iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?
- Thread starter starsapphire
- Start date
- Status
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
On the contrary, lucky-in in vitro fertilization, many embryos are created on purpose in order to later select the most viable ones. So many "lives" are created when only a few are actually used. So they are creating life even though they know they will eventually end it.
Going by your argument, then, isn''t in vitro more barbaric than abortion? Because they''re creating life on purpose, only to destroy it, and when a woman gets an abortion, I think it''s usually safe to say she did not create life on purpose.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
It depends on when you consider life to begin. I''m sure some of the people who have spoken up already would feel that it is more barbaric, but I personally don''t believe life starts in a petri dish.. I wouldn''t consider it a life until it was in the womb and latching on. So with my definition of "life", I would say that abortion is more barbaric. This is also the reason why I don''t have a problem with stem cells.
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
Funny, rob09 suggested not discussing 'when life begins' on page 2, he was ignored. Now that the anti-choice folks got in their comments and are now facing a new question which, according to their logic, forces them to condemn another method of "destroying life" we are expected to end the conversation? Really? But it just got interesting.
I don't really care what your views are (not in a mean way, that's just the point of my belief in choice), what I have an issue with is when anyone's beliefs infringes on the rights of others. Who cares when YOU think life begins, as long as it is being applied to YOU. What another woman's beliefs are (whether you think it's a contradiction or not) and what she chooses to do with HER BODY based on those beliefs, is her right and her decision.
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
Hey, I didn''t run away. I answered the question, dammit!
But sometimes people get so caught up in controversial topics that they forget who may be lurking/affected by them. I just looked up Galateia''s last post and remembered how hurt she was. And if someone has suffered from multiple miscarriages and wants nothing more than to have those cells, they may be feeling it from the other end. So we can continue the conversation all we want as long as we know that we''re all enabling eachother.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,948
I just want to point out that the ONLY reason I brought up that point was an exercise in logic. I definitely was not trying to encourage harassment of people that have benefited from reproductive technology. But I do not believe for one minute that my question wasn't answered because it may have caused hurt feelings. It wasn't answered because it can't be answered logically. I'm not speaking about any one poster here, but in general the pro-life movement in this country doesn't really care about by product of in vitro. They don't picket the clinics, they don't pass out brochures trying to make women who need the service feel guilty. They don't have programs where they try to convince someone who is trying to conceive in this way to adopt instead (the way they have programs trying to convince an abortion candidate to give up her child for adoption). Why is this? It's not logical, it's emotional.
I think a lot of the stance against abortion has little to do with whether or not life begins at the moment of conception and a lot more to do with bias against women's sexuality. The sentiment seems to be that if a woman "plays" she should "pay." But a woman who would go through the pain and expense of in vitro is not fooling around irresponsibly. She's trying to become a *mother* -- so that's different.
Luckystar brought up "responsibility" a couple of times. As if the only women who ever need abortions are completely irresponsible and do nothing to try to prevent pregnancy in the first place? 99.9% effective means every year one woman out of one thousand will become pregnant. If lottery odds were that good I'd play every week. Sure, plenty of abortions are needed by women/couples who did not do enough to prevent it in the first place. In my experience (people I've known), the lesson of an unplanned pregnancy ending in abortion did not have to be learned twice. Why shouldn't those women have opportunity to correct their mistake? (oh, because life begins at conception unless it's for a couple who can't get pregnant any other way, then it doesn't really begin at conception, keep going with the non-logic).
Which brings us to the original topic. Why shouldn't women in foreign countries where the US funds health programs have access to health care if that may include an abortion? (oh, because I don't want to pay for that with my tax money because I believe that life starts at conception and taking the life of a defenseless embryo/fetus is somehow more unconscionable than the life of a defenseless child in a war that it's OK for my tax dollars to pay for, keep going with the non-logic).
In real life, I'm OK with accepting the non-logical emotional biases of my friends/family. As long as their opinions don't get in the way of the way things should be, I'm fine with it. So let's hear it for our democratic president's reversal of the republican administration's ban on this funding!
edited to add: I started (and finished) writing this post before this page was even created so I haven't read a lot of posts before this
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
There is no way for you or I to know how many women were using contraceptives that failed, that being their reason for getting an abortion. And like I said before, there is always the exception to the rule.
