Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 9068 times)

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.

So you think the amount of support a father provides should be legislated like these anti-choice laws?

The current legal system is completely screwed up when it comes to unborn children.

One: if you hit a pregnant woman and kill the baby she is carrying it counts as murder.

Two: that same woman could choose to abort her baby legally.

Three: That same woman can choose to run off and then demand child support legally from the father. Why do only the women have a say in whether or not they are responsible for the child? Then that same woman can go live with another guy (not get married) continue to rape the real father for child support and also be "funded" from their new BF.

Four: Men should have a say in abortion as well. That unborn child is half theirs. IMO, they should be able to take custody of the child if the mother doesn't want it and demand child support from the mother.


Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303

1. So you want to justify another killing by pointing out the injustice of another? I don;t agree with the continual wars in the Middle East, but that is completely unrelated to abortion in any way shape or form. But I'm being nonsensical? Again legality /== morality. You should not be allowed to have ownership over another person in a way which allows you to determine life or death. That is quite on par with slavery.

2. Because someones (A person brought into the world by actions of the mother) right to life supersedes someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves).

1. You changed the subject from my initial statement (that women will get abortions regardless of what this law does - only now they will be unsafe and criminalized) to an argument of morality. So since you're just ignoring my points I suppose I'll do the same.

2. I said this to Greg and I guess I need to say it again, the scope of these comments are Tim's initial post: "If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)"
Which I have now re-quoted three times.
So when you say "someones inconvenience of 9 months (which was brought on by themselves)", it just indicates you are not really following the argument.

People choose to do dumb and unsafe things all the time. Is it really the governments responsibility to prevent people from doing dumb things? NO, because there is no way to enforce that. People choose to buy guns and do evil things, people choose to eat more than the recommended dietary standards, people choose to not wear seat belts, people choose to smoke. If someone wants to try and have an abortion in an unsafe way then that's their own decision.

Now your turn to respond to my statements.

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2880
Isn't everything subjective in your worldview? If everyone is just "making it up as they go along" why hold much of an opinion on anything? In other words, if your conscience isn't anything beyond yourself, why trust it? The only thing that makes me "right" is logical consistency (if everything is subjective). Human life either has value or it doesn't. Let's not act like it does in certain situations but not in others.

Also, you probably should edit your quote a bit. It looks like I said certain things there which I didn't say.
I think there is no black and white answer to "is abortion right or wrong". But as to the topic of moral objectivity, we've had that debate in painstaking detail before, let's spare this thread the detail :D :D

At to the quoted in my post - sorry about that, I was addressing multiple people (you and Castanza) and it's difficult to get all the names in there. Castanza picked up on it however, so I don't think there was any other confusion.


Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?

Like we talked about in the other thread, if morality is subjective then no moral question is black and white. Everything is okay if the person or society says it is.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 12:30:47 PM by stahleyp »
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
Now your turn to respond to my statements.
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.

You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?

As to "people doing dumb things" - women are willing to have abortions, doctors are willing to safely perform them, and yet it's the government stepping in and forcing them to "do dumb things".

If you were truly concerned about reducing or eliminating abortions, you should be supporting accessible birth control, sexual education, etc....all the things which prevent women from needing abortions in the first place. Prohibition just doesn't work, a cursory glance at modern history will tell you that.

As to the legal system, of course it's inconsistent. That is exactly what you would expect from a common law system surrounding a very grey, very divisive issue.

To paternal rights - they end once that baby starts growing in the mother and putting her life in jeopardy. You show me one father whose life was in direct physical danger from the mother's pregnancy and he can have those rights.

The problem with pro-life arguments are they impose a rigid moral structure (designed by a man, no doubt) on a totally grey area. "A man and woman should share all risks and responsibilities 50/50". Well, no. Women get more rights during pregnancy because pregnancy is almost entirely focused on women.

