If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Dub, I would hope you don’t think my point is that life after birth doesn’t warrant conviction. It surely does. My whole point (which I think you understand, even if you disagree), is that my pro life stance doesn’t obligate me to accept/support any ol’ universal health care system.

But it should dictate that you accept some sort of a comprehensive social safety net, lest you reveal yourself to be a hypocrite! The unborn, both before and after their birth, benefit tremendously when such a system is in place.

Some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in South America, where abortion is illegal, but poverty is rampant. And some of the lowest abortion rates in the world are in Western Europe, where abortion is legal, but poverty is rare. I leave it up to you whether you'll draw the obvious conclusion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

But it should dictate that you accept some sort of a comprehensive social safety net, lest you reveal yourself to be a hypocrite! The unborn, both before and after their birth, benefit tremendously when such a system is in place.

Some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in South America, where abortion is illegal, but poverty is rampant. And some of the lowest abortion rates in the world are in Western Europe, where abortion is legal, but poverty is rare. I leave it up to you whether you'll draw the obvious conclusion.

Sure, you’re right that one should accept a feasible comprehensive social safety net. I didn’t think the ACA was it. If one comes along that makes sense, I can be for it.

[AUDub 11,147]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Your concerns could be valid, but let’s be clear: that’s a completely separate issue from the sanctioning of actively and deliberately snatching the life of babies inside the womb, at least for those who oppose such as a murderous action.

They’re closely tied together. I would argue that the nature of American style welfare actually encourages more abortions, particularly among women already on welfare. However, a broad social safety net and universal health care that covers the staggering costs of pre and post natal care will reduce abortions.  

Take, for instance, a poor woman here in Alabama on welfare. A women with one child on welfare assistance here gets $400ish in cash assistance a month. Now, lets be generous and assume her housing is totally subsidized, and she's on medicaid. That just leaves her having to feed, clothe, get childcare while she's at work (a requirement of welfare in many states) and send her kid to school on around $400 a month. That's pretty harsh, right? So how much would she receive in cash benefits if she were to have another child? 

$500ish.

Yes, if she had another child, and double the financial obligations, her cash payments would go up by roughly a whopping $100. Would you like to raise a child on $100 a month? 

Are we supposed to be surprised that women who are already on welfare, and who thus are struggling to raise a child on around $400 a month, would be more likely to have an abortion when faced with caring for another child, with only another $100 a month to care for them?

Of course women on welfare in this country will be more likely to abort their children! They're the people who suffer most from poverty, and can least afford more children! No welfare recipient in this country is getting the kind of support that would reduce abortions. Like I said, our welfare system actually encourages abortion since in nearly every state the amount of cash benefits per child decreases with every additional child.

Compare this woman to a woman in Western Europe. Depending on where she lives, the woman in Western Europe will receive cash benefits that, unlike the US system, pay above the poverty line and where the amount per child does not decrease with every additional child. She'll have free access to health care, free access to child care, and if she's working, a year of fully paid maternity leave.  

Is it any wonder, then, that Western Europe has an abortion rate that's way lower than our own? A woman facing an unexpected pregnancy in Western Europe is not facing the economic hardships that a similar woman would be facing under our current welfare system.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You don’t believe the right to life is a natural right.

Quit making this about women and start focusing on the life inside her.

Quit making this about women? Are you kidding me? When you grow a uterus then you can have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with theirs. I wonder how males would like it if women started regulating your penises?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

Quit making this about women? Are you kidding me? When you grow a uterus then you can have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with theirs. I wonder how males would like it if women started regulation your penises?

 

No, I don’t care about your uterus or what you do with it. I care about the life being conceived, becuase that’s what ultimately is being devalued and ignored. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They’re closely tied together. I would argue that the nature of American style welfare actually encourages more abortions, particularly among women already on welfare. However, a broad social safety net and universal health care that covers the staggering costs of pre and post natal care will reduce abortions.  

Take, for instance, a poor woman here in Alabama on welfare. A women with one child on welfare assistance here gets $400ish in cash assistance a month. Now, lets be generous and assume her housing is totally subsidized, and she's on medicaid. That just leaves her having to feed, clothe, get childcare while she's at work (a requirement of welfare in many states) and send her kid to school on around $400 a month. That's pretty harsh, right? So how much would she receive in cash benefits if she were to have another child? 

$500ish.

Yes, if she had another child, and double the financial obligations, her cash payments would go up by roughly a whopping $100. Would you like to raise a child on $100 a month? 

Are we supposed to be surprised that women who are already on welfare, and who thus are struggling to raise a child on around $400 a month, would be more likely to have an abortion when faced with caring for another child, with only another $100 a month to care for them?

Of course women on welfare in this country will be more likely to abort their children! They're the people who suffer most from poverty, and can least afford more children! No welfare recipient in this country is getting the kind of support that would reduce abortions. Like I said, our welfare system actually encourages abortion since in nearly every state the amount of cash benefits per child decreases with every additional child.