Cellini3
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 14
Vespergirl,
It has been interesting to read your posts. I fully agree about being anti-menstruation!lol! I look forward to getting to know you & many other PSers better!
I especially enjoyed your humor in response to another post on the "ribbed ring" tempted to purchase based on the joy your comment brought me!Smiling now
I understand your disdain at the use of term Prolife movement. I would find if offensive if I did not agree that life begins in the womb. I do not have issue with responsible IVF(we would have done this if I has a more stable womb and had not been adoption minded) or related fertility procedures. I do agree with snowflake or embrionic adoption, but wasn''t an ideal candidate for that either.
I am a prolifer and have concern for the lives of both the mother & unborn. By concern I mean physical, emotional as well as psychological concerns both present and that may be in the future. I am nobody special or particularly gifted mentally. Just a woman, biological parent, an adoptive parent and have a special needs child...as well as have struggled with fertility & had the pain of experiencing repeat miscarriages. So your initial post did pique my interest, even thought I knew that we would ultimately not agree on our views.
I do not agree in abortion, I also understand that legally, if that is what a woman is interested in doing it is imperative that she be accurately informed of the procedure specifics, risks and after care counseling. I''m not talking about reading a pamphlet or just signing a form, but really prepared & comfortable with her decision. No, I don''t mean sensationalism of screaming protesters or a gratuitous video. I too find these types of tactics revolting. So far this area of information seems to be lacking, by both camps.
So say, that the prolife movement is wrong, then why is such a big deal to speak up on their behalf? Speak not demean or belittle. Granted it may be annoying to those that are prochoice, but why is it so offensive to offer options to women aside from abortion? I''m talking not shaming women into or out of a decision. I''m talking education or even offering different view points much like here in this very ot forum. Perhaps federal dollars spent on this rather than on specific funds earmarked for abortions? Perhaps to fund experienced panels of women and doctors? Much like Norma Norma McCorvey & Sandra Cano do. AKA Jane Roe & baby Doe?
I mean actually performing sonograms (like may CPCs & clinics do for free or of nominal charge), not sensationalistic photos & signs. Isn''t that just presenting facts to help make an educated decision? If it is just a mass or a clump, why not show a 6, 8 or even a 12 week gestational pic or sono? This is the likely time that a woman discovers that she is pregnant & may seek options. Why not offer a sono to a woman that desires a late term or partial birth abortion?
And yes, (it must be mentioned) I would greatly appreciate not being labeled as I''m sure many others of similar views that are perhaps both prolife & believe in the God of the Bible as an under educated, hypocritical, war loving, backward thinking, out of touch, condemning & judgemental, unfeeling or insensitive zealous hater of women? Isn''t that the implied and overtly meant by several posters? Perhaps not intentionally by you Vespergirl, but certainly by others. I have attempted to remain civil as well as respectfully offering different opinion on the posed question.
There have been hypocrites, lots throughout time. Some that use the guise of religious conviction or the lack there of as a weapon to inflict judgment or hate. Can''t that be said of many members of the human race? Why are prolifers and those of religious conviction held in such disdain for being fallible?
At the end of the day regardless of personal opinion or conviction we''re just human, trying to take a stand for what she believes in and wanting our life to count for something. Isn''t that why you originally posted your question?
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
You're lucky not to know a lot people who have had abortions.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf
A report on repeat abortions from 2006. 50 percent of total abortions are repeats. I wonder what the chances of your contraceptives failing twice are? Anyone up for a little math?
That's the lack of responsibility I'm talking about.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,948
thanks Moonwater!
Luckystar, my experience is of course anecdotal. These are women that I've known over time and of course they wouldn't be representative of U.S. women. Also, the "lesson" I am talking about is getting pregnant after not using b.c. at all -- not birth control failure.
Anyway, I did not read the whole report you cited. But I did read the part included below. The last line says it all, imo:
"Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the proportion
of abortions that were repeat procedures
(45–48%, depending on the data source) was in the
middle of Tietze’s predicted range for 1983, suggesting
that most women accessing abortion services are using
contraception rather consistently."
