10347
Post by: Fafnir
Nevermind what I said about Canada's government being able to outstupid everyone else. I was wrong.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion
Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.
"This bill takes us backwards to a time when just saying no wasn't enough to qualify as rape."
"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.
As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.
The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole, but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."
"This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion.
"Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."
...But let me highlight the scariest part...
The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The (more) unfortunate side effect would end up requiring a rebranding of the meaning of the word 'rape.' It's like giving every non-pedophile rapist in the US a retrial. In fact, that'd probably happen if this passes (I swear, if this were actually made to pass, I don't know if I'd have enough faith in humanity left).
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
I'm moving to Canada with a ton of Rohipknoll or however it is spelt.
Stop with the Krazy Kanuk stories please Fafnir.
You are scaring me.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
It's like they're in some sort of competition to who is the stupidest. >_>
963
Post by: Mannahnin
It's not Canada, Chibi. This piece of filth is from my country.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Fafnir wrote:Basically, the goal is to rebrand the meaning of the word 'rape.'
Actually, I would suggest the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion.
Nevertheless, this is disgusting. 'Rape Panels', anyone?
Suddenly the NHS doesn't seem quite so bad.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Thanks Mannahnin
Given what Fafnir said I should have figured out it wasn't Canada 
7743
Post by: Chrysaor686
Basically, the goal is to rebrand the meaning of the word 'rape.' It's like giving every non-pedophile rapist in the US a retrial. In fact, that'd probably happen if this passes (I swear, if this were actually made to pass, I don't know if I'd have enough faith in humanity left).
No, the goal is to create a loophole to allow the government to slip out of their fiscal responsibility with ease. There's a marked difference between the two. Rapists will still be charged accordingly, but abortions will hardly ever be paid for by the state again. While it's a little messed up, it's fairly par for the course, as the U.S. government definitely isn't above cutting some questionable corners in order to save itself some money.
This is hardly a reason to 'lose your faith in humanity'. It's simply another reason to get irked at the government. They're cutting spending where it shouldn't be cut, not 'redefining rape'.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
It's not about saving money for the government.
It's an attack on any form of coverage for abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.
There are elements of the bill which attack even people's ability to pay privately for abortion coverage with their own money.
7743
Post by: Chrysaor686
Mannahnin wrote:It's not about saving money for the government.
It's an attack on any form of coverage for abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.
There are elements of the bill which attack even people's ability to pay privately for abortion coverage with their own money.
By 'Attacking coverage for abortion', they're saving themselves money. That's the only reason that they have to do so. If private funding is to be affected, I'd be willing to bet that a few insurance companies had their hands in the bill, but from what I read, the article specifically discussed state funding for abortion.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Albatross wrote:Fafnir wrote:Basically, the goal is to rebrand the meaning of the word 'rape.'
Actually, I would suggest the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion.
...
... .
Totally.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
The problem comes with the idea of how they word it. There's nothing that defines what forcible rape is uniformly throughout the country. In fact, the term itself doesn't exist in legal documents.
This would mean that the government would have to end up defining what actually counts as 'forcible rape' for this to make any sense.
Although I chose the wrong word in 'goal.'
'(more) unfortunate side effect' makes more sense.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Chrysaor686 wrote:Mannahnin wrote:It's not about saving money for the government.
It's an attack on any form of coverage for abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.
There are elements of the bill which attack even people's ability to pay privately for abortion coverage with their own money.
By 'Attacking coverage for abortion', they're saving themselves money. That's the only reason that they have to do so.
If private funding is to be affected, I'd be willing to bet that a few insurance companies had their hands in the bill, but from what I read, the article specifically discussed state funding for abortion.
Right wing, religiously inspired Republicans are against abortion on any grounds.
There isn't an insanely high rate of rape in the USA. They don't all result in pregnancy. The morning after pill can be used.
The objective is to stop abortions, not save any realistic amounts of money, and the motive is religious inspiration.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Fafnir wrote:
...But let me highlight the scariest part...
The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
The (more) unfortunate side effect would end up requiring a rebranding of the meaning of the word 'rape.' It's like giving every non-pedophile rapist in the US a retrial. In fact, that'd probably happen if this passes (I swear, if this were actually made to pass, I don't know if I'd have enough faith in humanity left).
I think you've come to the wrong conclusion here. This bill, as scary as it is, isn't trying to redifine the criminal definition of rape, and it certainly wouldn't get every rapist currently in jail a chance at a re-trial.
7743
Post by: Chrysaor686
Fafnir wrote:The problem comes with the idea of how they word it. There's nothing that defines what forcible rape is uniformly throughout the country. In fact, the term itself doesn't exist in legal documents.
This would mean that the government would have to end up defining what actually counts as 'forcible rape' for this to make any sense.
Although I chose the wrong word in 'goal.'
'poorly thought out side effect' makes more sense.
Because there isn't a charge for 'Forcible rape' (Generally, other charges can be tacked on to serve this purpose, such as battery or kidnapping). There are a few distinctions, but not very many. Honestly, I'd prefer that a rapist get as many charges as they can, so their sentence stacks and there aren't many options for a plea deal. I don't think they want it to make any sense, as that's the nature of a loophole. If you leave something open to interpretation, it's fairly easy to worm your way out of anything. Kilkrazy wrote:Right wing, religiously inspired Republicans are against abortion on any grounds.
There isn't an insanely high rate of rape in the USA. They don't all result in pregnancy. The morning after pill can be used.
The objective is to stop abortions, not save any realistic amounts of money, and the motive is religious inspiration.
Oh right, I forgot that not everyone uses common sense. 
5470
Post by: sebster
THing is, if force is required then statutory rape no longer qualifies. Guess those 12 year old girls need to learn some restraint.
Chrysaor686 wrote:By 'Attacking coverage for abortion', they're saving themselves money. That's the only reason that they have to do so.
If private funding is to be affected, I'd be willing to bet that a few insurance companies had their hands in the bill, but from what I read, the article specifically discussed state funding for abortion.
Since Roe v Wade there's been a constant stream of legislation aimed at denying every possible abortion they can. The money given to abortion at a Federal level is utterly trivial (there's serious debate whether there's actually any money given). It won't pass, and it wouldn't do anything if it did, but that's not the point. That it's a terribly written law with incredibly vague language and horrible implications doesn't matter.
Because this bill isn't supposed to do anything but score votes among the single issue, anti-abortion voting block. That it's an ugly, hateful law which could only reduce the protection of minors is a feature, not a bug, because that's the mindset of this voting block.
7743
Post by: Chrysaor686
sebster wrote:Since Roe v Wade there's been a constant stream of legislation aimed at denying every possible abortion they can. The money given to abortion at a Federal level is utterly trivial (there's serious debate whether there's actually any money given). It won't pass, and it wouldn't do anything if it did, but that's not the point. That it's a terribly written law with incredibly vague language and horrible implications doesn't matter.
Because this bill isn't supposed to do anything but score votes among the single issue, anti-abortion voting block. That it's an ugly, hateful law which could only reduce the protection of minors is a feature, not a bug, because that's the mindset of this voting block.
Wouldn't that kill your chances with every other potential voter, though? How big of a block of citizens can that really be? How many religious nuts are really that blind?
Even the people who I know that are adamantly against abortion are still willing to let it slide if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Some of those folks really, genuinely don't care.
Other hardcore anti-abortion voters simply won't pay attention to the actual wording of the bill; it'll just be more stuff on the resume of the politicians who support it to convince those voters that the politician is their kind of guy, and that any opposing politician who voted against it wants to kill babies.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Ok, I can see paying for rape victims, but incest? Seriously?
Well, this just made my faith in the people running this country even lower. Between trying to pass bills that hurts the victims, or passing bills that no one wants.......
We need a complete overhaul of the government, don't we?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
204
Post by: inquisitor_bob
Agree with Frazzled.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Who should pay for it then?
Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?
Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...
How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...
221
Post by: Frazzled
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Who should pay for it then?
Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?
Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...
How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...
Duh its a state issue. If the people of the state support such expenditures, more power to them. Frankly its unconstitutional.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Who should pay for it then?
Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?
Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...
How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...
Duh its a state issue. If the people of the state support such expenditures, more power to them. Frankly its unconstitutional.
Your states, even sainted Texas, belong to one nation.
What your suggesting would leave women bereft of support in red states.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Who should pay for it then?
Health Insurance?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?
See above.
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.
And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right? 
29408
Post by: Melissia
Great, now I want to strangle my representative even MORE.
221
Post by: Frazzled
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frazzled wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Who should pay for it then?
Should the rape victim also pay for their counselling?
Perhaps we should privatise the police as well and the rape victim should only be able to press charges if they have the fiscal capacity...
How dare the state offer support for people who've been abused...
Duh its a state issue. If the people of the state support such expenditures, more power to them. Frankly its unconstitutional.
Your states, even sainted Texas, belong to one nation.
What your suggesting would leave women bereft of support in red states.
No.
In the US, powers are separated to the Federal government and state government. The federal government has certain enumerated powers, all others reserved to the states. The courts are reminding Obama of that currently.
If its a worthy expenditure - and I am not arguing the merits of that herein- then it should be funded at the state level, where the people and have the closest tie to their politicians.
34502
Post by: Billinator
Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.
And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?
Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!
---
But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.
Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Billinator wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.
And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?
Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!
---
But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.
Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.
Its called the US Constitution.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.
Please don't insult me by calling me a Republican.
16387
Post by: Manchu
What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?
Its a federal law. It shouldn't be spent in the first place. It should be a state expenditure.
16387
Post by: Manchu
*shrugs*
But while we're talking about ideological interpretations: Having one large central government instead of fifty large central governments is still supporting smaller government.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Frazzled wrote:Melissia wrote:Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.
Please don't insult me by calling me a Republican.
And where did I do that? Oh wait, never? Good, I'm glad your misunderstanding is settled. Dial back the hostility please! Thanks! ~Manchu
18124
Post by: R3con
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Agreed and there are enough doctors out there who will do Pro-Bono work for Rape Victims who cannot afford a abortion, also costs of the abortion can be recovered by the victim in a civil court.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Now, please don't take this the wrong way... I'm simply disagreeing with your logic here...
The average cost to raise a child to 18 is about $200k (think of how much social security this drains over the life of a child, assuming the child is put into govt sponsored child care)
The average cost of an abortion is about $500-$1000....
Now... if you're going to argue from a "why the hell am I paying for this" point of view... You should consider the differences in cost.