Compare this woman to a woman in Western Europe. Depending on where she lives, the woman in Western Europe will receive cash benefits that, unlike the US system, pay above the poverty line and where the amount per child does not decrease with every additional child. She'll have free access to health care, free access to child care, and if she's working, a year of fully paid maternity leave.  

Is it any wonder, then, that Western Europe has an abortion rate that's way lower than our own? A woman facing an unexpected pregnancy in Western Europe is not facing the economic hardships that a similar woman would be facing under our current welfare system.

Great post! Thank you for clear thoughts.

It’s not that I’m against just and good things that deter abortion. But I’m also not going to hop on board when someone says “universal healthcare”. As you alluded to, these things are comprehensive and thus warrant immense consideration before supporting. Likewise, if I don’t trust the government, I’m going to advocate for the non-profit sector and so on. I’m also going to support adoption and donating. 

I disagree when others assert hypocrisy on the basis that a pro lifer must, by default, accept socialized healthcare especially when the term is thrown out in a snippet. 

I oppose abortion as the active and deliberate killing of an unborn child. To me, it’s murder. Those grounds don’t operate to necessitate that I applaud and back “universal healthcare” whenever it’s tossed into a discussion. 

I think you understand my position, as I’ve sadly had to reiterate over and over again for others. I think you know me enough, and pro lifers that you know, not to write us off as hypocrites who don’t give a s*** about children after they’re born. I don’t think you could honestly say to yourself, “he’s a hypocrite and had no warrant to oppose ACA.” To me, it’s an immature and ill-perceived accusation that reflects lack of thought on behalf of the accuser.

[homersapien 11,371]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, I don’t care about your uterus or what you do with it. I care about the life being conceived, becuase that’s what ultimately is being devalued and ignored. 

 

Yeah, then you devalue and ignore the life after it's born.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, then you devalue and ignore the life after it's born.

How? By not jumping on board with every socialized healthcare system?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, I don’t care about your uterus or what you do with it. I care about the life being conceived, becuase that’s what ultimately is being devalued and ignored. 

 

Then make men start wearing condoms every time they have sex until they are prepared to financially care for that life they created. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Then make men start wearing condoms every time they have sex until they are prepared to financially care for that life they created. 

Funny.

But yeah you’re right, men are involved too and should account as well.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Funny.

But yeah you’re right, men are involved too and should account as well.

But it’s only the women whose bodies are being regulated. Men have zero accountability in this. If Roe is overturned or states regulate abortion, it’s nothing to men. You can just drop your sperm and leave without the government regulating your body. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

But it’s only the women whose bodies are being regulated. Men have zero accountability in this. If Roe is overturned or states regulate abortion, it’s nothing to men. You can just drop your sperm and leave without the government regulating your body. 

So do you want to discuss how state regulated abortion would affect men now? 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

31 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So do you want to discuss how state regulated abortion would affect men now? 

I think I made it clear that men aren’t affected. Let’s discuss your reading comprehension instead.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Then make men start wearing condoms every time they have sex until they are prepared to financially care for that life they created. 

We agree on something.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

I think I made it clear that men aren’t affected. Let’s discuss your reading comprehension instead.

Men are affected by abortion. Studies show that they often influence a woman’s decision to abort a child. For starters, men would no longer as easily be able to coerce a woman to have an abortion, should states regulate it and thus ban it in certain states. Many men are also affected psychologically when a woman has an abortion. Thus, to say it doesn’t affect men is patently false.

Let’s discuss your failure to ponder the full issue-spectrum, as you’ve just shown. Or your lack of restraint from starting another pissing match, after being presented with an irrefutable rebuttal, as I am sure will be shown in the following response from you.

You make it very difficult for others to argue with you and show respect, even if you are a woman. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Men are affected by abortion. Studies show that they often influence a woman’s decision to abort a child. For starters, men would no longer as easily be able to coerce a woman to have an abortion, should states regulate it and thus ban it in certain states. Many men are also affected psychologically when a woman has an abortion. Thus, to say it doesn’t affect men is patently false.

Let’s discuss your failure to ponder the full issue-spectrum, as you’ve just shown. Or your lack of restraint from starting another pissing match, after being presented with an irrefutable rebuttal, as I am sure will be shown in the following response from you.

You make it very difficult for others to argue with you and show respect, even if you are a woman. 

Then according to your studies are all men willing to raise the children they produce? Are all men prepared to financially provide for the life they helped create? 

You again are twisting my words for your purpose. Legally, if abortion rights are stripped for women, it doesn’t affect men. I wasn’t speaking to emotional affects of men. If a woman is forced to carry a child then she is legally obligated to care for the child even if the man refuses to support the child. 

But by all means let’s strip abortion rights from women so that we don’t hurt a man’s feelings. Nevermind women who are raped or left by a man who impregnated her. Nevermind the men who will deny parenthood. Nevermind men who won’t  financially provide for a child. 

And FTR, I don’t give one single damn about having your respect. It means nothing to me. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is good evidence you cannot stand up and hold your own in a debate - or at least you aren't willing to risk it.

