I agree this is an issue for each state to decide. I was just curious why you chose that example. OK, now I am REALLY curious. What the hell does this mean?
Without Roe, the GOP must take responsibility to care for more babies Here's the Liberal position (other than their apparent belief that all women who have sex were raped): "If I get drunk, have sex and get pregnant then you either pay for it or I'll kill it." That's part of their value system.
Because it's in the Republican platform. I'm analogizing with the sodomy laws, hence taking it in the garage.
I thought that might be it but I didn't want to go there without confirmation. If you had said taking it up the tailpipe it would have been much less ambiguous.
And hypocritical too because if you offered paid abortion for every women in exchange for elimination of welfare and other transfer payments (hey you chose to birth a poor person) they wouldn’t accept it.
Virtually all of the Left's points against restricting abortion are made in bad faith, whether we're talking about the rape/incest charade or the welfare/taking care of the born children angle. The reason why is that there is no concession we could make to attract their agreement. If we went along with a rape/incest exception or agreed to expand prenatal care or welfare, they'd still tell us to pound sand. The reason why is that those issues have nothing to do with why they support abortion rights. It's a personal sexual autonomy über alles mindset. Sexual activity is my right, and it is my right to have no consequences to my sexual decisions. It doesn't matter if I made a stupid decision in the bedroom. It's others' obligation to undo the consequences of it no matter the cost in money, blood, or both. And like I've said many times, making these kinds of judgments about whether abortion should be illegal isn't the Court's fuckin job. They are judges, not legislators.
This is the key element here. This is the sad thing. The feminist movement which brought about abortion "rights" is an attempt to give women the ability to escape responsibility for children that men have taken advantage of historically. Like many issues, people have correctly identified a problem (men shirking responsibility), but instead of holding men accountable, they have sought to give women a way to escape responsibility so that they can be "equal". The real answer is first to evangelize the country. Then hold men to the priority of sex in marriage only and Biblical morality. Then families, churches, neighborhoods, governments make sure that men don't shirk their responsibilities to their children when they attempt it. But in our amazing wisdom in secular America, we kill babies. Just kill those who can't speak out. Totally sickening and cowardly.
You're not wrong on any of this. In fact, it might be the best post you've ever done here. However, I think it's also worth noting that the men shirking responsibility issue is a little like the welfare issue. It's raised in bad faith. Suppose we agreed to massively toughen up the laws on deadbeat dads to the point that unpaid child support virtually didn't exist anymore. (I'm not sure how we'd do that, but let's suppose we did.) Would the Left then agree to major restrictions on abortion? No, they wouldn't, because that isn't the real issue either. I think it's also worth noting that though this issue is framed as a men v. women issue, in practice, it's not. Abortion protects the man from consequences as well. Obviously an abortion saves the low-life dude from child support (and embarrassment if the child was conceived in an extramarital affair), and plenty of these males (can't give them the respect of calling them men) encourage, pressure, and finance the abortion. (See Jeffrey Toobin whose most perverse act wasn't beating off on a company Zoom call, as gross as that was. Link. And how screwed up is it that his gross but relatively harmless jerk-off session got him into trouble but trying to have his child killed to protect his own *** didn't?) Very true, and we'd wildly diminish massive social and cultural problems if we didn't have non-marital sex. Hell, we'd greatly diminish a lot of them if we just made it the exception rather than the rule. Abortion is the ugliest facet of it, but there are other big ones - crime, drug abuse, child poverty, and many more. None of these problems would go completely away because we'd still be human, but we'd put one hell of a dent in all of them. And what about the problem of guys stringing women along for years and not marrying them (which of course hurts our population growth)? That would pretty much end. It's our greatest moral stain. We constantly self-flagellate over slavery and segregation, and those were terrible things. We should condemn them, but we've got a full scale holocaust of millions of innocent children put to death and thrown away like garbage. It doesn't get much more depraved than that.
Holding men responsible is very difficult at times. My ex owes me child support and she has no money. I know at least three women who have bitterly complained about the lack of support they have received from the State of Texas. One had her ex die on her; no child support; no life insurance. Yeah, it's on her that she married a loser. My position is clearly not Liberal if you have read my posts. But at the same time, I can understand why some women don't want to wait for men to do what they're responsible to do.