"why the hell am I paying for it" would make a great sound byte... but really it doesn't help the issue at all.
I want to be clear about this... PERSONALLY. I don't think cost should be discussed at all as it devalues human life. This is a much deeper issue then "why the hell am I paying for it"...
If a person can raise a child with out issue or harm to the child it should be raised. No one gives you the right to end someone else's life...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:*shrugs*
But while we're talking about ideological interpretations: Having one large central government instead of fifty large central governments is still supporting smaller government.
Likes at the USSR ... er no it doesn't...at all. Automatically Appended Next Post: frgsinwntr wrote:Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
Now, please don't take this the wrong way... I'm simply disagreeing with your logic here...
The average cost to raise a child to 18 is about $200k (think of how much social security this drains over the life of a child, assuming the child is put into govt sponsored child care)
The average cost of an abortion is about $500-$1000....
Now... if you're going to argue from a "why the hell am I paying for this" point of view... You should consider the differences in cost.
"why the hell am I paying for it" would make a great sound byte... but really it doesn't help the issue at all.
I want to be clear about this... PERSONALLY. I don't think cost should be discussed at all as it devalues human life. This is a much deeper issue then "why the hell am I paying for it"...
If a person can raise a child with out issue or harm to the child it should be raised. No one gives you the right to end someone else's life...
false dichotomy I am not paying for the kid. If I am, iot shouldn't be a federal issue.
16387
Post by: Manchu
So Frazz is the issue that you're paying for abortions period or that you're paying for ones that occur outside of the Lonestar State?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:Frazzled wrote:Melissia wrote:Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.
Please don't insult me by calling me a Republican.
And where did I do that? Oh wait, never? Good, I'm glad your misunderstanding is settled.
Dial back the hostility please! Thanks! ~Manchu
bs:
Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.
You inferred I was a 'repug' (I am assuming thats a term for Republican). I am not. remainder deleted by frazzled at moderator request.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:So Frazz is the issue that you're paying for abortions period or that you're paying for ones that occur outside of the Lonestar State?
My issue is only that its federal. If this is a state decision - aka lonestar state as you note-then my issue falls away.
34502
Post by: Billinator
Frazzled wrote:Billinator wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.
And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?
Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!
---
But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.
Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.
Its called the US Constitution.
That wasn't really my point. My point is, that it simply slips my understanding how anyone can care so less for other people. All i'm getting from what you've said so far, it that it doesn't/shouldn't concern you.
- There's an old saying that goes "it concerns you, when your neightbours house is on fire.".
Dispite Melissa's sarcastic way of expressing herself, i can only concur.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:My issue is only that its federal. If this is a state decision - aka lonestar state as you note-then my issue falls away.
On this particular aspect of the health care mess, I am in 100% agreement. (With Frazz, not with the sentiments expressed in the OP article.) Automatically Appended Next Post: Billinator wrote:That wasn't really my point. My point is, that it simply slips my understanding how anyone can care so less for other people. All i'm getting from what you've said so far, it that it doesn't/shouldn't concern you.
Frazzled's point isn't that people shouldn't be concerned with one another; rather, the competent level of authority is the state rather than the federal government. The general principle is known as subsidiarity but, in the language of the Constitution, we Americans call it federalism.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Billinator wrote:Frazzled wrote:Billinator wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.
And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?
Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!
---
But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.
Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.
Its called the US Constitution.
That wasn't really my point. My point is, that it simply slips my understanding how anyone can care so less for other people. All i'm getting from what you've said so far, it that it doesn't/shouldn't concern you.
- There's an old saying that goes "it concerns you, when your neightbours house is on fire.".
Dispite Melissa's sarcastic way of expressing herself, i can only concur.
Why are you assuming people "care less?" Are you assuming I "care less?" That would be wrong.
Indeed those who care about abortion view each of those abortions as murder. In their eyes you're a genocidal savage for even suggesting abortions. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled's point isn't that people shouldn't be concerned with one another; rather, the competent level of authority is the state rather than the federal government. The general principle is known as subsidiarity but, in the language of the Constitution, we Americans call it federalism.
Manchu use big words more gooder!
16387
Post by: Manchu
Insisting that all budgetary debate be reduced to either having sympathy for the vulnerable or having contempt for them is exactly why (1) we're in such a fiscal mess and (2) we can't seem to do anything about getting out of it.
34502
Post by: Billinator
@Manchu
No?
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it shouldn't be a federal matter. I'm simply stating that the above quotation creeped me out.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I don't get it. He said it shouldn't be a federal issue? How is that creepy/imply he doesn't care about others?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Billinator wrote:@Manchu
No?
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it shouldn't be a federal matter. I'm simply stating that the above quotation creeped me out.
Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Are you saying that abortion == murder?
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:
Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.
Hilarious!
Or, if we wanted the survey to go differently.
Why should Frazzled pay towards the medical support of a teenage girl who's been subjected to rape and psychological terror?
All about those naughty leading words...
(Personally, telling a girl who's been subjected to that ordeal that she must now carry the seed of the creature that did that to her to term and even perhaps raise it is a horrific idea and would almost certainly see the suicide rate and rate of accidental deaths caused by young women overdosing to cause DIY abortions rise steeply. The State has no business telling her she has no choice.)
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that abortion == murder?
What's with the double equal sign?
/ignorance
Anyway, abortion being murder is a pretty commonly held belief.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Wait, I thought we were talking about what level of government should make decisions about funding abortions not whether it should be legal or not/is murder or not/etc.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that abortion == murder?
I am saying for purposes of this line of argument that, the reason government historically is steered away from making payments for abortions is that there is a fundamentally large portion of the population that views abortion = murder, and that they shouldn't have to pay for what they view as ethically and morally a capital crime.
34502
Post by: Billinator
Frazzled wrote:Billinator wrote:@Manchu
No?
Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it shouldn't be a federal matter. I'm simply stating that the above quotation creeped me out.
Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.
That's one way to look at it. But if the alternative is, that a child is born into circumstances, that didn't wish for the childs existence in the first place, the child is likely to pay the price... From being born..?
But, well, we live under completely different circumstances, with completely different cultural beliefs. My intention wasn't to frame you as a bad person. And you've made it clear, that there's a misunderstanding at hand. But stating that "why the hell am i paying for it in the first place?" gave the whole a different tone of light on my end - so to speak.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I think it came up organically.
Whether or not someone thinks the government should pay for Abortion is hard to separate from one's personal views on the subject.
221
Post by: Frazzled
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.
Hilarious!
Or, if we wanted the survey to go differently.
Why should Frazzled pay towards the medical support of a teenage girl who's been subjected to rape and psychological terror?
All about those naughty leading words...
(Personally, telling a girl who's been subjected to that ordeal that she must now carry the seed of the creature that did that to her to term and even perhaps raise it is a horrific idea and would almost certainly see the suicide rate and rate of accidental deaths caused by young women overdosing to cause DIY abortions rise steeply. The State has no business telling her she has no choice.)
Never mind. This is why anyone claiming to have a serious reasioned debate in the OT are fools and idiots. Forget it. Frankly forget the OT. Forget Dakka.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Monster Rain wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that abortion == murder?
What's with the double equal sign?
/ignorance
Anyway, abortion being murder is a pretty commonly held belief.
C++ programming.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Monster Rain wrote:I think it came up organically.
Whether or not someone thinks the government should pay for Abortion is hard to separate from one's personal views on the subject.
Sure but the issue at hand (or so I thought) was whether the state or federal government should be responsible for funding it (if at all). So, regardless of whether you think it should be legal -- because it is and we have to deal with that fact no matter how we feel about it -- what is the next step?
- Is abortion legal? Yes, check, no more debate on this matter required, thanks!
- Should government consider fund abortions?
- If so, should this consideration be a matter for the states or for the federal government?
34502
Post by: Billinator
Okay, seriously, tone it down!!
- It's fine to argue, and get into heated debates, but come on! Don't pack-gank a guy with ironic slur. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:
C++ programming.
Don't you dare C++'ing your arguments into our brains! 
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.
Indeed. Next thing you know, you'll be paying to illegally invade countries or rounding up persons of a specific faith and putting them in camps and..e.rrmm..oohh .. hang on.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Frazzled wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.
Hilarious!
Or, if we wanted the survey to go differently.
Why should Frazzled pay towards the medical support of a teenage girl who's been subjected to rape and psychological terror?
All about those naughty leading words...
(Personally, telling a girl who's been subjected to that ordeal that she must now carry the seed of the creature that did that to her to term and even perhaps raise it is a horrific idea and would almost certainly see the suicide rate and rate of accidental deaths caused by young women overdosing to cause DIY abortions rise steeply. The State has no business telling her she has no choice.)
Never mind. This is why anyone claiming to have a serious reasioned debate in the OT are fools and idiots. Forget it. Frankly forget the OT. Forget Dakka.
But my point was for argument's sake as well...?
The wording using phrases like murder and Hitler in asking a question are extremely leading. It's like the two surveys I once made for a sociology class, I made them about fox hunting. On the one, I posted a picture of an adorable fox cub and then a picture of a fox being ripped up by dogs and a box for people to indicate if they though fox hunting was a 'barbaric and horrific crime that must be stopped!' and on the other survey, I simply had the question 'do you believe in pest control for vermin?'
It's all in the wording, I'm sorry you reacted so strongly to my post, it was merely illustrating that point.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
:p and here i was about to say Frazzled won be over with the idea that it should be a state issue.
But... rape should still not be redefined for the purposes of paying less money to victims
16387
Post by: Manchu
Here's something I don't understand: if public funding for abortions is only available to rape and incest survivors, does a woman need to prove that she is in fact a rape or incest survivor before receiving the care and, if so, how does she go about doing so?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes, an interesting point.
According to Wikipedia, 1% of abortions were performed for reasons of rape or incest in 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions
The rate of rape is extremely difficult to understand, since it is essentially a self-reported crime, but relatively few victims report it, and the conviction rate is low. These last two points are somewhat related.
Wikipeds says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States_of_America#Rape_statistics
I couldn’t find any information on how raped women are required to prove it in order to get a free abortion.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Id rather have the tax payers pay for a 13 y/o girl to have an abortion then to keep her pregnant. Im sorry, but I was barely (and I mean BARELY) able to provide for my son when he was born, and I was 20.
