Political Crossfire Forums

[JustDucky]

I'm pro-choice. I have a 'devil's advocate' kind of question for the 'pro-life' posters here. I would like to hear what you have to say to a couple of questions.

Hypothetical: Abortion is made illegal in every state. Now, how do you propose (with our current DHS/child welfare systems) we handle the substantial rise in child neglect and abuse cases that would surely result from such a ruling? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of women having children who don't want them. Surely it's not unrealistic to project such a thing.

Also, once born, a majority of children (born to women who would have otherwise aborted) would likely be foisted on the already overburdened welfare system. Some women will undoubtedly abandon their babies, either illegally or via 'safe haven.' Again, we're talking people who don't want children. Would you support doubling or tripling the welfare budget to help these abandoned children? Yes or no?

There are some articulate pro-lifers here. Give this pro-choice girl some realistic answers to these questions. Help me dismiss the notion I have that most pro-lifers "love the fetus but hate the child." How would we, as a (hypothetically) 'pro-life' country, take care of (financially, educationally, as well as emotionally) 1.5 million unwanted children per year?

Every child should be a wanted child, don't you think?

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Hypothetical: Abortion is made illegal in every state. Now, how do you propose (with our current DHS/child welfare systems) we handle the substantial rise in child neglect and abuse cases that would surely result from such a ruling? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of women having children who don't want them. Surely it's not unrealistic to project such a thing.
Were actually talking about millions of unborn children here.

The overturning of RvW would have to coincide with a massive nationwide effort to educate and supply contraceptives. We've become dependent on ending unwanted pregnancies, and we need to become dependent on preventing them from occurring in the first place. That is the answer here. Killing the unborn is just an easy solution to a complex problem.

[Enoch]

JustDucky wrote: I'm pro-choice. I have a 'devil's advocate' kind of question for the 'pro-life' posters here. I would like to hear what you have to say to a couple of questions.

Hypothetical: Abortion is made illegal in every state. Now, how do you propose (with our current DHS/child welfare systems) we handle the substantial rise in child neglect and abuse cases that would surely result from such a ruling? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of women having children who don't want them. Surely it's not unrealistic to project such a thing.

Also, once born, a majority of children (born to women who would have otherwise aborted) would likely be foisted on the already overburdened welfare system. Some women will undoubtedly abandon their babies, either illegally or via 'safe haven.' Again, we're talking people who don't want children. Would you support doubling or tripling the welfare budget to help these abandoned children? Yes or no?

There are some articulate pro-lifers here. Give this pro-choice girl some realistic answers to these questions. Help me dismiss the notion I have that most pro-lifers "love the fetus but hate the child." How would we, as a (hypothetically) 'pro-life' country, take care of (financially, educationally, as well as emotionally) 1.5 million unwanted children per year?

Every child should be a wanted child, don't you think?
Careful there Ducky. To claim that abuse would rise without evidence to support that claim gets you and your argument nowhere.

[JustDucky]

UrielsFyre wrote: JustDucky wrote: I'm pro-choice. I have a 'devil's advocate' kind of question for the 'pro-life' posters here. I would like to hear what you have to say to a couple of questions.

Hypothetical: Abortion is made illegal in every state. Now, how do you propose (with our current DHS/child welfare systems) we handle the substantial rise in child neglect and abuse cases that would surely result from such a ruling? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of women having children who don't want them. Surely it's not unrealistic to project such a thing.

Also, once born, a majority of children (born to women who would have otherwise aborted) would likely be foisted on the already overburdened welfare system. Some women will undoubtedly abandon their babies, either illegally or via 'safe haven.' Again, we're talking people who don't want children. Would you support doubling or tripling the welfare budget to help these abandoned children? Yes or no?

There are some articulate pro-lifers here. Give this pro-choice girl some realistic answers to these questions. Help me dismiss the notion I have that most pro-lifers "love the fetus but hate the child." How would we, as a (hypothetically) 'pro-life' country, take care of (financially, educationally, as well as emotionally) 1.5 million unwanted children per year?

Every child should be a wanted child, don't you think?
Careful there Ducky. To claim that abuse would rise without evidence to support that claim gets you and your argument nowhere. I think it's rather obvious, sociologically. We're talking about millions of women who don't want children and have no means/desire to care for them. How could abuse not rise?! However, if anyone responding thinks that wouldn't happen, all they have to do is say so. As you said, I have no proof for a rebuttal on that point. It just seems like common sense to me. <shrug>

FYI, I didn't really post this as a debate. I just wanted to hear what the pro-life people here had to say on the matter.