Women between 15-30 screw the wrong guys. After age of 40, they will screw any man with a 401k and a pulse. Yes, a gross exaggeration but not far from the truth.
They are looking to someone to help them separate from their over-involved parents. I dated someone in college who got a call (before cell phones!) every morning from her mom. I swear I got dumped one year later because my girlfriend saw me as father 2.0 who wasn’t going to help her separate from her parents (I liked her parents and I am respectful of elders in general).
I'm all for going after deadbeat dads and taking care of children when there's truly no one to take care of them. My problem is with putting children to death for it. There's just no excuse for that.
Agreed. I'm just discussing the pressure points. The high level view is this: You don't want kids? Then give hand jobs and blowjobs. Even higher level; don't sin at all until you get married. But that stuff is not going to work and we know why; most human beings are selfish and lack self-control. So then it comes down to this: Does society have an interest in the sex habits of it's citizens? Well, we know far too many people want to be bailed out for their mistakes. I'd say that is America's #1 problem right now. So if poor women repeatedly get knocked up by dead-beat to be fathers, then what should we do? Mitigate it with legal abortions or make them have those babies and continue to possibly spawn the criminal class? It's difficult. Morality is important. But the principle of morality versus the blowback of forcing people to live with their mistakes then is the price of that morality. My deal is this; I hate the sanctimony of feminists in general and particularly when it comes to abortions. They make me sick and I'll never support them politically. I hate that they are so callous towards a viable baby in the womb and it's all illustrated in the personality that is known as Hillary Clinton. She is the face of it all and that is why, amongst other reasons, I rip Liberals mercilessly.
As a good friend used to tell me, "treat a woman like ****, and she'll love you forever." Obviously that's not always true, but it often is. Some chicks want a guy to dominate. They want to date a passive weanie and push him around for the rest of his life. Getting with a chick like this is a basically an emotional death sentence. Run far, far away. You'll be miserable no matter what she looks like or what kind of nastiness she does in the bedroom. It ain't worth it. Others want a strong guy they can respect. The problem is that they sometimes don't have a healthy view of what it means to respect someone. A guy who is consistently nice to them looks weak (whether he actually is or not), and to quote Ferris Bueller, "you can't respect someone who kisses your ***." So that guy doesn't get the time of day. Instead, they go for a guy who intimidates them and even scares them a llittle. This is the type who likes to be mistreated.
Is it really difficult though? Obviously there are big problems associated with unplanned pregnancies. I've seen them in my own family. However, it simply is not morally defensible to put an innocent child to death just to mitigate those problems. Keep in mind that these are people who have done nothing wrong, and though most criminals come from single parent homes, most who come from single parent homes are not criminals (and the number who actually do something that would justify the death penalty is negligible). It isn't fair to preemptively kill them just because they might do something bad later in life.
Yeah. That is another side to the issue. These are thoughts I have had as well. Men have pushed abortion in order to escape responsibility for themselves. It's truly sad.
This is the most important element that gets so little airplay. Choices matter. Most differences in life are not about skin color, but socio-economics. Poverty produces most discrepancies and poverty is typically driven by 3-5 big decisions in life. Graduate from H.S. Don't have a baby before you are married and don't commit crimes. You accomplish those three things (which are all CHOICES anyone has) then you have a decent shot at Middle America lifestyle.
Other ladies lack self esteem so they latch on to any guy that will pay attention. That guy sees it so he can frequently tell her "you'll never find anyone else" while treating her terribly. Still others care too much about looks. Those guys can get any chick so they treat each like garage.
I think that's part of the equation. However, even when that happens, I think it's still part of an unhealthy form of respect. I think those women still like guy. I don't think this is too common. We all care about looks, but I think it's much, much easier to get a woman to deprioritize looks than it is to get a man to do it. If a guy is intelligent and funny, that'll overcome a lot. If he also makes good money, he can look like John Goodman, and few women would care. If a woman is intelligent and funny, a guy certainly likes it, but it's not going to move the needle very much.
