't there any witches for you to burn?

[Josquin des Prez]

Now that i think of it, without liberal and progressive meddling into the family, the undermining of fatherly authority, the constant pushing for hedonistic and carefree "lifestyles", the complete rejection of middle class values, all those wonderful things liberals imposed upon our society, there probably wouldn't be so many drug abusers, as well as abortions. Yet, amusingly enough, liberals keep positioning themselves as the only "sane" solution to the problems they themselves have created.

[oabmarcus]

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 am glad I'm not the only one here calling people names, I am off the hook thanks to 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

So? Irresponsibility occurs all around us, you can always punish the person in question. but what good does that do in this instance? My entire argument is that anti-abortionist punish people for their mistakes. But for what? There is no additional social welfare from infants in found dumpsters or overcrowded orphanages. Think of the big picture, what social welfare does your punishment of these women bring to our society? Nothing! When an irresponsible driver drove over the speed limit, you slap him/her with a 150 dollar fine. That's painful for most, but it's bearable, and most can make that 150 dollars back. For a young women (most in their early teens), the burden of motherhood would delay their education, complicated their financial situation, and in many cases ruin their lives (something you can't make back). In the end, nobody wins.

[Todd]

To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy, all net benefits to the taxpayer, and ones that I'm willing to kick in a few cents for.

Well, you tried to turn it on its head, but it didn't work.  All but the last three are perfect examples of irresponsible reasons.  Your assertion that this would benefit the taxpayer is based on wishful thinking and nothing more.  How would "Want no (more) children" translate into a net benefit to taxpayers, for instance?  Indeed, how would any benefit accrue to taxpayers under any scenario, when considering the number of cases involved (800K+ per year currently)? 

Try not to rely on Freakonomics too much; some of the arguments in the book are dubious, and the one relating to abortion and crime is a perfect case.  Anyone who reads that should also peruse some DOJ publications on prison spending in the 80s, 90s, and now in this century.  If crime dropped so much due to abortion, why all the prisons?  And does it follow logically that if there were fewer abortions that prison spending would have gone up even more?  There are also some flaws with the statistical models used in the reasearch that have been pointed out by people who have no direct interest in the debate.

As to singling out abortion, well, it's what came up in the thread, and I must say that people who try to argue from a moral standpoint - any moral standpoint - end up failing.  The notion that abortion is evil and should be banned ignores the reality that it has been practised for thousands of years and any ban will lead to truly barbaric consequences (eg, so-called "back alley" abortions) that should be avoided at all costs.  On the other side, arguments that abortion is somehow moral purposely ignore or try to deny, or at least significantly downplay, the fact that abortion is the purposeful destruction of a potential human life (most of the aborted fetuses would become people) or that some other social benefits will accrue from the practice.  This is more than dubious.

My standpoint is simple and doesn't rely on the morality of the act.  Government ought to have a very limited role in people's lives, and that includes not only preventing abortions, but also funding them.  I always find it amusing when people want the use of public funds without regulation.  Doesn't work that way.  Shouldn't work that way.

And make no mistake, there are plenty of other areas where I'd like to see public spending reduced or eliminated, some favored by "liberals" and some by "conservatives."

[Todd]

I am glad I'm not the only one here calling people names, I am off the hook thanks to you!

Think of the big picture, what social welfare does your punishment of these women bring to our society? Nothing!

I'm not sure what hook you are referring to.  You were out of control and throwing around all manner of harsh insults.  Most people don't consider the word 'nut' quite as offensive as what you were writing.  Perhaps you do, who knows?

As to my punishment of women, what are you referring to?  As I wrote several times, I think abortion should be legal, just not publicly funded.  I merely pointed out that abortion is an irresponsible act caused by irresponsible behavior.  Your speeding ticket analogy is worthless in this context, by the way.

[oabmarcus]

Now that i think of it, without liberal and progressive meddling into the family

"meddling" into the family? How about anti-abortionists meddling into Women's rights?

the undermining of fatherly authority

how?

the constant pushing for hedonistic and carefree "lifestyles",

you do realize that has more to do with economics than politics right? take China for example, the regime is very conservative, but as people become richer, they CAN AFFORD to indulge more. So, young people today in China tend to be more hedonistic, and live more carefree. But, the government, and its policies are nothing but old school "family values". Just recently they arrested a bunch of swingers in Nanjing for having group sex for God's sake! People's behavior is not related to the government policies at all!

the complete rejection of middle class values,

what are the middle class values? You must be really old, still clinging into the image of America in the 50's. Too bad, times has changed, and you either accept it, or get lost.