Thats really a scary thing for them to try and pull
16387
Post by: Manchu
I pose the question because if there is some kind of proof requirement then there will have to be a definition of the thing to be proven -- in which case you would need to rely on the state criminal codes. And what else would be needed? A conviction? This can't be the case. Even if we might not need to know exactly who (as a matter of law) the rapist is, how are we going to declare whether a girl has been raped? What doctor is going to be able to say to a woman who claims to have been raped "no, you weren't." The idea that publicly funded abortions could be limited to survivors of rape and incest is farcical. Anyone can claim to be pregnant as a result of rape, in which case anyone can have a publicly-funded abortion. So much for a "narrow exception."
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Oh god I didnt think of incest on that one. Seriously, under what they are wanting to pass, most incest rapes are not forced, it usually just happens. And according to this that girl would have to pay for it? 
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
It's also silly because convictions can take several months in some cases; it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for the baby to have been born before it is officially proven that a rape took place.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@MR: Mentioning convictions was just puffery on my part. When someone is raped, we don't have to know who raped them to know that they were raped.
But what do we have to know in order to know -- for the purposes of meeting the requirements for a publicly funded abortion -- that they were raped? Who decides that a pregnant woman was raped and how?
@KingC: The trouble with "forcible" in this (legal) context is that it doesn't mean anything at all yet, not that it necessarily means violent or whatever definition we'd give it in everyday conversation.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Manchu wrote:I pose the question because if there is some kind of proof requirement then there will have to be a definition of the thing to be proven -- in which case you would need to rely on the state criminal codes. And what else would be needed? A conviction? This can't be the case. Even if we might not need to know exactly who (as a matter of law) the rapist is, how are we going to declare whether a girl has been raped? What doctor is going to be able to say to a woman who claims to have been raped "no, you weren't." The idea that publicly funded abortions could be limited to survivors of rape and incest is farcical. Anyone can claim to be pregnant as a result of rape, in which case anyone can have a publicly-funded abortion. So much for a "narrow exception."
I completely understand what you mean. I can only imagine that only alleged victims who have reported being raped are eligible for the subsidy, and they probably have to present with rape symptoms. The authorities then wait six weeks, give a pregnancy test and offer an abortion if necessary. Something like that.
The proportion of publicly funded abortions is only 1% of the total anyway, so it's not like a large number of women are taking unfair advantage of the situation.
Perhaps it would be better to pass a federal law to ban all states from funding any abortions, and to ban states from banning abortions. That way the pro-life people can't complain about their tax dollars funding abortions, and the pro-choice peoples' choice is guaranteed. Charities can step in to fund abortions or childhood as their conscience suggests.
Then give the "morning after" pill to rape victims if they want it. You can buy it over the counter for £6.99 in the UK.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Just to be clear: My criticism is not aimed at what is proposed in this bill but rather at what already exists. Opponents of publicly funding abortions have every right to be concerned about the current rape and incest exception -- as far as I can see, without benefit of every having tried to get public funding for an abortion under this exception -- because it seems like a pretty obvious loophole. Also, KingC, about the word "forcible" look at the example from the article: This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.
Why the hell should any taxpayer need to fund the abortion of a preganancy that resulted from a consensual-in-fact (if not law) sexual act? As MGS noted earlier, it seems to be about how you phrase the question: "Would you deny Suzy, a thirteen-year-old penniless runaway who is pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her, the money she needs to avoid paying for her father's crimes?" Contrast this to, "Seventeen-year-old Suzy's eighteen-year-old, unemployed boyfriend, who she has dated and with whom she has been sexually active for several years, got her pregnant and she just doesn't feel like having a child right now." Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:I can only imagine that only alleged victims who have reported being raped are eligible for the subsidy, and they probably have to present with rape symptoms. The authorities then wait six weeks, give a pregnancy test and offer an abortion if necessary. Something like that.
But if this is the case, then the people who most need the benefit are not getting served. That explains the 1% rate -- which, as you point out, means it's hard to believe that many people are currently gaming the system (or it could indicate the opposite!) -- but it also means that the current exception is ineffective. Perhaps it would be better to pass a federal law to ban all states from funding any abortions, and to ban states from banning abortions.
States cannot currently ban (assuming you mean "illegalize") abortions.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I'm for the disambiguation of the term rape (which is a catchall term for virtually any sex crime at this point, it's harmful to the functionality of the laws involving it's use.) but this bill is full of holes. I'd rather have a good and comprehensive rewrite of the terminology rather then a hackneyed attempt like this.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I strongly agree with Shuma and would point out that the level of government traditionally competent to write such definitions is the state.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Whereas I believe that leaving some issues (like civil rights) up to the individual states leaves large proportions of our country's citizenry without access to needed care or justice. Some states and regions have made abortion and family planning care extremely difficult to obtain as it is.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Mannahnin: The term "state" does not refer to some group of oligarchs exepmt from the democratic process -- at least, no moreso than the term "federal" does. If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Manchu wrote:Just to be clear: My criticism is not aimed at what is proposed in this bill but rather at what already exists. Opponents of publicly funding abortions have every right to be concerned about the current rape and incest exception -- as far as I can see, without benefit of every having tried to get public funding for an abortion under this exception -- because it seems like a pretty obvious loophole.
Also, KingC, about the word "forcible" look at the example from the article: This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.
Why the hell should any taxpayer need to fund the abortion of a preganancy that resulted from a consensual-in-fact (if not law) sexual act?
As MGS noted earlier, it seems to be about how you phrase the question: "Would you deny Suzy, a thirteen-year-old penniless runaway who is pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her, the money she needs to avoid paying for her father's crimes?" Contrast this to, "Seventeen-year-old Suzy's eighteen-year-old, unemployed boyfriend, who she has dated and with whom she has been sexually active for several years, got her pregnant and she just doesn't feel like having a child right now."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I can only imagine that only alleged victims who have reported being raped are eligible for the subsidy, and they probably have to present with rape symptoms. The authorities then wait six weeks, give a pregnancy test and offer an abortion if necessary. Something like that.
But if this is the case, then the people who most need the benefit are not getting served. That explains the 1% rate -- which, as you point out, means it's hard to believe that many people are currently gaming the system (or it could indicate the opposite!) -- but it also means that the current exception is ineffective. Perhaps it would be better to pass a federal law to ban all states from funding any abortions, and to ban states from banning abortions.
States cannot currently ban (assuming you mean "illegalize") abortions.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion, then?
I am aware that states are not allowed to raise "undue" obstacles to abortion, thanks to some case I read about but can't remember the name or date. (Not Roe vs Wade.) Certain "due" obstacles have been raised, of course.
However an Amendment would seem to be a good way of stopping right wing nutters from constantly trying to roll things back.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Manchu wrote:@Mannahnin: The term "state" does not refer to some group of oligarchs exepmt from the democratic process -- at least, no moreso than the term "federal" does. If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.
I'm not particularly convinced that state legislation concerning sex law terminology is particularly more effective then national legislation. If anything it's far more likely to be beholden to the special interests of individual constituencies.
16387
Post by: Manchu
KK wrote:Perhaps a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion, then?
It is already the law of the land and even all the "right wing nutters" in the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court for the last several decades have not been able to (or really wanted to) roll it back. Despite how you guys must hear the soundbites in Old Blighty, the right to abortion is not a seriously contested in the US. Public funding of abortion is another matter. @Shuma: I don't think special interests are particularly more effective at the state level than at the federal.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Manchu wrote:If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.
I disagree. Based in part on Roe v. Wade and based in part on my preferred level of socialized medicine.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Mannahnin: I'm a strong proponent of the healthcare reform bill. I can stand the abortion exceptions to tackle the greater problems. But we're not really addressing that balance in this thread. Now the issue is whether Democrats (like myself) can stomach some modification of the abortion exceptions in order to tackle the greater problems. It helps, in my case, that I also feel that abortion (or rather, the termination of preganancies for non-medical reasons) is a social evil -- yes, it's a symptom of more radical social evils but it is also itself a social evil.
25990
Post by: Chongara
ITT Old(?) white dudes discuss something that could never possibly affect them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
I am disgusted. I'm glad I live in the Constitution State.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I'm not a Democrat, and I would prefer that no abortions were ever necessary, but I believe they are a necessary option and women everywhere need and deserve the ability to obtain them, even if the majority of the voters of their state disagree.
I believe that all people should have the right to necessary medical care, even if unable to pay for it themselves, and that abortion sometimes is necessary.
I also believe in Dr. George Tiller's reminder that we should "trust women". It's a cute little piece of rhetoric to say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be explicitly enshrined as a right in the Constitution, but I don't think it's at all far from the truth.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm not at all in favor of conflating the phrase "necessary" with "medically necessary," even for the sake of catchy slogans.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."
Abortions are strictly a women's issue. Accessibility of health care disproportionally affects minorities. White males are about as far removed from this issue as a group can be. It's like martians wanting to have an opinion on our envriomental issues.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Pure hogwash. This is like hearing that estate taxes are strictly a millionaire's issue.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Manchu wrote:I'm not at all in favor of conflating the phrase "necessary" with "medically necessary," even for the sake of catchy slogans.
Fair enough. In all honesty I think that it can be necessary without being medically necessary, and I think that the more-just course (out of multiple imperect options) in that event is to still allow at least limited funding of it via government provided programs, as with other necessary medical care.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I personally agree with you Mannahnin, especially about trying to find the best of bad options. The very first step towards getting there is understanding what the opposition is concerned about instead of hand-waving it away or jumping straight to the compassionate v. heartless rhetoric.
21196
Post by: agnosto
State's can't make abortion illegal; however, they can make the process to get one nearly as traumatic for the woman as the rape that caused the pregnancy. Case in point, the beautiful state that I live in enacted a law in 2010:
"Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims."
Another law requires women to complete a lengthy questionaire before the procedure and places them on an internet database:
"The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town."
This is the type of hogwash one can expect in a red state.
16387
Post by: Manchu
agnosto wrote:"Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims."
That is certainly a traumatic experience. I think it highlights the evil that pervades the entire matter. Women should be educated about what an abortion actually entails, including that it is the violent termination of life. It's truly difficult, however, to support this kind of thing -- which seems tantamount to punishment if not torture. Sidewalk counciling, undertaken by responsible and trained individuals, is a better option -- especially since it is not government-funded.
Even so, this law is not really on-topic.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Actually I think it's a fair point to bring up, given that folks have espoused leaving legislation and funding of this matter up to the states.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mannahnin wrote:Actually I think it's a fair point to bring up, given that folks have espoused leaving legislation and funding of this matter up to the states.
