Comment Re:I appreciate the moral implications for some (Score 1) 388
And you could really argue they "had a say" if they weren't educated (oftentimes thanks to conservative abstinence-only no-contraceptive education policies, like the federal policies Bush Jr. and co. backed) and thought simply pulling out was a proper contraceptive?
Yeah. Actually, you could. As long as you give kids accurate information about what causes pregnancy, you gave them the tools to not get pregnant...So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants, that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences. So yeah, if you were told, "Keep it in your pants, and you won't get pregnant", and you decided not to keep it in your pants,
And that "keep it in your pants" philosophy of sex education is why abstinence-only education is a statistical failure; many states outright rejected it during Bush Jr.'s time despicte having to turn down federal funding in the process. "Accurate information" about what rcauses pregnancy entails exactly what one has to do to not get pregnant, and these education policies do not provide that information. HAll those kids who were told to "just keep it in their pants" are going to fuck anyway, especially in urban centers full of poor people, because the urges of puberty effortlessly surmounts abstinence education. Tell people not to fuck and they'll do it anyway. Pretending they'll keep to themselves when told is an absolute denial of human nature, and the statistics are there to prove it.
that's the choice you made, and you have to live with the consequences.
"live with the consequences"? According to who, God? Whose god? And what gives society the right to mandate this for any woman (especially when women are underrepresented in the political world)? Moralizing about punishment and proper consequences puts the cart before the horse.
And then, if the thing's not aborted, the kid's going to be born to parents that didn't want it. And that's fair to the kid? You could argue never having been born is more fair if the resultant person's completely unwanted.
You could argue that, but you probably shouldn't. Lots of people are raised (or not raised) by incompetent, unloving parents, and they do fine. If someone acts like a sociopathic asshole later in life, it's because of how they responded to the hand they were dealt.
"Doing fine" how so? Where abortion's arguably the most needed (poor inner-city people, oftentimes teenagers, who couldn't support a kid if they had one, and don't know much about what it takes to avoid conception because of bad education), those unwanted kids don't do just fine, at leasto insofar as they go on to make the same mistakes their parents did (having kids early and forgoing any chance at a career). The outlook is far from rosy for those unwated who enter into foster homes--"nearly half of foster children hae have a clinical level of [behavioral or emotional] problems: 47% of children ages 6 to 11, and 40% of children ages 12 to 14." If this is the case, how can you say their mental health later in life is entirely up to them, any more than you could say that of an abused child? On top of that, "almost one-third in foster homes live below the poverty line". http://www.childtrends.org/files/FosterHomesRB.pdf
Don't tell me about how huge the adoption backlogs are--if abortion was made illegal, that backlog (if there even is one) would be obliterated within a year or two.
And that's a bad thing, is it? I'm not doubting there would be more children waiting to be adopted than people willing to adopt. I don't know either way for a fact, but it doesn't really make a difference. Again, compare "hard life" with "dead".
....yes, because then the country would be flooded with kids absolutely no-one wants. What's sadder, a dumpster full of dead fetuses or a dumpster full of living babies that were abandoned?
Saying, "They're better off dead, anyway." is really an astounding rationalization, and that's all it is.
For themselves, or for society? We could debate the case for the individual's wellbeing, but the effect on society of being flooded with unwanted children, and they WILL be unwanted, would be undeniably deleterious.
"Going to such lengths"? And allowing an individual power over their own body is a great length to go to, instead of telling them they're just a baby generator and are locked into an undesirable life because of a previous bad decision? It's funny you'd mention this, because oftentimes opposition to abortion rights really comes down to opposing the capability of women to be promiscuous, with which there's nothing inherently wrong. Men have this right with no downside, but we have to prohibit women from having the same rights?
Women have the same rights men do to be promiscuous. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she keeps it, he's liable for child support. The baby's his responsibility, too. Hence the phrase "deadbeat dad". And in many states, there are safe haven laws. Don't want your kid? Fine. These states designate areas where infants can be left and given immediate care, if you can't handle parenthood.
And what poor single-mother-to-be will be able to hold any number of equally poor ostensible baby-daddies accountable to the government? What deadbeat teen dad's going to be paying child support? Good luck on paying the lawyer fees. "Holding the father accountable" is oftentimes wishful thinking. It's his responsibility in social ideal only--in biiological actuality the woman is the one who has to bear the child. Along the same vein, many states try very dirty tactics to stop the mother-to-be in her tracks. Kentucky in particular forces the woman to hear an ultrasound of her child. (A previous slashdot had a large list of these examples.) And then there are fake abortion centers that seek to deceive women and talk them out of it. Invariably, the promiscuity of women is what anti-choice policies try to target.
Abortion is the republican party's ultimate golden carrot on a stick. Each year they'll talk of repealing Roe v. Wade, but it's never going to happen. Even opposition to abortion dies as old voters die off and the new generation takes over.
Show me one poll that supports the idea that most people support abortion.
That would matter if the decision were up to the majority, but it isn't (thank god--half the people voting shouldn't even have a say on the matter). It's up to the courts or congress, and neither are going to repeal Roe v. Wade. And why would the republican party want one of their most powerful talking points (other than abject fearmongering/racism) to slip away? Abortion gets votes. Socially conservative politicians don't give a damn about social issues beyond what will get them elected. I honestly doubt standards for abortion will budge in the least. If anything there will come a breaking point where obamacare funding can actually provide for abortions.
The Roe v. Wade decision even predates test tube babies. Sooner, rather than later, the day will come when a woman will know she's conceived early enough to be able to simply donate the embryo without destroying it, or have it frozen for use later in her life (as couples do now when they're using fertility treatments).
That is indeed a good idea, but still toying with life in the eyes of many who see it that way already.