From the report Luckystar cited:
Researchers have estimated that if a woman was
continuously sexually active, did not use contraceptives
and did not want any children, she would need to
have more than 30 abortions in her lifetime.13 Of
course, the assumptions embedded in this model do not
apply to most U.S. women: Few are continuously sexually
active between the ages of 15 and 44, and most
women want, and have, two or more children. Still,
from this perspective, it is obvious that women rely on
contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy; otherwise,
levels of repeat abortion would be far higher.
Christopher Tietze was one of the first researchers to
examine repeat abortion, and his work demonstrated
that repeat abortions would occur even among populations
with high levels of contraceptive use. For example,
assuming a 30% monthly probability of conception
when no contraception is used,† he estimated that 3% of
all women who had abortions would experience a subsequent
pregnancy within 12 months if they relied on
contraceptive methods such as the pill and exhibited
typical levels of contraceptive failure (Table 2.1 shows
perfect- and typical-use failure rates by method among
all women);14,‡ 16% would experience a subsequent
pregnancy within five years.15 If the same women were
to use a method that was “only” 90% effective—for example,
if they were inconsistent condom users—24%
would become pregnant within one year, and 82%
would become pregnant within five years. In turn, assuming
a constant abortion rate, after the first year of
abortion legalization, he estimated that 1–8% of abortions
would have occurred among women who had had
a prior abortion (depending on the level of effectiveness
of the contraceptive methods used), and that 25–75%
would have been repeat procedures after 10 years. Tietze
acknowledged that his models were imperfect, and,
for example, did not take into account that some women
who had abortions were subsequently sterilized or experienced
reduced levels of sexual activity, while others
carried subsequent unintended pregnancies to term
(see also Potter and Ford, 1976, listed in the annotated
bibliography). Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the proportion
of abortions that were repeat procedures
(45–48%, depending on the data source) was in the
middle of Tietze’s predicted range for 1983, suggesting
that most women accessing abortion services are using
contraception rather consistently.
Date: 1/29/2009 6:35:11 PM
Author: luckystar112
You're lucky not to know a lot people who have had abortions.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf
A report on repeat abortions from 2006. 50 percent of total abortions are repeats. I wonder what the chances of your contraceptives failing twice are? Anyone up for a little math?
That's the lack of responsibility I'm talking about.
Luckystar, my experience is of course anecdotal. These are women that I've known over time and of course they wouldn't be representative of U.S. women. Also, the "lesson" I am talking about is getting pregnant after not using b.c. at all -- not birth control failure.
Anyway, I did not read the whole report you cited. But I did read the part included below. The last line says it all, imo:
"Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the proportion
of abortions that were repeat procedures
(45–48%, depending on the data source) was in the
middle of Tietze’s predicted range for 1983, suggesting
that most women accessing abortion services are using
contraception rather consistently."
From the report Luckystar cited:
Researchers have estimated that if a woman was
continuously sexually active, did not use contraceptives
and did not want any children, she would need to
have more than 30 abortions in her lifetime.13 Of
course, the assumptions embedded in this model do not
apply to most U.S. women: Few are continuously sexually
active between the ages of 15 and 44, and most
women want, and have, two or more children. Still,
from this perspective, it is obvious that women rely on
contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy; otherwise,
levels of repeat abortion would be far higher.
Christopher Tietze was one of the first researchers to
examine repeat abortion, and his work demonstrated
that repeat abortions would occur even among populations
with high levels of contraceptive use. For example,
assuming a 30% monthly probability of conception
when no contraception is used,† he estimated that 3% of
all women who had abortions would experience a subsequent
pregnancy within 12 months if they relied on
contraceptive methods such as the pill and exhibited
typical levels of contraceptive failure (Table 2.1 shows
perfect- and typical-use failure rates by method among
all women);14,‡ 16% would experience a subsequent
pregnancy within five years.15 If the same women were
to use a method that was “only” 90% effective—for example,
if they were inconsistent condom users—24%
would become pregnant within one year, and 82%
would become pregnant within five years. In turn, assuming
a constant abortion rate, after the first year of
abortion legalization, he estimated that 1–8% of abortions
would have occurred among women who had had
a prior abortion (depending on the level of effectiveness
of the contraceptive methods used), and that 25–75%
would have been repeat procedures after 10 years. Tietze
acknowledged that his models were imperfect, and,
for example, did not take into account that some women
who had abortions were subsequently sterilized or experienced
reduced levels of sexual activity, while others
carried subsequent unintended pregnancies to term
(see also Potter and Ford, 1976, listed in the annotated
bibliography). Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the proportion
of abortions that were repeat procedures
(45–48%, depending on the data source) was in the
middle of Tietze’s predicted range for 1983, suggesting
that most women accessing abortion services are using
contraception rather consistently.