But you have to keep in mind that I would be in the minoirty of that red state. I would vote against such a law and work to overturn it once it had passed. But that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the law.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Sure. And if you lived in Mississippi in 1964 I'm sure you'd be outraged about the deaths of those civil rights workers, too. But their murders would still have been facilitated by the police and the populace.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Exactly. I'm also outraged by the various moral deliquencies perpetrated by federal employees or facilitated by federal laws -- none of which has anything to do with the competency of federal or state authority.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Chongara wrote:Manchu wrote:@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."
Abortions are strictly a women's issue. Accessibility of health care disproportionally affects minorities. White males are about as far removed from this issue as a group can be. It's like martians wanting to have an opinion on our envriomental issues.
Yet they are still part of the constituency. Once you deny a place in the political process for one select group or another based on some condition that "it doesn't affect them", you lose the legitimacy of the whole concept of modern government.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Kilkrazy wrote:Chongara wrote:Manchu wrote:@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."
Abortions are strictly a women's issue. Accessibility of health care disproportionally affects minorities. White males are about as far removed from this issue as a group can be. It's like martians wanting to have an opinion on our envriomental issues.
Yet they are still part of the constituency. Once you deny a place in the political process for one select group or another based on some condition that "it doesn't affect them", you lose the legitimacy of the whole concept of modern government.
Easily illustrated by carrying the claim to its ludicrous but logical conclusion: there should be special taxes exacted only from women which will pay for publicly-funded abortions
241
Post by: Ahtman
There were a lot of studies done over time that showed that abortion isn't this all encompassing, life destroying event that it is often made out to be. I'm not saying people are blase' about it, but they tend to just go on with their lives without it being this shadow of doom and gloom hanging over them.
The Daily show had a bit about this legislation last night, In 2006 the Federal government paid (in whole or part) for 191 abortions in which rape, mental defect, or the woman's life was in danger and it cost the taxpayers a whole two tenths of a penny per person.
I'm not certain about the argument that people who don't want something done shouldn't have to pay taxes for it becuase there are bunches of stuff that people do and don't want that we pay taxes. If we let people treat them like a buffet table either taxes for each thing would go up exorbitantly or nothing would get funded.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Ahtman: I'm not saying that individuals should be able to opt out of taxes. I'm saying that polities should be able to democratically decide how funds should be spent.
About your hypothetical studies: I would guess that there will one day be studies to show how abortion has created missing segments of demographics, especially among certain minorities that might otherwise have much larger populations.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Ahtman wrote:
I'm not certain about the argument that people who don't want something done shouldn't have to pay taxes for it becuase there are bunches of stuff that people do and don't want that we pay taxes. If we let people treat them like a buffet table either taxes for each thing would go up exorbitantly or nothing would get funded.
Agreed, I'm sure there were a fair few who objected to the war in Iraq, I wonder how much each of them spent on that?
16387
Post by: Manchu
The decision to deploy our military in Iraq was made by the competent authorities. I really think there's some issue-twisting going on here.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Manchu wrote:Exactly. I'm also outraged by the various moral deliquencies perpetrated by federal employees or facilitated by federal laws -- none of which has anything to do with the competency of federal or state authority.
My point is that local mores led to the murder of black men and the injustice of those murders going uninvestigated and unprosecuted (the search for the civil rights workers also turned up the bodies of 7 other black men who had "gone missing" and not been seriously investigated). The State of Mississippi only ever prosecuted one of the murderers, in 2005. Only a few of the murderers were convicted of anything at the original trials, and they served between 3-10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders#Trial
The Federal Government was more capable of providing justice, in part because of its distance from local mores which sheltered murderers and functionally condoned the murder of black men. The parallel to the laws like agnosto mentioned in Oklahoma seems clear to me. The state in question (and many others) is putting an unjust and cruel burden on the women suffering in these situations. It has demonstrated its incapacity to provide appropriate legal oversight. While the Feds might screw up too, they managed to do a better job with Civil Rights than the states did, and I think the failures of many states so far demonstrate that it would be appropriate for the Feds to step in to some extent to protect women's rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:The decision to deploy our military in Iraq was made by the competent authorities. I really think there's some issue-twisting going on here.
But there are legitimate parallels. I can say I morally object to the war in Iraq, but I don't have special laws for my tax dollars not to go to supporting it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: I'm not saying that individuals should be able to opt out of taxes. I'm saying that polities should be able to democratically decide how funds should be spent.
About your hypothetical studies: I would guess that there will one day be studies to show how abortion has created missing segments of demographics, especially among certain minorities that might otherwise have much larger populations.
That is certainly happening in India illegally.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Mannahnin: No it would not be appropriate to do so. In fact, federal legislation did little to stop racial violence in the South -- and your own example is perfect evidence. Instead, racial violence has decreased only very gradually thanks to much more complicated factors than the mere passage of legislation or writing of court opinions in Washington, D.C.. Mannahnin, I think you greatly overestimate the role of the federal government in solving major social problems.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Manchu wrote:About your hypothetical studies: I would guess that there will one day be studies to show how abortion has created missing segments of demographics, especially among certain minorities that might otherwise have much larger populations.
They aren't hypothetical. Not recalling the name of every Psychological study I ever read has no bearing on the reality of their existence. Considering the human race is on track for overpopulation I don't think a few abortions are going to seem all the relevant when we start rationing food. Also, could you be more specific? What minority groups are being ravaged by abortion? Abortion is legal, it isn't an epidemic, so I don't think Asians are going to be disappearing overnight, for example.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Mannhnin wrote:Manchu wrote:The decision to deploy our military in Iraq was made by the competent authorities. I really think there's some issue-twisting going on here.
But there are legitimate parallels. I can say I morally object to the war in Iraq, but I don't have special laws for my tax dollars not to go to supporting it.
Again: Manchu wrote:I'm not saying that individuals should be able to opt out of taxes. I'm saying that polities should be able to democratically decide how funds should be spent.
Crime and public health are areas administered by the states.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
The murder of the civil rights workers in question, the outrage over it, and the Federal prosecution of the people in question after the local authorities refused to prosecute, were contributory to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders#Reaction
George Wallace might have something to say about the roles of the States and the Federal Government when it comes to civil rights, equality and justice.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:Also, could you be more specific? What minority groups are being ravaged by abortion? Abortion is legal, it isn't an epidemic, so I don't think Asians are going to be disappearing overnight, for example.
Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by abortion since Roe v. Wade, which is not surprising when you consider that they have been economically marginalized for much longer than that. If every black child who has been aborted for the last thirty eight years had actually been born, I bet American demographics would look a lot different today. Not to mention so much else that has transpired in that time . . . Automatically Appended Next Post: @Mannahnin: Federal prosecution contributed to the passage of federal law which . . . plays little enough a role in the struggle for day-to-day equality. Before we get too far out, let me just say that it's not that these laws were meaningless or contributed nothing. But they did not achieve the kind of sweeping social justice that you seem to be ascribing to them.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Manchu wrote:Ahtman wrote:Also, could you be more specific? What minority groups are being ravaged by abortion? Abortion is legal, it isn't an epidemic, so I don't think Asians are going to be disappearing overnight, for example.
Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by abortion since Roe v. Wade,
You know it isn't a disease right? I believe you are overstating the effect. Of, course since you have absolutely no data to back it up doesn't help either. I'm referring to your hypothesis that somehow African-Americans would have radically higher numbers. As for there being more abortions in the black community, I don't know, it would depend on if we are comparing numbers or percentages, ect ect. Do you have a (reliable) source that show it to be that black women are having a radically higher number of abortions?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:I believe you are overstating the effect. Of, course since you have absolutely no data to back it up doesn't help either.
As opposed to "some study I read somewhere"? Come on, there's no need for that kind of thing. Do you have a (reliable) source that show it to be that black women are having a radically higher number of abortions?
From 2006: Among women from the 39 areas for which race was reported for 2006, white women (including both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.8%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.4% and women of other racial groups for 7.8% (Table 10). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 10). Among the 29 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions by race changed little; abortions by women in the "other" racial category increased, but the percentage remained low (5.8%--7.7%) (Table 11). Among women from all racial groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but the abortion rate was higher in 2006 than in 2005; for black women, the abortion ratio was lower in 2006 than in 2005, whereas for white women and women in the "other" racial category, this measure was relatively stable during 2005--2006 (Table 11).
That's from the CDC's Abortion Surveillance document. You can find information on this going back quite a ways here. Abortion rate? Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 women in that same group.
For Whites and White Hispanics: 10.8 For Blacks: 33.9 Abortion ratio? Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 live births to women in that same racial group.
For Whites and White Hispanics: 162 For Blacks: 459
241
Post by: Ahtman
I admitted mine was, at this point unsupported, I just don't feel like searching for it. You can either treat me like a liar or realize I probably read a study somewhere. I don't really care which.
White women were 56% and black women made up 36%, which still means more white women had abortions so we are looking at a percentage of population, not raw numbers.. At this point I'm not seeing the radical difference you are claiming. It says that black women hide higher rats and apparently there is a table, where is the table? Is it an extreme difference? When I say you don't have the data, I'm not talking about abortion percentage/numbers, but for your thesis that we would have a radically higher number of African Americans. Even what you posted here doesn't really back that up. Saying there would be more people if no one ever had an abortion is damn near a tautology, but you are claiming a radical change, which I am not seeing.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I don't think you're a liar; I just don't think I've ever given you a reason to think I'm one, either.
I updated my post with the numbers you requested and their definitions.
I don't know what we'll have to do to sort out what's "radical" but for every 1000 Black children born in 2006, 459 were aborted. The preceding paragraph mentioned that these numbers have not changed much since 1997.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Manchu wrote:I don't think you're a liar; I just don't think I've ever given you a reason to think I'm one, either.
The difference is I was just relating that I had read something, not forwarding a theory.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:White women were 56% and black women made up 36%, which still means more white women had abortions so we are looking at a percentage of population, not raw numbers.
Whites make up over three quaters of the American population while Blacks make up only 12%. Black women aren't having only 12% of the abortions here. Nor are White women having 75% or more of them. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:The difference is I was just relating that I had read something, not forwarding a theory.