As to when "life starts", when a fetus becomes a person, when it is OK to perform an abortion or not - who are you to say when it is OK? A mother must make an informed choice to the best of her ability. And sometimes it's not the best and it's a mistake, but this is a grey area and it's the best we can do.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.

Quote
As to "people doing dumb things" - women are willing to have abortions, doctors are willing to safely perform them, and yet it's the government stepping in and forcing them to "do dumb things".

Again, your completely ignoring the baby in this situation. It's a moral issue. That unborn child has rights. Just because someone is willing to do something doesn't mean it should be legal...

Quote
If you were truly concerned about reducing or eliminating abortions, you should be supporting accessible birth control, sexual education, etc....all the things which prevent women from needing abortions in the first place. Prohibition just doesn't work, a cursory glance at modern history will tell you that.
C'mon....we live in the age of the internet. Kids these days are extremely informed. Sex ed hasn't done all that much. There are studies that show both positive and negative results. Birth Control is extremely expressible and cheap. Condoms are readily available as well. Most of these things can be had for free. 

Quote
As to the legal system, of course it's inconsistent. That is exactly what you would expect from a common law system surrounding a very grey, very divisive issue.
It's unfairly and hypocritically grey. And it should be fixed.

Quote
To paternal rights - they end once that baby starts growing in the mother and putting her life in jeopardy. You show me one father whose life was in direct physical danger from the mother's pregnancy and he can have those rights.
You're extremely over emphasizing the risks associated with pregnancy. Less than 6% of women ever have any life threatening conditions during pregnancy. And a fraction of them actually die. My wife works in a NICU and will also tell you this.

Men also have a shorter life span than women and a large driving factor is the fact that we tend to work much more dangerous jobs. Men also are expected to handle the dangerous situations in life while women get a free pass. Hostage situation, fires, sinking boat, break in, robbery, draft, etc etc. For the record I'm not complaining about this. Just pointing it out. Bill Burr has a pretty funny skit on this.

Quote
The problem with pro-life arguments are they impose a rigid moral structure (designed by a man, no doubt) on a totally grey area. "A man and woman should share all risks and responsibilities 50/50". Well, no. Women get more rights during pregnancy because pregnancy is almost entirely focused on women.
A rigid moral structure (Not murdering). That same moral structure exists everywhere else in life. Yet the pro-choice argument want's to make an exception? Also, the idea of not killing another human being was not "designed by a man"

Quote
As to when "life starts", when a fetus becomes a person, when it is OK to perform an abortion or not - who are you to say when it is OK? A mother must make an informed choice to the best of her ability. And sometimes it's not the best and it's a mistake, but this is a grey area and it's the best we can do.

I think it's pretty basic biology. Life starts at conception and it's a human being from beginning to end. That is a fact. That being said I agree tat it would be impossible and ridiculous to enforce that. Personally I think that at 6 weeks (when the heart begins to beat) is when the line should be drawn. It's empirical, testable, repeatable, and observable. It gives adequate time for a pregnancy test (generally 2 weeks after) and still allows for Plan B to be used. I don't think its perfect, but I do think it's the best most reasonable solution.

It's funny to me that liberals claim to be the gatekeepers of science. Yet when rains on their subjective morality or worldview they quickly throw it out the door. Abortion and gender fluidity/homosexuality are two examples. The later of which I couldn't care less about. I just find it funny that people think they can literally do "mind over matter." But instead its "mind over biology, evolution, etc."

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
Quote
A rigid moral structure (Not murdering). That same moral structure exists everywhere else in life.
But it's not rigid and it does not exist everywhere else, as you admit in the case of rape (and I presume in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy).

So by this, sometimes it's OK to murder the baby. Other times, it's not OK.

And who decides?
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

Parsad

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8588
In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Hah! If Alabama really cared about "the most vulnerable" they wouldn't be falling behind in every social category. They'll force you to have a child you can't care for, but then won't provide education (rank: 50th), health care (rank: 46th), economic opportunity (rank: 45th), or safety from crime (rank: 45th).