HollyS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,105
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
The reason that our tax dollar are paying for other countries'' abortions is the same as why we pay for all the OTHER things that we do, because there is not a critical mass of people demanding that we use our money in other ways.
The things that matter in politics are 1.) money 2.) bodies (ie, masses) 3.) public opinion
Wow, see, that was nice and non-partisan, now wasn''t it
So those of you that don''t want to pay for other people''s abortions can commiserate with those of us who didn''t and don''t want to pay for the war, with DINKS who don''t want to pay for their local failing school, and with non-religious folks who don''t think that churches should be tax exempt.
But, if you are asking me, I would rather pay $600 for Jenny from the block to have an abortion (twice) than to pay for her family on welfare for years and years, and to pay for her kid to be incarcerated for half a decade at 30K a year, or for her kids to be in the foster care system. My analysis is a rational economic one. I am not judging or casting aspersions about what you do with your body, but I agree that we have a right to critique how our money is spent... and by any measure, the abortion is probably the cheapest option.
The things that matter in politics are 1.) money 2.) bodies (ie, masses) 3.) public opinion
Wow, see, that was nice and non-partisan, now wasn''t it
So those of you that don''t want to pay for other people''s abortions can commiserate with those of us who didn''t and don''t want to pay for the war, with DINKS who don''t want to pay for their local failing school, and with non-religious folks who don''t think that churches should be tax exempt.
But, if you are asking me, I would rather pay $600 for Jenny from the block to have an abortion (twice) than to pay for her family on welfare for years and years, and to pay for her kid to be incarcerated for half a decade at 30K a year, or for her kids to be in the foster care system. My analysis is a rational economic one. I am not judging or casting aspersions about what you do with your body, but I agree that we have a right to critique how our money is spent... and by any measure, the abortion is probably the cheapest option.
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
Cellini, thanks for your thoughtful post. I am really glad that you brought up (I wish that I had brought it up myself) that even though we can debate these issues and have differences of opinion, we can still like and respect one another in the PS community. I have friends on both sides of this debate, and it really makes me listen when a woman as thoughtful as yourself presents your argument the way you did. I guess that a lot what upsets me is when I see men picketing at clinics, who simply can never understand the impact a pregnancy takes on a woman''s body and her health. I am really glad, though, that you''ve joined the debate - it''s great to have this type of intellectual discourse with fellow PSers that I like and respect (especially now that I''m a SAHM - I need to do something with this toddler-addled brain).Date: 1/29/2009 6:29:24 PM
Author: Cellini3
Vespergirl,
It has been interesting to read your posts. I fully agree about being anti-menstruation!lol! I look forward to getting to know you & many other PSers better!
I especially enjoyed your humor in response to another post on the ''ribbed ring'' tempted to purchase based on the joy your comment brought me!Smiling now
I understand your disdain at the use of term Prolife movement. I would find if offensive if I did not agree that life begins in the womb. I do not have issue with responsible IVF(we would have done this if I has a more stable womb and had not been adoption minded) or related fertility procedures. I do agree with snowflake or embrionic adoption, but wasn''t an ideal candidate for that either.
I am a prolifer and have concern for the lives of both the mother & unborn. By concern I mean physical, emotional as well as psychological concerns both present and that may be in the future. I am nobody special or particularly gifted mentally. Just a woman, biological parent, an adoptive parent and have a special needs child...as well as have struggled with fertility & had the pain of experiencing repeat miscarriages. So your initial post did pique my interest, even thought I knew that we would ultimately not agree on our views.