I thought you were only taking issue with the fact that Blacck Americans are disproportionately affected by abortion. Automatically Appended Next Post: What we can see from the numbers here is that nearly a third of the Black children that could have been born between 1997 and 2006 (not going any further for the sake of this conversation) are simply missing. When you take into consideration that Black Americans make up only 12% of the population, it doesn't take a degree in statistics to realize that the missing third is a significant population.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Something isn't quite adding up here, but I don't feel like investing the time at the moment as I have other things going on as well. Perhaps later we'll do some more discussion. I get the feeling though that you aren't really getting at the heart of your distaste. You are rationalizing or seeking justification, but aren't really getting to the heart of it.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Ahtman wrote:Something isn't quite adding up here, but I don't feel like investing the time at the moment as I have other things going on as well. Perhaps later we'll do some more discussion. I get the feeling though that you aren't really getting at the heart of your distaste. You are rationalizing or seeking justification, but aren't really getting to the heart of it.
It all adds up pretty well, he's not really rationalizing. The statistics are there to see and the poor and certain minorities (namely blacks) are disproportionately effected by laws concerning abortion. The bigger issue really isn't the moralistic values of abortion or the vague and difficult concept of abortion rights as disproportionately needed by the poor and minorities (namely blacks), since thats not really how such a personal and individual decision making process as child conception and birth really works. Either way, you're both having an odd conversation and you seem to be arguing past him.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Saying "if x amount of black kids hadn't been aborted then the world would be a different place" is a bit of a fallacy to be honest.
If billions more white people had been born then the political climate would be very different too and indeed if most massive changes like that occurred then the political climate would be different.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I would call it an imponderable.
We have little idea what the effect of such a change might have been.
241
Post by: Ahtman
ShumaGorath wrote:Ahtman wrote:Something isn't quite adding up here, but I don't feel like investing the time at the moment as I have other things going on as well. Perhaps later we'll do some more discussion. I get the feeling though that you aren't really getting at the heart of your distaste. You are rationalizing or seeking justification, but aren't really getting to the heart of it.
It all adds up pretty well, he's not really rationalizing. The statistics are there to see and the poor and certain minorities (namely blacks) are disproportionately effected by laws concerning abortion. The bigger issue really isn't the moralistic values of abortion or the vague and difficult concept of abortion rights as disproportionately needed by the poor and minorities (namely blacks), since thats not really how such a personal and individual decision making process as child conception and birth really works. Either way, you're both having an odd conversation and you seem to be arguing past him.
I wasn't meaning that part wasn't adding up. I also am not disagreeing that the poor or minorities are disproportionally effected; they typically are across the field. Admittedly the number was higher than I thought it would be. Still, it shows white women at far, far lower numbers of abortions, but since they still make up the majority of abortions they should have a higher overall number as well, yet do not. Black women, as a percentage of their community would be a larger percentage than white women, but not overall numbers, but it isn't showing that. That is what isn't quite adding up but I am not investing that much.
Maybe to be more clear. Assuming 100 women, 56 white women had an abortion and 36 black women had an abortion. That means that more white women than black women had an abortion. Now, if we look at population and say that there are 1000 white people and 200 black people we see that the per capita is very different and that there is a much grteater effect. The numbers above though, after showing that overall more white women have abortions, that black women are still leading in everything anyway. Something seems off about that. I'll go over it later more carefully. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:I would call it an imponderable.
We have little idea what the effect of such a change might have been.
Well yeah, but I was trying to avoid the "if things had been different things would have been different" problem of history. We only know how things were, not what might have been. Or as one of my History professors liked to say, "'What if' is a fun game but poor history".
34168
Post by: Amaya
Manchu wrote:Ahtman wrote:I believe you are overstating the effect. Of, course since you have absolutely no data to back it up doesn't help either.
As opposed to "some study I read somewhere"? Come on, there's no need for that kind of thing. Do you have a (reliable) source that show it to be that black women are having a radically higher number of abortions?
From 2006: Among women from the 39 areas for which race was reported for 2006, white women (including both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.8%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.4% and women of other racial groups for 7.8% (Table 10). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 10). Among the 29 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions by race changed little; abortions by women in the "other" racial category increased, but the percentage remained low (5.8%--7.7%) (Table 11). Among women from all racial groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but the abortion rate was higher in 2006 than in 2005; for black women, the abortion ratio was lower in 2006 than in 2005, whereas for white women and women in the "other" racial category, this measure was relatively stable during 2005--2006 (Table 11).
That's from the CDC's Abortion Surveillance document. You can find information on this going back quite a ways here.
Abortion rate? Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 women in that same group.
For Whites and White Hispanics: 10.8
For Blacks: 33.9
Abortion ratio? Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 live births to women in that same racial group.
For Whites and White Hispanics: 162
For Blacks: 459
Those numbers reak of population control. If I remember correctly, the number of African-Americans is decreasing and not simply in proportion to other racial/ethnic groups.
16387
Post by: Manchu
ok, you guys are right to call me on phrasing this point as a counterfactual so let me re-phrase it so the forest is not missed for the trees. Abortion, paired with the pre-existent conditions of political and economic marginalization, is and has been ravaging the Black American population. Give the facts about who can afford to pay taxes and who cannot seem to avoid getting abortions, the idea of publicly funding abortions is tantamount to having the White middlePclass pay for the government to sponsor population control of Blacks that's why limiti
Automatically Appended Next Post:
limiting the public funding of abortion is important -- or at least one reason. I think we ought to be very careful about how we are limiting that funding, which is what I was arguing before (it seemed to me) that Ahtman suggested abortion doesn't have such a negative effect. sorry for these broken posts; I'm on my phone.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Manchu wrote: Give the facts about who can afford to pay taxes and who cannot seem to avoid getting abortions, the idea of publicly funding abortions is tantamount to having the White middlePclass pay for the government to sponsor population control of Blacks...
Seeing as abortion is made on the individuals choice I don't think your comparison to a governmental method of population control really holds up.
Not that this has any real relevance to the OP, unless the African-American rate of incest/rape can be similarily compared to the greater population.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
We established earlier in the thread that only 1% of abortions is publicly funded.
It hardly seems a white racial domination strategy that must be erased for Justice's sake.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Amaya wrote:
Those numbers reak of population control. If I remember correctly, the number of African-Americans is decreasing and not simply in proportion to other racial/ethnic groups.
Or the poorer parts of society can't afford to have more children so have more abortions?
Nah that makes too much sense its clearly a white conspiracy.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Systems of discrimination remain pervasive because they are subtle. Meanwhile, I'm well aware of double effect analysis. Responsibility can adhere regardless of intentionality. Also, we're not only talking about the current state of the but what should be. As to EF's points, abortion is not just an individual choice. pressures created by people you will never meet and may have been dead for a century have a bearing on what choices you have and how freely you can make them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@corpses: have you ever wondered why black people are overwhelmingly more poor than whites?
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Manchu wrote:Systems of discrimination remain pervasive because they are subtle. Meanwhile, I'm well aware of double effect analysis. Responsibility can adhere regardless of intentionality. Also, we're not only talking about the current state of the but what should be. As to EF's points, abortion is not just an individual choice. pressures created by people you will never meet and may have been dead for a century have a bearing on what choices you have and how freely you can make them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@corpses: have you ever wondered why black people are overwhelmingly more poor than whites?
Because of a legacy of racial discrimination and abuse over the last 200 odd years.
That isn't a conspiracy, it is just historical fact.
A conspiracy would be the big scary government somehow manipulating the black population to remain below the poverty line.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Good, then you can see that I am talking about historical facts rather than conpiracies.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Manchu wrote:Good, then you can see that I am talking about historical facts rather than conpiracies.
Oh I had no problem with what you said (other than the "What if..." thing), it was amaya's bizare population control theory I was poking holes in.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Well, I thhink Amaya has a point. We can agree that the US has a legacy of racism that persists to this day. I'm sure people have noticed these correlations before me. But no one ever seems to talk about it. Everyone seems to agree that abortion is a fine solution to handling population growth among a historically oppressed minority that remains oppressed. It's not to say that there can be no government funded abortions. But dealing with legalized abortion generally is not as simple as advancing individual liberty and justice. It is a socially destructive practice first and foremost and, although I am not at all debating whether it should remain legal, we cant lose sight of that.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Manchu wrote:Systems of discrimination remain pervasive because they are subtle. Meanwhile, I'm well aware of double effect analysis. Responsibility can adhere regardless of intentionality. Also, we're not only talking about the current state of the but what should be. As to EF's points, abortion is not just an individual choice. pressures created by people you will never meet and may have been dead for a century have a bearing on what choices you have and how freely you can make them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@corpses: have you ever wondered why black people are overwhelmingly more poor than whites?
Endemic social failure due to low rates of education and wealth spurred by black pop culture teaching values of lax education, urban warfare, tribalism, and economic self destruction. Blacks are overwhelmingly more poor then whites because of the minority culture they've developed coming off of decades of impoverishment and political disenfranchisement following slavery. Black rates of education were better in the 80's, employment was better in the 80's, crime rates were better in the 80's. There hasn't been a large scale political effort to suppress black americans, it's self inflicted social paradigms that have been doing the majority of damage over the last 30 years.
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:THing is, if force is required then statutory rape no longer qualifies. Guess those 12 year old girls need to learn some restraint.
The obvious work around is to argue that rape is intrinsically violent*, and therefore forcible by necessity. I mean, it is a violent crime, after all.
*In other words, the simple act of unwanted penetration is a violent act. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote: It is a socially destructive practice first and foremost and, although I am not at all debating whether it should remain legal, we cant lose sight of that.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm also not sure what you mean by "socially destructive".
If you mean that, in a society where human life is meant to be of paramount importance abortion tends to move the society away from such a value, then I agree.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yes, you understand what I mean by socially destructive -- at least the tip of the iceberg.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ahtman wrote:There were a lot of studies done over time that showed that abortion isn't this all encompassing, life destroying event that it is often made out to be. I'm not saying people are blase' about it, but they tend to just go on with their lives without it being this shadow of doom and gloom hanging over them.
Yeah, absolutely. In my experience there's certainly a range of experience to be spoken too. For example, my former girlfriend nearly died following her abortion, and so suffered an understandably large amount of trauma, but that's the exception; every other abortion I've been a party to has been a sort of 'meh' event once the initial shock of necessity is overcome.
34168
Post by: Amaya
ShumaGorath wrote:Manchu wrote:Systems of discrimination remain pervasive because they are subtle. Meanwhile, I'm well aware of double effect analysis. Responsibility can adhere regardless of intentionality. Also, we're not only talking about the current state of the but what should be. As to EF's points, abortion is not just an individual choice. pressures created by people you will never meet and may have been dead for a century have a bearing on what choices you have and how freely you can make them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@corpses: have you ever wondered why black people are overwhelmingly more poor than whites?
