Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 19620 times)

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

It's an argument of morality.....it has nothing to do with social standing or economic conditions.....
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | RTX | MSGS | TPL | WFC | USB | PNC | BAC | VZ | VNO | PCYO | PLNT | ESPO | HACK


SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

And yet another example of you wanting to sweep things under the rug....Not to mention having double standards. Why shouldn't that can of worms be opened? It seems perfectly fair based on your standards of right and wrong (which apparently are completely subjective).
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | RTX | MSGS | TPL | WFC | USB | PNC | BAC | VZ | VNO | PCYO | PLNT | ESPO | HACK

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

Did you notice that none of your arguments are around the person being involuntary terminated? The person being harmed the most is being completely ignored in the decision making here.

As far as social stigma is concerned, why does that matter? I'm making a moral argument here - not an argument for convenience or social acceptance. I have no reason to believe the mother isn't terminating an innocent human life. Do you?

Sure there might be less physical trauma but I don't know about the emotional trauma. There are people who had an abortion and regret it deeply.

No one is forcing anyone into a medical vacation or anything! I believe its her body giving birth, yes? Did someone force her to get pregnant? I believe force is when someone else actually makes you to do something?

I agree that adoption should be more appealing.

On another note, do you feel that man should be required to pay child support even if he requested an abortion?

Cigar, thanks for the link. That's pretty interesting.

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party.

For the other side of the argument: I 100% agree. The woman does have autonomy over her body. The fetus is not her body though. Like I said before, it has it's own unique DNA, feet, hands etc. If what you say is true (that the fetus is just another part of the body) does it mean she has 4 feet? And two unique form of DNA? If not, what best explains it?

A good example is a tumor. The tumor is growing in the body but it's also a part of the body. What separates this and the fetus? DNA. The DNA of the tumor is mutated from the mother's dna. The fetus has unique DNA.

Many, many, many Hindu Indians eat beef. I know not a single person (of any religion) who eats people but plenty who have no problem with beef.

I have never met an Indian person (and I've met a ton born in the US and not) who gets offended if I eat a hamburger.

By the way, how did the cow get through the front door? :o
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.
Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Move over KY
A rational pregnant woman's decision making might look like this:

Do I want a child? Yes/No

If not, what options do I have?

Adoption or Abortion

Adoption:

Pro's:
-It satisfies stahleyp's moral sensibility
-You may be able to get financial help from the adoptive parents

Cons:
-All the physical trauma pregnancy and birthing entails - Essentially giving up your autonomy and health to support someone else.
-Social stigma - employers, friends, family of an unplanned pregnant
-Social stigma of giving a baby up for adoption - This can be huge for someone pursuing a professional career.
-Financial costs not covered by adoptive parents, charity, or insurance.

Abortion:

Pros:
-It is private - no one will know of the pregnancy unless you share so no social stigma.
-There is less physical trauma than pregnancy/birth
-Cost less than $1000 in the first trimester

Cons:
-You offend stahleyp's moral sensibility

Thus far, everyone in the pro-life camp has focused on adding cons on with respect to getting an abortion. These have been through restricting access through timing (heartbeat bills) or availability (ER proximity or legality) and by adding social pressure (protesting abortion, religious angle, etc.).

If the woman does not share stahleyp's moral sensibility, you have to add to the pros of the alternative: adoption. Repealing Roe will force those who do not have the means to take a "medical vacation," to resort to something unsafe or to have a baby. I will say this again: add $10M to the pro side of having an adoption and abortion will disappear. I know that won't happen, but what about instead of adding cons to abortion, you work on making adoption more appealing. If those same dollars and effort that go into the current prolife movement went into promoting the virtues of giving someone else the gift of life with an adoptable baby, the social stigma will start to disappear and the rate of abortion will drop.  Add a little financial incentive too and it will drop further. The current course of action forces the poor into a decision that is either unsafe or hurts them further physically and financially.   

It's an argument of morality.....it has nothing to do with social standing or economic conditions.....

Exactly, but your morality is not shared by everyone. Its just like the example I gave Stahley.

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party. 

Surely there is some moral argument that you can control what comes in and stays in your house. There are many Hindus that would argue with you that killing the cow is not moral. I think the pro-choice camp is in favor of letting the person most impacted having the cow in their house can make the decision about how to proceed. 
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

And yet another example of you wanting to sweep things under the rug....Not to mention having double standards. Why shouldn't that can of worms be opened? It seems perfectly fair based on your standards of right and wrong (which apparently are completely subjective).

Ok let's open the can of worms. If you go down this route, no father ever has to pay child support because he claims he wanted an abortion but the mother did not get one.

So legally, only women will be required to support the child.

And then to take it one step further, do you think this will lead to more or less abortions?
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

And yet another example of you wanting to sweep things under the rug....Not to mention having double standards. Why shouldn't that can of worms be opened? It seems perfectly fair based on your standards of right and wrong (which apparently are completely subjective).

Ok let's open the can of worms. If you go down this route, no father ever has to pay child support because he claims he wanted an abortion but the mother did not get one.

So legally, only women will be required to support the child.

And then to take it one step further, do you think this will lead to more or less abortions?

Why does the woman get a choice in being responsible or not for the child but the man doesn't? It's a double standard. By you standards the woman can have an abortion for economic reasons, but a man cannot choose to disengage from this commitment for economic reasons.

Why are you okay with legislation that forces men to do things but not women?

edit: I don't know if it will lead to more or less abortions. I bet it would lead to people having more responsible sex. But that isn't the point of that argument.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 11:33:29 AM by Castanza »
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | RTX | MSGS | TPL | WFC | USB | PNC | BAC | VZ | VNO | PCYO | PLNT | ESPO | HACK

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Move over KY

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party.

For the other side of the argument: I 100% agree. The woman does have autonomy over her body. The fetus is not her body though. Like I said before, it has it's own unique DNA, feet, hands etc. If what you say is true (that the fetus is just another part of the body) does it mean she has 4 feet? And two unique form of DNA? If not, what best explains it?

A good example is a tumor. The tumor is growing in the body but it's also a part of the body. What separates this and the fetus? DNA. The DNA of the tumor is mutated from the mother's dna. The fetus has unique DNA.

Many, many, many Hindu Indians eat beef. I know not a single person (of any religion) who eats people but plenty who have no problem with beef.

I have never met an Indian person (and I've met a ton born in the US and not) who gets offended if I eat a hamburger.

By the way, how did the cow get through the front door? :o

I have an Indian friend that is pretty touchy about the subject. There is a large percentage of the 1B Indian population that will not eat meat, more that won't eat beef, and a small group who will kill you for doing it, so...

I guess that is what I am getting at. The developing baby has separate DNA, hands, feet etc. and is sacred to you and is afforded all the rights endowed by the creator. My friend can explain exactly why hurting a cow is even worse than hurting a person. Your morality and his are based off of culture, upbringing, religion etc. Personally I am against ending a baby's life, but if that damn cow gets into my house I'm going to deal with it regardless of what my friend thinks about it.

I am not going to let his morality dictate my decision and I wouldn't force my morality on him, or a woman.   
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options