I do not agree in abortion, I also understand that legally, if that is what a woman is interested in doing it is imperative that she be accurately informed of the procedure specifics, risks and after care counseling. I''m not talking about reading a pamphlet or just signing a form, but really prepared & comfortable with her decision. No, I don''t mean sensationalism of screaming protesters or a gratuitous video. I too find these types of tactics revolting. So far this area of information seems to be lacking, by both camps.
So say, that the prolife movement is wrong, then why is such a big deal to speak up on their behalf? Speak not demean or belittle. Granted it may be annoying to those that are prochoice, but why is it so offensive to offer options to women aside from abortion? I''m talking not shaming women into or out of a decision. I''m talking education or even offering different view points much like here in this very ot forum. Perhaps federal dollars spent on this rather than on specific funds earmarked for abortions? Perhaps to fund experienced panels of women and doctors? Much like Norma Norma McCorvey & Sandra Cano do. AKA Jane Roe & baby Doe?
I mean actually performing sonograms (like may CPCs & clinics do for free or of nominal charge), not sensationalistic photos & signs. Isn''t that just presenting facts to help make an educated decision? If it is just a mass or a clump, why not show a 6, 8 or even a 12 week gestational pic or sono? This is the likely time that a woman discovers that she is pregnant & may seek options. Why not offer a sono to a woman that desires a late term or partial birth abortion?
And yes, (it must be mentioned) I would greatly appreciate not being labeled as I''m sure many others of similar views that are perhaps both prolife & believe in the God of the Bible as an under educated, hypocritical, war loving, backward thinking, out of touch, condemning & judgemental, unfeeling or insensitive zealous hater of women? Isn''t that the implied and overtly meant by several posters? Perhaps not intentionally by you Vespergirl, but certainly by others. I have attempted to remain civil as well as respectfully offering different opinion on the posed question.
There have been hypocrites, lots throughout time. Some that use the guise of religious conviction or the lack there of as a weapon to inflict judgment or hate. Can''t that be said of many members of the human race? Why are prolifers and those of religious conviction held in such disdain for being fallible?
At the end of the day regardless of personal opinion or conviction we''re just human, trying to take a stand for what she believes in and wanting our life to count for something. Isn''t that why you originally posted your question?
HollyS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,105
Date: 1/29/2009 7:11:07 PM
Author: trillionaire
The reason that our tax dollar are paying for other countries'' abortions is the same as why we pay for all the OTHER things that we do, because there is not a critical mass of people demanding that we use our money in other ways.
The things that matter in politics are 1.) money 2.) bodies (ie, masses) 3.) public opinion
Wow, see, that was nice and non-partisan, now wasn''t it
So those of you that don''t want to pay for other people''s abortions can commiserate with those of us who didn''t and don''t want to pay for the war, with DINKS who don''t want to pay for their local failing school, and with non-religious folks who don''t think that churches should be tax exempt.
But, if you are asking me, I would rather pay $600 for Jenny from the block to have an abortion (twice) than to pay for her family on welfare for years and years, and to pay for her kid to be incarcerated for half a decade at 30K a year, or for her kids to be in the foster care system. My analysis is a rational economic one. I am not judging or casting aspersions about what you do with your body, but I agree that we have a right to critique how our money is spent... and by any measure, the abortion is probably the cheapest option.
Geez. Did you read this before you hit submit? You just implied that the subject of an abortion would be probably: 1) a minority, 2) an unwed mother, 3) her kids would be delinquent and might wind up in prison, 4) and of course, she would be on welfare, 5) or maybe she''d be such a lousy mother, her kids would be taken from her.
And you''re a liberal?
Margaret Sanger was a liberal too. The Mother of Planned Parenthood felt that the best way to keep the non-white population in check was to advocate birth control. And legal abortions.
Feel free to disagree, as I''m sure you will. I''ll be elsewhere.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
I read that too, but I thought it was a little far fetched? No?
Not that I disagree with the fact that women use contraceptives, but that many abortions would be performed with correct and consistent use of contraceptives, all variables included, no assumptions made.
Not that I disagree with the fact that women use contraceptives, but that many abortions would be performed with correct and consistent use of contraceptives, all variables included, no assumptions made.