Endemic social failure due to low rates of education and wealth spurred by black pop culture teaching values of lax education, urban warfare, tribalism, and economic self destruction. Blacks are overwhelmingly more poor then whites because of the minority culture they've developed coming off of decades of impoverishment and political disenfranchisement following slavery. Black rates of education were better in the 80's, employment was better in the 80's, crime rates were better in the 80's. There hasn't been a large scale political effort to suppress black americans, it's self inflicted social paradigms that have been doing the majority of damage over the last 30 years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/blacks-smoke-marijuana-less-get-arrested-less-2010-10
I wonder how many African-Americans are in prison for smoking pot (which should be legal).
It doesn't help that white controlled media encourages and supports the gangster culture and that a significant portion of African-American role models are athletes or gangster rappers. I can't think of a positive rap album that's been wildly successful since The Score and The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill.
Ironically, African immigrants to the US are among tend to achieve a high level of education and hold higher paying jobs than their American born African-Americans.
18124
Post by: R3con
Actually after reading, I think I'd rather the Feds pay for the abortions, rather than the feds pay for support/birth/schooling of the child that was not wanted.
Abortion is cheaper.
5470
Post by: sebster
Chrysaor686 wrote:Wouldn't that kill your chances with every other potential voter, though? How big of a block of citizens can that really be? How many religious nuts are really that blind?
Even the people who I know that are adamantly against abortion are still willing to let it slide if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
That would be a big problem if this bill had a snowball in hell's chance of getting passed. It doesn't. It's just there to claim that the people who wrote it tried to do something, but were shot down by the Democrats. Vote Republican. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.
There's already a law in place banning Federal funding for abortion unless the women's life is in danger, or the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape. The bill, as worded, would remove Medicaid support for abortion in the case of incest or non-violent rape, and is designed as nothing more than a way to score easy votes from the crowd that doesn't bother to know what the law is at present, but is instead determined to be outraged at the fiction in their head. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Its a federal law. It shouldn't be spent in the first place. It should be a state expenditure.
Medicaid is a federal program. This is not going to change. Deal with this. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Never mind. This is why anyone claiming to have a serious reasioned debate in the OT are fools and idiots. Forget it. Frankly forget the OT. Forget Dakka.
You frequently complain about the tone on Dakka, but nine times out of ten you're the one bringing it down. What should that tell you? Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Also, KingC, about the word "forcible" look at the example from the article: This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.
Why the hell should any taxpayer need to fund the abortion of a preganancy that resulted from a consensual-in-fact (if not law) sexual act?
Because society considers a person at the age of 13 to be incapable of giving informed consent. As MGS noted earlier, it seems to be about how you phrase the question: "Would you deny Suzy, a thirteen-year-old penniless runaway who is pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her, the money she needs to avoid paying for her father's crimes?" Contrast this to, "Seventeen-year-old Suzy's eighteen-year-old, unemployed boyfriend, who she has dated and with whom she has been sexually active for several years, got her pregnant and she just doesn't feel like having a child right now."
They're two entirely different questions. For the record, the first would be capable of getting Medicaid support for an abortion, the latter would not. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:@Mannahnin: The term "state" does not refer to some group of oligarchs exepmt from the democratic process -- at least, no moreso than the term "federal" does. If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.
Unless people believe that people have a right to a minimum level of healthcare even if they can't afford to pay for it themselves, and that that includes the right to abort a child that was the result of rape, or that might kill the mother. In which case they would likely believe that right exists regardless of what state of the union the women is in. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Everyone seems to agree that abortion is a fine solution to handling population growth among a historically oppressed minority that remains oppressed.
Giving the individual the choice to have their child, or abort is handing the choice over to the women. That's the exact opposite of oppression.
It's not to say that there can be no government funded abortions. But dealing with legalized abortion generally is not as simple as advancing individual liberty and justice. It is a socially destructive practice first and foremost and, although I am not at all debating whether it should remain legal, we cant lose sight of that.
Only if the majority of society considerd a foetus a human life exactly equal to any other. Which is a highly dubious claim, at best.
16387
Post by: Manchu
sebster wrote:As MGS noted earlier, it seems to be about how you phrase the question: "Would you deny Suzy, a thirteen-year-old penniless runaway who is pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her, the money she needs to avoid paying for her father's crimes?" Contrast this to, "Seventeen-year-old Suzy's eighteen-year-old, unemployed boyfriend, who she has dated and with whom she has been sexually active for several years, got her pregnant and she just doesn't feel like having a child right now."
They're two entirely different questions. For the record, the first would be capable of getting Medicaid support for an abortion, the latter would not.
Is that really the case? It seems from the article that pregnancy resulting from statutory rape is currently within the gamut of publicly funded abortions. I thought making it otherwise was one aspect of what the people quoted didn't like about the Smith Bill . . . Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:Unless people believe that people have a right to a minimum level of healthcare even if they can't afford to pay for it themselves, and that that includes the right to abort a child that was the result of rape, or that might kill the mother. In which case they would likely believe that right exists regardless of what state of the union the women is in.
A minimum level of healthcare that includes abortions is not anymore a given than the majority of the population believing that a foetus is human life exactly equal to any other -- which you note is a highly dubious claim. sebster wrote:Giving the individual the choice to have their child, or abort is handing the choice over to the women. That's the exact opposite of oppression.
Collaborating with social forces in which it is basically impossible for poor women (a disproportionate number of whom are Black) to raise the children they conceive is oppression. In this context, there is no meaningfully free choice. Willful blindness to that very simple insight is astounding. The practice of abortion does not actually foster justice in society. At the very best, it replaces one injustice with another.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:I am saying for purposes of this line of argument that, the reason government historically is steered away from making payments for abortions is that there is a fundamentally large portion of the population that views abortion = murder, and that they shouldn't have to pay for what they view as ethically and morally a capital crime.
Does this mean that someone that believes the armed services to be immoral shouldn't have to pay for them?
16387
Post by: Manchu
How about we reframe that statement into a question of what the majority in a given polity disapproves of rather than on the individual basis?
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:Collaborating with social forces in which it is basically impossible for poor women (a disproportionate number of whom are Black) to raise the children they conceive is oppression. In this context, there is no meaningfully free choice. Willful blindness to that very simple insight is astounding. The practice of abortion does not actually foster justice in society. At the very best, it replaces one injustice with another.
Then the initial issue is poverty, or the absence of assistance to those that are impoverished (or presence of it), not the provision for abortion.
Manchu wrote:How about we reframe that statement into a question of what the majority in a given polity disapproves of rather than on the individual basis?
Fair enough, as that is more interesting.
If 60% of polity X believes that the military is immoral, should they have to pay for the military?
In parallel:
If 40% of polity X believes that the military is immoral, should they have to pay for the military?
Following on:
Is "I don't like X." sufficient grounds to oppose a thing?
34168
Post by: Amaya
While you may disagree with invading foreign lands and conducting covert operations, how can anyone sensibly argue against a military for national defense?
16387
Post by: Manchu
@dogma: Yep. As I said before, political and economic marginalization is the pre-existent condition of most of the women who are getting abortions. Allowing them to get abortions is not alleviating those conditions. It's my belief, although I don't have the education in sociology to back it up with a PhD thesis, that the "choice" to have an abortion is really not a choice at all but rather yet another misery that contributes to that same political and economic marginalization. Note, I am not saying that I support the illegalization of abortion. Thinking about abortion as a legal right is where we are and I know we have to deal with that. In the zero-sum game of drawing up budgets, every precious government dollar needs to go to alleviating poverty and encouraging participation in society -- not funding the decimation (actually more than decimation) of marginalized populations. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Fair enough, as that is more interesting.
If 60% of polity X believes that the military is immoral, should they have to pay for the military?
In parallel:
If 40% of polity X believes that the military is immoral, should they have to pay for the military?
Following on:
Is "I don't like X." sufficient grounds to oppose a thing?
I'm not really too concerned with percentages alone. If enough of the population can be mobilized to elect representatives that believe there should be no military then there will not be one. No, I don't think simple distaste for a thing is grounds enough to oppose it.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:Is that really the case? It seems from the article that pregnancy resulting from statutory rape is currently within the gamut of publicly funded abortions. I thought making it otherwise was one aspect of what the people quoted didn't like about the Smith Bill . . .
In the first example, you have a girl who became pregnant as a result of rape (statutory and the regular kind) and incest - she would be eligible for a Medicaid funded abortion. In the second example you have a girl who became pregnant as a result of consensual sex at a legal sexual age, she would not be eligible for a Medicaid funded abortion.
She would certainly be able to get an abortion, like anyone else, provided she was willing to pay for it herself. But federal funding for abortion is only possible in instances of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger.
]A minimum level of healthcare that includes abortions is not anymore a given than the majority of the population believing that a foetus is human life exactly equal to any other -- which you note is a highly dubious claim.
Absolutely, I didn't say that such a majority does exist or that it should. I was merely saying that if a person were to believe such things, then it would be perfectly valid to believe that society as a whole might be responsible for paying for it.
Collaborating with social forces in which it is basically impossible for poor women (a disproportionate number of whom are Black) to raise the children they conceive is oppression. In this context, there is no meaningfully free choice. Willful blindness to that very simple insight is astounding. The practice of abortion does not actually foster justice in society. At the very best, it replaces one injustice with another.
No, instead it's that your insight is couched in the assumption that a woman who has an abortion at 18 is then going to choose to not have children at 28 or 30 or whenever she's more economically capable of raising them.
The insight you're missing is that teen pregnancy reinforces the poverty trap, that many girls in poverty drop out of highschool or college to have children, when they might otherwise have pulled themselves out of the trap. By denying abortion you're denying economically disadvantaged people the choice to delay motherhood until they are economically capable, you're denying them a chance to pull themselves out of the poverty trap.
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:@dogma: Yep. As I said before, political and economic marginalization is the pre-existent condition of most of the women who are getting abortions. Allowing them to get abortions is not alleviating those conditions. It's my belief, although I don't have the education in sociology to back it up with a PhD thesis, that the "choice" to have an abortion is really not a choice at all but rather yet another misery that contributes to that same political and economic marginalization. Note, I am not saying that I support the illegalization of abortion. Thinking about abortion as a legal right is where we are and I know we have to deal with that. In the zero-sum game of drawing up budgets, every precious government dollar needs to go to alleviating poverty and encouraging participation in society -- not funding the decimation (actually more than decimation) of marginalized populations.