It's interesting to me that it's the run-down, poorer States which support this crap. And it's usually religiously motivated. And not surprisingly, abortion bans (thanks Cardboard  ::)) is much more heavily supported by the uneducated.

C'mon LC, as someone else said earlier...being born into poverty is still better than being dead...life is unfair and if your parents are forced to live a life in eternal poverty and despair, possible mental anguish, stress, depression, and maybe looking after a special needs child that doesn't have the social services it needs, so be it.  Cheers!
No man is a failure who has friends!

Parsad

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8588


Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.


And in some cases, the law would let a child make a decision on their future after being raped...no informed decision, only that she would have to have the child.  These are the types of people that this law will affect:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/05/16/shannon-dingle-intv-rape-survivor-mxp-vpx.hln
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 10:41:02 PM by Parsad »
No man is a failure who has friends!

Castanza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Quote
A rigid moral structure (Not murdering). That same moral structure exists everywhere else in life.
But it's not rigid and it does not exist everywhere else, as you admit in the case of rape (and I presume in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy).

So by this, sometimes it's OK to murder the baby. Other times, it's not OK.

And who decides?

Whether a society has convinced itself that a baby is not a human being thus dehumanizing it and justifying murder is irrelevant. At the root of it there is not a person or society that has ever or does exist in which murder was acceptable. The societies that have partaken in brutal killings (holocaust, Incas, Aztecs, etc) have ALL found ways to justify this either through extreme religious rituals or brainwashing leaders. Point being there always has to be some extreme justification to allow it. But no society has ever thought killing for killing is acceptable. I don't believe morality is subjective. I believe it is objective and it exists outside of religious principles. But societies and cultures can choose to ignore these realities through extreme beliefs and motivations resulting in barbaric action. Societies have generally moved forward away from these extreme views, but sometimes they seem to manifest in clever ways. I can't help but see the correlation between this and what the Spartans did with their newborn children.

In thousands of clinics, dead and crushed babies are thrown into overflowing garbages cans at the pleasure of SafetyinNumbers, LC and other Liberals who pretend to want to defend the most vulnerable.

Hah! If Alabama really cared about "the most vulnerable" they wouldn't be falling behind in every social category. They'll force you to have a child you can't care for, but then won't provide education (rank: 50th), health care (rank: 46th), economic opportunity (rank: 45th), or safety from crime (rank: 45th).

It's interesting to me that it's the run-down, poorer States which support this crap. And it's usually religiously motivated. And not surprisingly, abortion bans (thanks Cardboard  ::)) is much more heavily supported by the uneducated.

C'mon LC, as someone else said earlier...being born into poverty is still better than being dead...life is unfair and if your parents are forced to live a life in eternal poverty and despair, possible mental anguish, stress, depression, and maybe looking after a special needs child that doesn't have the social services it needs, so be it.  Cheers!

I agree, this is absolutely ridiculous. Being born anywhere in the US or a handful of other developed nations is like winning the lottery. I do not understand how you can justify death by saying its better than poverty? I typically don't like to use slippery slope arguments. But if there ever was one to use, that would be it.

The highest educated states and cities also have the highest crime rates. The west coast silicon safe haven also has the highest homeless rates. But I'm not going to sit here and say these situations exist solely because they are liberal "hot zones."

A bit off topic, but I have always found it fascinating that these big tech companies push their political views and agendas very aggressively but how many of them are willing to put headquarters and branches in these "depressed" areas?  Many of these areas are depressed because they've become an economic wasteland as manufacturing has moved out due to automation, or outsourcing. Why doesn't Google, Amazon, or Facebook move in (Even to mid-sized, middle of the road economic cities)? This undoubtedly would bring other companies in, have infrastructure built and boost the area immensely. Granted it would take time for sure. But instead, they do what every other "greedy capitalist" does. They throw a few million at the areas for some publicity and call it a day. Then they continue to bash these areas and drive the public opinion of these areas further and further underground.