Wasn't any commentary I saw about the SC abortion case last week. The main takeaway from the argument was the Roe Wade was on very thin ice. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all are votes to overturn it, and Kav and Barrett didn't seem to have much use for it either. Roberts sounded like he wasn't a fan of Roe's big aspect of a viability test for being the dividing line that states could not cross about anti-abortion laws, and seemed as if he though 15 weeks was fine as a limit to abortions. But it's early on - Obamacare looked like it was finished at the time of hearing, then Roberts earned his Coward John Roberts title with his backtracking on it, to avoid editorials that said bad things about him. Still, it's a far different court than in 2012, and there are 5 other Republican appointed Justices to decide cases without him, if he joins the leftist side. One school of thought, similar to what I'd written on the 2nd Amendment case, is him joining the winning side in an effort to water down a ruling. Here, the goal for him would be to "keep" Roe Wade in name, but without the viability provision of it as a hard line. Not sure how that would work or if he'd be able to convince 1-2 others to join him, but we shall see. Maybe something like OKing the Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, but not ruling on Roe. Which seems unwieldly since as above, the whole point to Roe is no bans on abortion prior to viability. But no one ever said SC rulings had to be logical or even follow the law. "Keeping" Roe, at least on paper, has a big effect, as many states, including Texas after this past Legislative session, have what are called trigger laws, where an overturning of Roe causes all abortions, save for defense of mother's life, to be outlawed. As with all big rullings, it'll take till summer to be announced.
I'd really like to see Texas come out with a free contraceptive approach. I'm not a big fan of paying for this but in my opinion this is one of those "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" issues. Many, if not most, of societies ills can be traced back to poverty and then poverty to young unprepared mothers trying to raise children they didn't plan for. 1. it just makes economic sense. lower crime expenses, lower welfare, lower assistance programs, lower drug use and on and on 2. it would blunt some of the criticism that comes from the vein of "GOP doesn't care about women". The best outcome for the woman is to never get pregnant to begin with if it is not a planned pregnancy. spending money to help make that a reality is money well spent in my opinion. we have roughly 1MM women that are likely in the "definitely not ready for a baby, but I'm having sex" category. probably half that would need/want gov help. we could make a program that offered highly discounted contraceptives. spend about $60mm and do worlds of good and preventative care.
Biden et al have NOT helped matters by basically offering monetary inducements to pop out four ankle biters every three years. I doubt that the demographic the Dems pander to would voluntarily use government-supplied contraception, even if at no charge.
yeah. I've seen all those articles about how the "child care credit" will lift so many out of poverty. Really? "out of poverty". ??? I really don't get the desire to increase our population, or any country for that matter. I get that many short term entitlement systems are predicated on the base that is being taxed always growing bigger, but you would think some smart economists would start criticizing this as a really poor way to structure a safety net. The pyramid scheme that so many have built their national systems on is doomed to fail.
I would argue that stopping unplanned pregnancy is probably second only to spending on Fire/PD as worthwhile expenses for maintaining a strong society. Women are going to have sex no matter what. just as men are. People have always had unwise sex no matter how serious the potential consequences. Always! GI's in warzones getting STD's. women in Middle East that can be stoned. Girls in India that can be "honor Killed" Spouses that cheat and cause divorce and lose their kids. ...and they always will. You Will Not make a more moral population simply because you don't want to support unwise sex choices.
BOSDe is right that people will always have irresponsible and stupid sex, and he's right that if we could prevent pregnancy from happening in these situations, it would solve a lot of problems. HiC is right that it's BS to make taxpayers cover it. I'd be willing to try BOSDe's solution, but I'm not very optimistic that it would do much. I don't think many unplanned pregnancies are truly due to the inability to pay for birth control. It simply isn't that expensive. The pregnancies likely happen because of the failure to plan and the refusal to wait even long enough to deploy a birth control method. BOSDe, I think it's worth asking this. Do we have more unplanned, single parent, or otherwise screwed up pregnancies now or before there was birth control? We know the answer. It's a screwed up culture that causes this far more than any money or cost issue.
Planned Parenthood and other groups give contraceptives free But one still has to take them. It comes back to behavior