Also, it is noted later (in the actual data, not hypothetical data) that those who had repeat abortions were less likely to admit that that they didn''t use contraceptives, which is understandable.
vespergirl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,497
Trill, I echo your sentiments exactily - this is my perspective from an economic Libertarian viewpoint.Date: 1/29/2009 7:11:07 PM
Author: trillionaire
The reason that our tax dollar are paying for other countries'' abortions is the same as why we pay for all the OTHER things that we do, because there is not a critical mass of people demanding that we use our money in other ways.
The things that matter in politics are 1.) money 2.) bodies (ie, masses) 3.) public opinion
Wow, see, that was nice and non-partisan, now wasn''t it
So those of you that don''t want to pay for other people''s abortions can commiserate with those of us who didn''t and don''t want to pay for the war, with DINKS who don''t want to pay for their local failing school, and with non-religious folks who don''t think that churches should be tax exempt.
But, if you are asking me, I would rather pay $600 for Jenny from the block to have an abortion (twice) than to pay for her family on welfare for years and years, and to pay for her kid to be incarcerated for half a decade at 30K a year, or for her kids to be in the foster care system. My analysis is a rational economic one. I am not judging or casting aspersions about what you do with your body, but I agree that we have a right to critique how our money is spent... and by any measure, the abortion is probably the cheapest option.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
SarahLovesJS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,206
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
Date: 1/29/2009 7:20:28 PM
Author: HollyS
Date: 1/29/2009 7:11:07 PM
Author: trillionaire
The reason that our tax dollar are paying for other countries'' abortions is the same as why we pay for all the OTHER things that we do, because there is not a critical mass of people demanding that we use our money in other ways.
The things that matter in politics are 1.) money 2.) bodies (ie, masses) 3.) public opinion
Wow, see, that was nice and non-partisan, now wasn''t it
So those of you that don''t want to pay for other people''s abortions can commiserate with those of us who didn''t and don''t want to pay for the war, with DINKS who don''t want to pay for their local failing school, and with non-religious folks who don''t think that churches should be tax exempt.
But, if you are asking me, I would rather pay $600 for Jenny from the block to have an abortion (twice) than to pay for her family on welfare for years and years, and to pay for her kid to be incarcerated for half a decade at 30K a year, or for her kids to be in the foster care system. My analysis is a rational economic one. I am not judging or casting aspersions about what you do with your body, but I agree that we have a right to critique how our money is spent... and by any measure, the abortion is probably the cheapest option.
Geez. Did you read this before you hit submit? You just implied that the subject of an abortion would be probably: 1) a minority, 2) an unwed mother, 3) her kids would be delinquent and might wind up in prison, 4) and of course, she would be on welfare, 5) or maybe she''d be such a lousy mother, her kids would be taken from her.
And you''re a liberal?
Margaret Sanger was a liberal too. The Mother of Planned Parenthood felt that the best way to keep the non-white population in check was to advocate birth control. And legal abortions.
Feel free to disagree, as I''m sure you will. I''ll be elsewhere.
What I was highlighting is that people get in a tizzy about paying for abortions, but not other services that are effected by people''s access and ability to get abortions.
I will also note that you injected ''minorities'' into the conversation, I certainly did not. I did not say that "jenny" was unwed, nor did I say that the only reason people end up in foster care is because their parents are lousy. Those were your assumptions, they didn''t actually cross my mind.
I DID bring economics into the conversation because we were discussing "paying for other people''s abortions." Someone who can''t mobilize the money for an abortion is probably, in my estimate, more likely to end up on welfare after the birth of a child than someone who can afford the abortion.
If it makes you more comfortable, I would rather pay for Jenny''s abortion than pay for her 2 extra years of tuition in federal grants because she can only go to school part time.
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
SarahLovesJS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,206
Date: 1/29/2009 7:54:34 PM
Author: luckystar112
Date: 1/29/2009 7:28:22 PM
Author: SarahLovesJS
Date: 1/29/2009 7:24:14 PM
Author: luckystar112
But her twins are so cute!
Aw Lucky stop causing trouble! I go away for a few months and look at you!