You talking to me? If so, what kind of BS drivel you spewing?

[TitanTiger 20,481]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

But it’s only the women whose bodies are being regulated. Men have zero accountability in this. If Roe is overturned or states regulate abortion, it’s nothing to men. You can just drop your sperm and leave without the government regulating your body. 

I'd garnish wages for child support in a NY minute.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'd garnish wages for child support in a NY minute.

You’re one of the good guys, Titan. Your name is fitting. 

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

And FTR, I don’t give one single damn about having your respect. It means nothing to me. 

Works both ways

[AUDub 11,147]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Great post! Thank you for clear thoughts.

It’s not that I’m against just and good things that deter abortion. But I’m also not going to hop on board when someone says “universal healthcare”. As you alluded to, these things are comprehensive and thus warrant immense consideration before supporting. Likewise, if I don’t trust the government, I’m going to advocate for the non-profit sector and so on. I’m also going to support adoption and donating. 

I disagree when others assert hypocrisy on the basis that a pro lifer must, by default, accept socialized healthcare especially when the term is thrown out in a snippet. 

I oppose abortion as the active and deliberate killing of an unborn child. To me, it’s murder. Those grounds don’t operate to necessitate that I applaud and back “universal healthcare” whenever it’s tossed into a discussion. 

I think you understand my position, as I’ve sadly had to reiterate over and over again for others. I think you know me enough, and pro lifers that you know, not to write us off as hypocrites who don’t give a s*** about children after they’re born. I don’t think you could honestly say to yourself, “he’s a hypocrite and had no warrant to oppose ACA.” To me, it’s an immature and ill-perceived accusation that reflects lack of thought on behalf of the accuser.

No problem admitting the ugliness of the public/private chimera that is Obamacare. It helped tremendously with coverage, but left a lot of us wanting on cost. I hate that single payer was taken off the table (thanks, Lieberman). 

Problem is that any sort of effective universal healthcare system is going to be, by its very nature, socialized. I would love if we could fill the gap with charity, but that’s just not feasible. Taxes will go up. The benefit is that, should something happen to me and/or my wife, the net is there to catch all of us. Yes, there will be some fraud and abuse, as there is in all things, but I do believe the potential benefits outweigh those consequences. 

I would also like to streamline the adoption process, but the problem isn’t necessarily “supply” (for lack of a better term). As kids get older, particularly if they have behavioral issues, and a lot of kids in the foster system do, the odds of being adopted drop pretty dramatically.

As an aside, I wouldn’t be so flippant about Elle’s objection regarding it being about women. That is an objection with merit. The idea of the government overruling your privacy, your bodily autonomy, is an idea I find abhorrent on its face. Few invasions are more intimate than that.

I also find the killing of the unborn abhorrent. That’s why it’s a dilemma.

[homersapien 11,371]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How? By not jumping on board with every socialized healthcare system?

No, by supporting every single thing Trump has done that weakens the prospects of poor people to afford healthcare insurance or otherwise obtain services that should be available.

You can call it what you want, but if you don't support providing healthcare services to the women you would compel to give birth - along with the resulting baby - , the "pro-life" claim rings hollow and you are a hypocrite for using it.  Just tell the truth and say you are "pro-birth" and leave it at that.

I am glad you asked.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Then according to your studies are all men willing to raise the children they produce? Are all men prepared to financially provide for the life they helped create? 

You again are twisting my words for your purpose. Legally, if abortion rights are stripped for women, it doesn’t affect men. I wasn’t speaking to emotional affects of men. If a woman is forced to carry a child then she is legally obligated to care for the child even if the man refuses to support the child. 

But by all means let’s strip abortion rights from women so that we don’t hurt a man’s feelings. Nevermind women who are raped or left by a man who impregnated her. Nevermind the men who will deny parenthood. Nevermind men who won’t  financially provide for a child. 

And FTR, I don’t give one single damn about having your respect. It means nothing to me. 

That’s your argument? Ok. It doesn’t speak to the justification of stripping from the unborn their natural right to life. Unless you don’t think there is a natural right to life. Why don’t you address that point? Hmm, might be difficult huh? Thanks. I’m glad you’re getting it all out.

In other words, nevermind the unborn. “Only the women matter.” To hell with the consequences.

What point are you advancing about abortion? Becuase men-in your erroneous opinion-aren’t affected, it shouldn’t be regulated at the state level? That becuase I’m a man, somehow my view is inferior to yours on that basis? Please, inform me. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, by supporting every single thing Trump has done that weakens the prospects of poor people to afford healthcare insurance or otherwise obtain services that should be available.

You can call it what you want, but if you don't support providing healthcare services to the women you would compel to give birth - along with the resulting baby - , the "pro-life" claim rings hollow and you are a hypocrite for using it.  Just tell the truth and say you are "pro-birth" and leave it at that.

I am glad you asked.

You want me to support any universal healthcare system that the government puts forward. Why can’t you just say that?