all those wonderful things liberals imposed upon our society,

again how? how do you come up with these absurd assertions? You talk as if in the last 50 years there have been nothing but liberal presidents. If the liberals were so terrible, how come the republican presidents weren't able to "Change" things back to the way it used to be? Did everything you described cease during 8 years of Bush? 

there probably wouldn't be so many drug abusers, as well as abortions.

ahh, you do realize the out of control drug traffickers in the world is due to high prices right? Why are the prices so high? because it's illegal here, and that's not just a liberal or conservative policy either. The reason drug cartels go to all out war, and the reason why 3rd world country grow all that opium is because you guys illegalized it, thereby by the law of simple supply-demand economics, made prices of producing drugs soar. Thereby increase the drug problem, the only way to rid of it for good. IMO, is to legalize all drugs. It will be like unleashing a economic nuclear bomb, and the drug cartels will loose their drug profits, only then, do we have a shot at controlling the drug epidemic.

[drogulus]

      Abortion is one of those issues that calls for an unprincipled decision that government can enforce, rather than the moral one which takes one side entirely at the expense of the other. The best way is to adopt an escalating protection of fetuses as they develop. First trimester, no restriction, second trimester, states can impose medical necessity guidelines, third trimester, states can ban the procedure except to save the mother from grave risk to life and health. Naturally a health exception will be liberally interpreted as permissive almost everywhere. There will be hard cases, and in order to cover those doctors will be permitted discretion. So, the health provision has a real function.

     There should be no federal restrictions, just those preventing states from further restrictions. All insurance policies should contain separate riders allowing the insured to pay the full premium cost of abortion services. No government could invalidate coverage no matter what someone not a party to the insurance thinks about it. That means all government based insurance policies would cover legal abortion procedures. Taxpayers in their role as moral censors would have the same rights as they do over which innocent civilians are killed by Predator strikes in Afghanistan, that is, none at all. Similarly I don't want to pay to execute retarded or mentally ill persons convicted of crimes. Yet I do. I don't expect government to be finely tailored to my sensibilities.

But let's take a look at the list you posted anyway:

•   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

To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy, all net benefits to the taxpayer, and ones that I'm willing to kick in a few cents for.

     In most cases these are good reasons though they will obviously not be morally good reasons. Morality is not usually a matter for the law except in the worst cases. That should apply here as elsewhere.

[Bulldog]

My standpoint is simple and doesn't rely on the morality of the act.  Government ought to have a very limited role in people's lives, and that includes not only preventing abortions, but also funding them. 

Well put.  The morality aspect is something for private individuals/families to consider, not Government.  Seems to me that Government tends to get much too involved in matters that have nothing to do with the reasons for its existence.  Here in the United States, Government even gets involved in college and professional athletics.  It's a crazy world.

[Todd]

then we agree, illegal should be legal. That's all i need to hear.

I'm not sure what "illegal should be legal" means, but your prior response indicates that you are not, in fact, reading the posts, but imagining them to say what you want them to say.

[Philoctetes]

Well put.  The morality aspect is something for private individuals/families to consider, not Government.  Seems to me that Government tends to get much too involved in matters that have nothing to do with the reasons for its existence.  Here in the United States, Government even gets involved in college and professional athletics.  It's a crazy world.

Well it's important that USC forfeit Reggie Bush's Heisman; what's to understand?

[oabmarcus]

you first said

My standpoint is simple and doesn't rely on the morality of the act.  Government ought to have a very limited role in people's lives, and that includes not only preventing abortions, but also funding them.

then you said

As to my punishment of women, what are you referring to?  As I wrote several times, I think abortion should be legal, just not publicly funded.[/b]  I merely pointed out that abortion is an irresponsible act caused by irresponsible behavior.  Your speeding ticket analogy is worthless in this context, by the way.

wait a minute, wait a minute, my BS meter is on red alert here. How does the government prevent abortion by legalize them? Isn't that a contradiction? oops, looks like i caught the tail of the fox after all! Typical hypocrisy!

[Todd]

you first said
then you said wait a minute, wait a minute, my BS meter is on red alert here. How does the government prevent abortion by legalize them? Isn't that a contradiction? oops, looks like i caught the tail of the fox after all! Typical hypocrisy!

Have a drink, or a sedative.  I was illustrating how the government should not be involved in preventing abortions, or in funding them. 

Edit: I had to change my quote since you obviously are never quite satisfied with your insults.