There you are!!! I was wondering what happened to you!
Mwahaha!
WishfulThinking
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,437
Holly, she actually makes a good point, and here's why. First of all the abortions we're discussing are the ones paid for by the taxpayers. It's a hypothetical if we're discussing the domestic situation, as the Hyde Amendment forbids public money from going toward abortion procedures. In other words, people on publicly funded healthcare cannot get abortions through that system. We of course can still debate the merits of that position, but it's worth noting.Date: 1/29/2009 7:20:28 PM
Author: HollyS
Date: 1/29/2009 7:11:07 PM
Author: trillionaire
The reason that our tax dollar are paying for other countries' abortions is the same as why we pay for all the OTHER things that we do, because there is not a critical mass of people demanding that we use our money in other ways.
The things that matter in politics are 1.) money 2.) bodies (ie, masses) 3.) public opinion
Wow, see, that was nice and non-partisan, now wasn't it
So those of you that don't want to pay for other people's abortions can commiserate with those of us who didn't and don't want to pay for the war, with DINKS who don't want to pay for their local failing school, and with non-religious folks who don't think that churches should be tax exempt.
But, if you are asking me, I would rather pay $600 for Jenny from the block to have an abortion (twice) than to pay for her family on welfare for years and years, and to pay for her kid to be incarcerated for half a decade at 30K a year, or for her kids to be in the foster care system. My analysis is a rational economic one. I am not judging or casting aspersions about what you do with your body, but I agree that we have a right to critique how our money is spent... and by any measure, the abortion is probably the cheapest option.
Geez. Did you read this before you hit submit? You just implied that the subject of an abortion would be probably: 1) a minority, 2) an unwed mother, 3) her kids would be delinquent and might wind up in prison, 4) and of course, she would be on welfare, 5) or maybe she'd be such a lousy mother, her kids would be taken from her.
And you're a liberal?
Margaret Sanger was a liberal too. The Mother of Planned Parenthood felt that the best way to keep the non-white population in check was to advocate birth control. And legal abortions.
Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure you will. I'll be elsewhere.
The woman in Trill's example is likely to at least be on public assistance because if they were not on public assistance, the taxpayers wouldn't be paying for her healthcare. People who are on welfare qualify for publicly funded healthcare. Most people who are part of the welfare system or publicly funded healthcare system in the US are either older [not what we're discussing] or have kids [which is the point of this conversation]. If a woman already has children and becomes pregnant again, the addition of a new child to her family will lead to her spending less time raising the children she already has. She could be the most awesome parent in the world, but if she is working and making below the poverty line in wages and struggling to keep stuff together something tells me she might not have the time to be a good parent, no? And if she REALLY cannot afford those kids they will end up in child protective services' hands.
Also, Margret Sanger was an idiot in many ways. You definitely don't have to try to sell that position to me! I'm one of those evil feminists who studies Women's Studies and we all know and definitely learn in class that she was a nutso. That doesn't mean we agree on all counts when it comes to the merits of certain types of family planning, but we do agree on that.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
Maria, I wanted to answer your question. I am sorry if I missed it earlier. I am not and never have been Catholic so I have no idea how my view might align (or not) with theirs.
I am not 100% sure how I feel about in vitro fertilization, but I certainly won''t say that I am against it in all circumstances. I am only in favor of fertilizing the number of eggs that one is prepared to implant. I do not approve of the disposal of unused embryos, for the record. The only couple we''ve known had 3 or 4 embyros. They had a three children (one at a time) and did have that final embryo implanted because they felt it would be morally wrong to not do so. That last one resulted in miscarriage.
I really don''t know anyone personally who is against abortion but who favors the disposing of embryos from in vitro. Everyone I know is 100% consistent in those areas.
starsapphire
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 471
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
Wishful, thank you for acknowledging the Margaret Sanger problem with eugenics. I think that is kept pretty quiet these days!
I agree that it is a dilemma providing welfare for women with multiple children they cannot support. I support easy and free access to the best birth control available and free tubal ligations for those who want them. I just can''t in good conscience say I think it''s morally right to kill babies because they are being born into the home of a poor mother. But no easy solutions, I do agree.
- Status
300x240.png)