[AllAmericanMan]

Again, the key here is preventing unwanted pregnancies not caring for unwanted children. While some steps will have to be taken to care for unwanted children; the only realistic way to handle life without abortions is to diminish their demand.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Again, the key here is preventing unwanted pregnancies not caring for unwanted children. While some steps will have to be taken to care for unwanted children; the only realistic way to handle life without abortions is to diminish their demand. I would rather see us diminish the demand for them, while keeping them legal.

The fewer women that want an abortion, the better. However, making abortion illegal will only serve to harm those women who are set on having an abortion. Back-alley abortionists, wire coat hangers, women hemorrhaging on the bathroom floor; those are the images of the time prior to Roe v Wade. Keeping abortion legal is the only way to ensure that women who will have an abortion one way or another are physically protected.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Again, the key here is preventing unwanted pregnancies not caring for unwanted children. While some steps will have to be taken to care for unwanted children; the only realistic way to handle life without abortions is to diminish their demand. I would rather see us diminish the demand for them, while keeping them legal.

The fewer women that want an abortion, the better. However, making abortion illegal will only serve to harm those women who are set on having an abortion. Back-alley abortionists, wire coat hangers, women hemorrhaging on the bathroom floor; those are the images of the time prior to Roe v Wade. Keeping abortion legal is the only way to ensure that women who will have an abortion one way or another are physically protected. I can not agree with that. Murderers of born humans might hurt themselves in confrontation with their victims, should we just legalize it to make sure they can end human life safely? The same logic extends itself if you believe abortion is the murder of the unborn. The mother has a choice in obtaining an illegal abortion, the newly conceived had no say in being created and being alive. Therefor, the unborns rights supercede the mothers.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Again, the key here is preventing unwanted pregnancies not caring for unwanted children. While some steps will have to be taken to care for unwanted children; the only realistic way to handle life without abortions is to diminish their demand. I would rather see us diminish the demand for them, while keeping them legal.

The fewer women that want an abortion, the better. However, making abortion illegal will only serve to harm those women who are set on having an abortion. Back-alley abortionists, wire coat hangers, women hemorrhaging on the bathroom floor; those are the images of the time prior to Roe v Wade. Keeping abortion legal is the only way to ensure that women who will have an abortion one way or another are physically protected. I can not agree with that. Murderers of born humans might hurt themselves in confrontation with their victims, should we just legalize it to make sure they can end human life safely? The same logic extends itself if you believe abortion is the murder of the unborn. The mother has a choice in obtaining an illegal abortion, the newly conceived had no say in being created and being alive. Therefor, the unborns rights supercede the mothers.
We just look at things differently I suppose. You deem abortion to be murder, I don't....as I have explained several times

[Plodder]

Quote: We just look at things differently I suppose. You deem abortion to be murder, I don't....as I have explained several times my simple defenition of murder: the killing of innocent human life. had an unborn baby satisfying that condition. I see abortion as murder. Quote: The fewer women that want an abortion, the better. However, making abortion illegal will only serve to harm those women who are set on having an abortion. Back-alley abortionists, wire coat hangers, women hemorrhaging on the bathroom floor; those are the images of the time prior to Roe v Wade. Keeping abortion legal is the only way to ensure that women who will have an abortion one way or another are physically protected. now we have insted the images of the dimembered babies, the vascuum sounds and the scissors into the brain.The salt also is included.

And i dont care how much it costs. saving life is more improtant that a good economy. another solution is helping the mother's get job's if they are poor so as to support the baby in some way. No welfare needed.

[JustDucky]

Plodder wrote: another solution is helping the mother's get job's if they are poor so as to support the baby in some way. No welfare needed. OK. So who watches the child while the mother is working? Were you aware that daycare runs about $175/week for infants? Please don't assume there's a husband or "father figure" in the picture......because often there is not. Would you be willing to have the government pick up the daycare tab? That shouldn't be a problem as you've stated how precious all those fetuses are. Surely your answer will be a resounding "YES!" :roll:

[Plodder]

Quote: OK. So who watches the child while the mother is working? Were you aware that daycare runs about $175/week for infants? Please don't assume there's a husband or "father figure" in the picture......because often there is not. Would you be willing to have the government pick up the daycare tab? That shouldn't be a problem as you've stated how precious all those fetuses awill be a resounding "YES!" easre. Surely your answer y solution. heve the woman get a JOB! or put the baby up for adoption. and in most cases there is no father figure becaue the couple in question decided thsat they wanted to have sex and ran into the problem that sex MAKES BABIES! What a concept.