Its certainly not alleviating their marginalization, but it isn't helping to enforce it either. Notably, I don't think that you would consider abortion to be an oppressive force on our more enfranchised brethren.
Perhaps we're simply of separate minds here, but I don't see this as a matter of "help or hurt".
Manchu wrote:
I'm not really too concerned with percentages alone. If enough of the population can be mobilized to elect representatives that believe there should be no military then there will not be one. No, I don't think simple distaste for a thing is grounds enough to oppose it.
The percentages were arbitrary expressions of majority.
In any case, I'm more interested in the should than the will. Obviously if no one wants X, then X won't occur, but should we allow that if, for example, we know that a military is necessary? Is there a point at which the ignorant masses must be sheltered?
16387
Post by: Manchu
sebster wrote:In the second example you have a girl who became pregnant as a result of consensual sex at a legal sexual age, she would not be eligible for a Medicaid funded abortion.
I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that there are some jurisdictions in the United States (including Virginia) where age of consent is 18 and this is the extreme example that I was trying to set up. By denying abortion you're denying economically disadvantaged people the choice to delay motherhood until they are economically capable, you're denying them a chance to pull themselves out of the poverty trap.
Weak stuff. The choice to delay motherhood is not contingent on the availability of abortion. In any case, I'm not talking about denying any woman the choice to have a legal abortion. Whether or not she can afford the abortion is another matter altogether. FWIW, there seem to be two ways of approaching this: evaluating the hardships of the individual or evaluating the destruction of populations. I tend to see abortion as an issue that affects more than one pregnant woman at a time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Is there a point at which the ignorant masses must be sheltered?
No, the people must be sovereign even to their own detriment. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Perhaps we're simply of separate minds here, but I don't see this as a matter of "help or hurt."
I think that abortion is a kind of trade. You exchange one misery for another. Again, no justice enters society through abortions. Certain problems for certain people are alleviated at the expense of other issues. Life remains uncomplicated for a college-aged woman and more people on the internet are willing to post that having the government kill people before they're born is at least cheaper than having welfare programs. To use less trivial examples, a poor Black woman has one less mouth to feed on the one hand and on the other another third of the potential population of Black Americans disappear this year.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that there are some jurisdictions in the United States (including Virginia) where age of consent is 18 and this is the extreme example that I was trying to set up.
Ah, fair enough.
Weak stuff. The choice to delay motherhood is not contingent on the availability of abortion. In any case, I'm not talking about denying any woman the choice to have a legal abortion. Whether or not she can afford the abortion is another matter altogether. FWIW, there seem to be two ways of approaching this: evaluating the hardships of the individual or evaluating the destruction of populations. I tend to see abortion as an issue that affects more than one pregnant woman at a time.
We're talking about abortion, which would involve a girl who is pregnant, her only option to delay motherhood until later in life is to abort her current pregnancy. So the choice to delay motherhood is entirely dependant on her ability to gain an abortion.
And yes, this can be looked at in terms of the population or in terms of the individual. But in the frame of the economic argument you've attempted, both the individual and the mother benefit from abortion for the simple reason that one of the major causes of the poverty trap is teenage pregnancy, and given women who have become pregnant a chance to delay motherhood until they're more economically capable helps break that poverty trap, a direct benefit to the individual and the greater community.
Not that any of the above, either your argument or mine, could ever mount a case for or against abortion. Thing is, if you believe that the unborn is a human being then no economic argument could ever, nor should ever, be capable of justifying taking a human life. Nor, if you don't believe it to be a human life, could any economic argument ever be enough to justify telling a woman what she can do with her own body.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I think you logic is flawless, seb. But what you're describing is what's actually going on. And the same folks -- both in terms of individuals and populations -- are the same ones having abortions year after year with no escape from the poverty. The problem is that they're already caught in that trap, long before they can even have babies. Your example works far, far better for a White girl in college than for a Black girl who will never even see a college. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:Not that any of the above, either your argument or mine, could ever mount a case for or against abortion. Thing is, if you believe that the unborn is a human being then no economic argument could ever, nor should ever, be capable of justifying taking a human life. Nor, if you don't believe it to be a human life, could any economic argument ever be enough to justify telling a woman what she can do with her own body.
True. But people who refuse to move an inch this way or that are excluding themselves from public life. Governance requires compromise. As a matter of the law: We've already accepted that abortions, whether or not they are tantamount to murder, will legally take place. We've also already accepted that we will tell both women and men what they can and can't do with their own bodies in certain circumstances. Now given all that, we need to work out a better course -- one that acknowledges the destruction we've wrought getting this far.
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:No, the people must be sovereign even to their own detriment.
That explains quite a bit, because I'm of the opposite mind; ie. people often need to be reminded when they are doing something stupid, and subsequently forced to do something else.
Manchu wrote:
I think that abortion is a kind of trade. You exchange one misery for another. Again, no justice enters society through abortions. Certain problems for certain people are alleviated at the expense of other issues. Life remains uncomplicated for a college-aged woman and more people on the internet are willing to post that having the government kill people before they're born is at least cheaper than having welfare programs. To use less trivial examples, a poor Black woman has one less mouth to feed on the one hand and on the other another third of the potential population of Black Americans disappear this year.
I'm not seeing the necessity of misery there. No one needs to care, by necessity about the population of "similar" people that might exist.
To speak more broadly, you cannot trade one misery for another without first being miserable, and so the choice to abort a child, because it is a choice in the sense that choice can be meaningful, is not relevant to matters of justice. Its an irrelevant sort of externality, not helping, but also not hurting.
Again it seems to me that you're approaching this as though it is zero-sum.
16387
Post by: Manchu
To be honest, dogma, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Maybe it's because our viewpoints are so different or maybe I'm just not quite up to your level of discourse.
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:To be honest, dogma, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Maybe it's because our viewpoints are so different or maybe I'm just not quite up to your level of discourse.
I suppose I can break it down to two different points.
1: I don't see abortion as an intrinsically "miserable" act, because I don't see our society as one that considers human life a paramount value.
2: I don't see how abortion can be targeted as a central component of the oppression of the disenfranchised when those people that continually have them choose to place themselves in the situations that require such responses.
Perhaps we're disagreeing on what constitutes a choice?
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Oh my god. This is too stupid... And just horrible to be real. I can't believe some of the ridiculous things the republicans are putting up. This takes the cake, I think.
25139
Post by: micahaphone
While this is a ridiculous pro-life measure, it's not redefining the laws on rape, only the laws on getting government assistance for abortions. Stupid, yes. Getting criminals off the hook, no.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:I think you logic is flawless, seb. But what you're describing is what's actually going on. And the same folks -- both in terms of individuals and populations -- are the same ones having abortions year after year with no escape from the poverty. The problem is that they're already caught in that trap, long before they can even have babies. Your example works far, far better for a White girl in college than for a Black girl who will never even see a college.
Yeah, but the white girl is ending up pregnant in her teens far less often. Nor is the white girl necessarily trapped in poverty as a result, if she comes from a financially stable background she has a great deal more opportunity to return to complete her education at a later stage. I think it's pretty hard to argue that teen pregnancy is far more common And yes, offering abortion doesn't guarantee the same girl won't get pregnant down the track, and either abort or not. Nor does it mean she'll go to college, that's a pretty hard thing to achieve when you come from a disadvantaged background, so there's no guarantee she'll make anything of her life and be in a better position economically to have a child later on. But it remains a possibility for a poor and pregnant girl, that would be near impossible if she weren't able to abort, if she wanted to. True. But people who refuse to move an inch this way or that are excluding themselves from public life. Governance requires compromise. As a matter of the law: We've already accepted that abortions, whether or not they are tantamount to murder, will legally take place. We've also already accepted that we will tell both women and men what they can and can't do with their own bodies in certain circumstances. Now given all that, we need to work out a better course -- one that acknowledges the destruction we've wrought getting this far.
I really don't know what you mean by destruction. I mean, yeah, if you believe abortion is murder there's been lots of deaths, but for those of us who don't believe such, what destruction are you referring to?
16387
Post by: Manchu
@dogma: The first disconnect is that I believe in a natural morality. What a majority of the electorate thinks about anything is no kind of moral measuring stick for me. That said, I am resigned to living in a fallen world characterized not only by a diversity of interests but also by legitimate moral equivocation. I am in no way committed to establishing any kind of utopia, much less dragging the New Jerusalem right down to earth. With that out of the way, I can address your second point. Another basic tenant of my worldview is that free, individual choice is much more an abstract concept than a lived reality. The ability to self-determine tends to be achieved at the level of associations, whether families or parishes or even races and nations, rather than at the level of the individual. I don't know of anyone who has chosen to be born into certain circumstances. On the other hand, a central tenant of our cultural propaganda is that those certain circumstances are not necessarily determinative. Closely examining our society -- even in terms of our own lives -- reveals otherwise, of course. This conclusion is admittedly distressing and so there is a strong motivation to dismiss it (usually on moral grounds). So, for example, Americans of all ideological stripes can agree that no one chooses to be born disenfranchised but Americans are split as to whether people choose to remain disenfranchised. As far as I see it, the answer is "yes" and "no." The rags-to-riches myth, even insofar as it is true, requires that some people stay in their rags if anyone is to get to the riches. The fact that some do get to the riches, however, tells us that the rags are not necessarily permanent. What is obscured by the way we tell these stories, I think, is how the individual protagonist is not the only agent involved. The things between which we can choose are only available to us because other people have made other choices, and so on and so on, chasing the causal chain off into the past. All these decisions exert a kind of pressure on the individual ability to choose, not just in terms of what there is to choose between but also in terms of how choices are made. In this sense, I do not think the disenfranchised really make a decision to remain so. And I think that most of the choices available to the disenfranchised individual are ones that have no bearing on whether that person individually remains disenfranchised. Rather than approaching their severely limited choices as individuals, the disenfranchised should approach their slightly less limited choices as communities. This is the only real chance for escape from oppression that I see for such populations. Put it another way, this is their only real hope for greater freedom. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:I really don't know what you mean by destruction. I mean, yeah, if you believe abortion is murder there's been lots of deaths, but for those of us who don't believe such, what destruction are you referring to?