As to who wathces the babies, that figure is bloated and I live in the suburbs of one of the richest counties in the USA. Moreover my mother runs a day care center. I see her checks and she gets more or less depending on the # of hours she cares for them or if she must feed them or not. Regardelss of the cost, less than professional people are pretty qualified to care for a child. The problem is not in the day care. it is in the million babies slaughtered and then vacuumed away every year.

[JayDubya]

JustDucky wrote: I'm pro-choice. I have a 'devil's advocate' kind of question for the 'pro-life' posters here. I would like to hear what you have to say to a couple of questions.

Hypothetical: Abortion is made illegal in every state. Now, how do you propose (with our current DHS/child welfare systems) we handle the substantial rise in child neglect and abuse cases that would surely result from such a ruling? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of women having children who don't want them. Surely it's not unrealistic to project such a thing.

Also, once born, a majority of children (born to women who would have otherwise aborted) would likely be foisted on the already overburdened welfare system. Some women will undoubtedly abandon their babies, either illegally or via 'safe haven.' Again, we're talking people who don't want children. Would you support doubling or tripling the welfare budget to help these abandoned children? Yes or no?

There are some articulate pro-lifers here. Give this pro-choice girl some realistic answers to these questions. Help me dismiss the notion I have that most pro-lifers "love the fetus but hate the child." How would we, as a (hypothetically) 'pro-life' country, take care of (financially, educationally, as well as emotionally) 1.5 million unwanted children per year?

Every child should be a wanted child, don't you think?


*obligatory* First post, so hi everyone. :)

I'm an athiest, Chicago-school loving, pro-life biology student (read: weirdo), so take what I say with a grain of salt. :lol:

IMHO, I'm pro-life, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. You're pro-choice, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Hell, the terms themselves are loaded, suggesting that to oppose one supports death, and the other one supports removing free will. This invariably leads to emotional arguments where logic begins to give way to total rhetoric.

I think a constitutional ban on abortion would be absurd. If it were the case, it would not last long, and there would be mass riots in the blue states.

I also think what Roe v. Wade set forth was terrifically unconstitutional. The moral superiority attitude towards punishing the woman for their sin is also unacceptable. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights justifies the Roe v. Wade decision, ergo, make it a states rights issue like it used to be, and like imho it was supposed to be.

People vote for what they want in their own states. Blue states happy, red states happy, everybody wins, and we can vote for federal officials without worrying about this issue anymore at the national level. Something wrong with this theory?

This isn't an obvious issue where there is a morally superior position, ala suffrage, racial civil rights, slavery. Here, both sides have valid arguments and both claim the high ground, and honestly, they probably both have it.

NB4 "abortion is a civil right" and "parasites" of course, or the obligatory counter "no it is teh murder". =(

* * *

So if abortion becomes illegal on the federal level? Well, a) I'd be just as mad as I am at the situation now, where abortion is being made mandatorily legal at the federal level, because it isn't their place to decide something in an area that the Constitution doesn't grant them control. b) I abhor socialism, but I can somewhat respect its use for children, as children bear less personal responsibilty and deserve a chance for upward mobility. So I suppose, begrudgingly, yes, I would imagine both charity donations and federal money would have to increase towards orphanages.

[AllAmericanMan]

Prevention of pregnancy must be the focus here. Ending a pregnancy by definition is the end of innocent human life and must be avoided at all costs.

[JayDubya]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Prevention of pregnancy must be the focus here. Ending a pregnancy by definition is the end of innocent human life and must be avoided at all costs.

I agree with your opinion in that I am also a pro-lifer, but given the majority of the Western World and all the majority of the population of the "blue states" vigorously disagree with you, perhaps you can somewhat concede my point. The nation is built on the principle of freedom of religion, and as such, an argument based solely on Judeochristian morality will not affect what you and I both believe to be a positive change in the right direction, as you're arguing with people that do not agree with your sense of morality or your definition of life.