I mean that significant portions of the population are just missing. It's hard for me to capture this concisely. I assume you're familiar with the current missing demographic of women in China. That's the sort of thing that I am referring to. I'm not just talking about murder or even genocide. I want to avoid those terms because they tend to distract from the sobering absence of all of these people who are simply missing from our society.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:I mean that significant portions of the population are just missing. It's hard for me to capture this concisely. I assume you're familiar with the current missing demographic of women in China. That's the sort of thing that I am referring to. I'm not just talking about murder or even genocide. I want to avoid those terms because they tend to distract from the sobering absence of all of these people who are simply missing from our society.
Yeah, but for those of us who don't believe that the foetus is a life, how is it different to all the people that would have been, if only the dude hadn't worn a condom?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Sebster, you're on exactly the right track there.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:Sebster, you're on exactly the right track there.
So all the people who've been not born due to contraception are part of this social destruction you're describing?
5534
Post by: dogma
Manchu wrote:
The first disconnect is that I believe in a natural morality. What a majority of the electorate thinks about anything is no kind of moral measuring stick for me. That said, I am resigned to living in a fallen world characterized not only by a diversity of interests but also by legitimate moral equivocation. I am in no way committed to establishing any kind of utopia, much less dragging the New Jerusalem right down to earth.
Ah, I understand. I agree, majority rule is by no means a reasonable method of determining rightness. However, I also do not believe that my moral judgments are somehow indicative of a natural morality. In essence, I see it as a great game, we all have our beliefs, and we will all seek to write them onto the world; some of us will succeed, and others won't, but in the end we all die anyway.
Manchu wrote:
With that out of the way, I can address your second point. Another basic tenant of my worldview is that free, individual choice is much more an abstract concept than a lived reality. The ability to self-determine tends to be achieved at the level of associations, whether families or parishes or even races and nations, rather than at the level of the individual. I don't know of anyone who has chosen to be born into certain circumstances. On the other hand, a central tenant of our cultural propaganda is that those certain circumstances are not necessarily determinative. Closely examining our society -- even in terms of our own lives -- reveals otherwise, of course. This conclusion is admittedly distressing and so there is a strong motivation to dismiss it (usually on moral grounds).
This is ,again, an illustrative indicator of our differences. I see choices as something akin to possessions. In other words, what we do is what we choose because it is ours, and our action (unless identity is not a sensible concept, which radically changes everything). Our choices can be constrained (indeed, they are constrained by necessity), but choice itself can never be eliminated; of course, that does not mean that freedom is not sensible, as one can still differentiate between internal and external forces. Admittedly, this is a highly egocentric approach to life, but that's what white privilege will get you.
More simply, I'm not distressed that the world made me who I am, because if nothing made me, the notion of "I" becomes very difficult to process sensibly. What defines us if not others?
Manchu wrote:
So, for example, Americans of all ideological stripes can agree that no one chooses to be born disenfranchised but Americans are split as to whether people choose to remain disenfranchised. As far as I see it, the answer is "yes" and "no." The rags-to-riches myth, even insofar as it is true, requires that some people stay in their rags if anyone is to get to the riches. The fact that some do get to the riches, however, tells us that the rags are not necessarily permanent. What is obscured by the way we tell these stories, I think, is how the individual protagonist is not the only agent involved.
Yes, absolutely.
Manchu wrote:
In this sense, I do not think the disenfranchised really make a decision to remain so. And I think that most of the choices available to the disenfranchised individual are ones that have no bearing on whether that person individually remains disenfranchised.
Ah, yes, I agree. No one makes choices that are so grandiose in the sense that they choose Pepsi over Coke. However I do think there is a sense in which the disfranchised (or anyone, really) might choose to strive for grand goals. The question is what "grand" might mean given the sensible limits of all the various means of control we impose upon ourselves and each other.
For example, its always been sensible for me to pursue a college degree, but its never been sensible for me to pursue my own emirate. Someone else might, conversely, have no sense in pursuing a degree, but a lot of sense in pursuing a successful career in drug trafficking.
15594
Post by: Albatross
@Manchu:
'Tenet'.
Sorry, pet peeve.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Amaya wrote:While you may disagree with invading foreign lands and conducting covert operations, how can anyone sensibly argue against a military for national defense?
That's not really the point. If you have views on a topic, they are the views you have. If you have a vote, those views need to be taken into account by the government. Automatically Appended Next Post: @Manchu, I am finding it hard to agree with what I take to be the basis of your argument.
If my understanding is correct, you feel that if abortion had not been available, there would be a lot more black people in the USA now, leading to greater political and economic power, which would improve their lot. Thus, abortion is a social ill in several terms and should be restricted.
I have several issues with that conclusion.
Firstly, there is no reason to equate population size with power. During the Confederation, black slaves made up more than 1/3rd of the population, and it did nothing to help them get free.
A large increase in the modern black population might just lead to greater poverty, worse social exclusion, and higher crime and incarceration rates (which are already very high among black people today).
Second, free abortion is only 1% of the total, so the black women are paying for their abortions, which means they are volunteering.
You could not make any significant impact on the number of black abortions without banning it either for black women, or for all women; this would be impossible for a number of reasons.
Third, despite their high abortion rate, the live birth rate of black women is about the same as the live birth rate of white women. It would seem that black women are having as many babies as they want given the restrictions of their economic conditions.
In other words, black women use abortion as retroactive birth control. Probably due to poor quality education in family planning as in other areas of knowledge.
Altogether, I do not accept that restrictions on abortion would be possible, or an effective way of dealing with the problems facing black people. It would be better to give better contraception education, which would reduce the need for abortions.
Better education overall, leading to better jobs and greater wealth, would encourage black women to have fewer abortions if they wanted to have lots of babies. Reducing the extraordinary incarceration rate of black men would improve black political power, and provide better support for black women.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@sebster: No, I'm merely referencing the related Catholic distastes (and I don't know that it's really more complicated than that) for contraception and abortion. Sorry, I was getting tired and was amused that you'd connected the two, perhaps unintentionally.
@dogma: I will reflect deeply more on what you've posted, especially regarding choice as possession.
@Albatross: Thanks, I will try to correct that in the future.
@Kilkrazy: Restriction (beyond those currently in place) on abortions -- something I acknoweldge is a legal right in the United States -- is not something I'd advocate. I do not think withholding public funding for abortions is a meaningful restriction on that legal right, however.
I have already agreed that it is impossible to say whether a significantly larger Black population relative to the White population woud necessarily result in better living conditions and greater access to political and economic resources for Black Americans. I think the idea that abortion has improved life for Black Americans, however, to be utterly ludicrous. In my opinion, how vulnerable the Black population is to abortion relative to the White population indicates that Black Americans remain the target -- NOT incidentally -- of subtle but systematic racism that results in real poverty, real marginalization from civic life, real oppression. Is it really so unthinkable that abortion plays a role in this persistant oppression? To say that it does is not a counterfactual argument. Furthermore, to my mind, it is far more clear that abortion plays no meaningful role in alleviating such oppression.
As I said before, writing budgets is a zero-sum game. Tax dollars are scarce and precious. They should be devoted to addressing the deeper problems that afflict communities over generations (like those you mentioned) rather than pruning the generations themselves. My problem is with expanding public funding of abortion. I also have a problem with a rhetoric of abortion rights that does not look beyond the individual and the particular circumstance.
If the number of abortions funded by every level of government is only 1% that is still too many if that 1% includes any abortion that is not the result of rape or incest. Again: I am interested in how we can determine that such is the case. I am interested in what kind of circumstances can be called rape. I do not think the Smith Bill is ONLY political posturing. People with whom you or I disagree cannot simply be dismissed when the task at hand is governing. The diversity of interests should be addressed sincerely.
Uncritically assuming, as some folks seem to, that the legal right to abortion is some kind of civil rights issue whereby deep social problems will be solved and justice achieved is not only foolish but also dangerous. If I've shown nothing else, I hope that I have at least shown that this kind of assumption is actually dangerous to already dispossessed, disenfranchised, and so vulnerable populations. At the very heart of the matter for me is a strong rejection that the untempered pursuit of individual rights and liberties is truly progressive or even socially responsible.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Manchu wrote:Tax dollars are scarce and precious.
That's just hilarious and cute.
The idea that having the option of abortion has had a positive effect on the black community via allowing choice is just as possible as saying the opposite becuase neither is what happened; neither reflect reality but a dream or hope for reality. Either could be argued with equal vigor and support. Of course by focusing on ethnicity we are just holding the tail of an elephant and calling it a snake. Could just as easily turn this into a diatribe about the loss of urban power (political) blocks. Focusing one one single aspect is disingenuous and myopic. The following factors are all important, and is not a comprehensive list:
ethnicity
ethnic distribution
urban/rural/suburban
geographic location (both broad North/South) and specific (Cabrini Green, Beverly Hills)
Education
Religious makeup
Manchu wrote:No, I'm merely referencing the related Catholic distastes (and I don't know that it's really more complicated than that) for contraception and abortion
Not all Catholics think the ban on contraception is a very smart thing, a few disagree on the right to choose as well. When you get away from Catholics at all it becomes even more problematic. Why would a non-Catholic, or especially a Non-Christian, care about what Catholics want legislated?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ahtman wrote:Not all Catholics think the ban on contraception is a very smart thing, a few disagree on the right to choose as well. When you get away from Catholics at all it becomes even more problematic. Why would a non-Catholic, or especially a Non-Christian, care about what Catholics want legislated?
This wasn't the line of thought I was pursuing at all. As I said in the sentence after the one you quoted, I just found the seeming coincidence amusing.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
I love the bible thumping republicans, once a year like clockwork, me and my missus have a discussion whereby she tries to drag me over to California, and we discuss the pros and cons of leaving Yorkshire.
These idiots just make it too easy. 40% of Americans are as ignorant as the Taliban.
I don't want to move.. I hope Palin gets the presidency!
25139
Post by: micahaphone
Buddy, if she does, then she's gonna appease the Tea Party radicals by nuking your "donkey". Poor old England, how we knew thee...
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:@sebster: No, I'm merely referencing the related Catholic distastes (and I don't know that it's really more complicated than that) for contraception and abortion. Sorry, I was getting tired and was amused that you'd connected the two, perhaps unintentionally.
I was connecting the two quite intentionally, basically wondering if you were coming at this from a Catholic point of view.
So you don't agree that every person lost to successful use of contraception is a lost member of our society, but believe every abortion is. Which is your belief (assuming I've summarised it correctly) and that's fine, but you have to understand that enough people don't see that connection, to the point where the claim of 'social devastation', and hinting at other greater impacts because of this social devastation just seems odd.
|
|