Personally, my definition of life is much closer to yours than that of someone that says a fetus is a parasite. I think an appropriate focus for the debate of this issue should not be the "it is murder" rhetoric, but rather, what gives the federal government the right to say that Texas (as it was in Roe v. Wade) does not have the right to have it's own morality laws regarding something that the Constitution does not speak about?

Abortion, like gambling and prostitution and many other so-called "legislated morality" issues, should fall within the purview of individual states to decide for themselves. Granted, it should be obvious which way I'm voting should this come to pass, but nevertheless, the argument is still sound.

Democrats (I say Democrats and not liberals / socialists deliberately) can only benefit from this arrangement, forcing the Republicans to put forth federal candidates that are intelligent and effective, rather than dividing the electorate on a simple "Do you agree with abortion Y/N."

[AllAmericanMan]

JayDubya wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Prevention of pregnancy must be the focus here. Ending a pregnancy by definition is the end of innocent human life and must be avoided at all costs.

I agree with your opinion in that I am also a pro-lifer, but given the majority of the Western World and all the majority of the population of the "blue states" vigorously disagree with you, perhaps you can somewhat concede my point. The nation is built on the principle of freedom of religion, and as such, an argument based solely on Judeochristian morality will not affect what you and I both believe to be a positive change in the right direction, as you're arguing with people that do not agree with your sense of morality or your definition of life.

Personally, my definition of life is much closer to yours than that of someone that says a fetus is a parasite. I think an appropriate focus for the debate of this issue should not be the "it is murder" rhetoric, but rather, what gives the federal government the right to say that Texas (as it was in Roe v. Wade) does not have the right to have it's own morality laws regarding something that the Constitution does not speak about?

Abortion, like gambling and prostitution and many other so-called "legislated morality" issues, should fall within the purview of individual states to decide for themselves.

I dont see it as opinion. I see a very real consensus among embryologists that has nothing to do with morality and religion. The consensus in biology is that human life is formed at conception. If this is indeed the case as all scientific evidence suggests then this is an issue for the courts to decide. Just like racism and sexism before it, distinctions are being drawn between human beings that effectively strip one grouping's rights.

Just because so many people can not recognize the truth, does not mean it should be left to the states to decide any more than slavery should be left to the states. As history repeats itself, people are using the term person to draw arbitrary lines between who should and should not receive equal rights. Color of skin, gender, and now stage of human development. Throughout time, humans have been incapable of feeling compassion and respect for life that doesn't most closely resemble that of their own. Throughout time, there has been a running battle against the distinctions between human beings towards a common goal of equal rights.

Just as before, ignorance and apathy towards human life leads to the abuse and destruction of it. Only though education and learned compassion, will all human beings be regarded as equal.
Like men to women, whites to blacks, the born must realize a new compassion and respect for the unborn. All of us are human beings. The unborn just happen to be incapable of speaking up for themselves. The unborn have fallen victim to our desire to lead more care free sex lives.

You can not be for legalized abortion, without devaluing unborn human beings. You can say it is about a woman's control over her body all you want. But you can not come to such conclusions without not truly appreciating the unborn for what they truly are, human beings.

[JayDubya]

AllAmericanMan wrote: JayDubya wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Prevention of pregnancy must be the focus here. Ending a pregnancy by definition is the end of innocent human life and must be avoided at all costs.

I agree with your opinion in that I am also a pro-lifer, but given the majority of the Western World and all the majority of the population of the "blue states" vigorously disagree with you, perhaps you can somewhat concede my point. The nation is built on the principle of freedom of religion, and as such, an argument based solely on Judeochristian morality will not affect what you and I both believe to be a positive change in the right direction, as you're arguing with people that do not agree with your sense of morality or your definition of life.

Personally, my definition of life is much closer to yours than that of someone that says a fetus is a parasite. I think an appropriate focus for the debate of this issue should not be the "it is murder" rhetoric, but rather, what gives the federal government the right to say that Texas (as it was in Roe v. Wade) does not have the right to have it's own morality laws regarding something that the Constitution does not speak about?

Abortion, like gambling and prostitution and many other so-called "legislated morality" issues, should fall within the purview of individual states to decide for themselves.

I dont see it as opinion. I see a very real consensus among embryologists that has nothing to do with morality and religion. The consensus in biology is that human life is formed at conception. If this is indeed the case as all scientific evidence suggests then this is an issue for the courts to decide. Just like racism and sexism before it, distinctions are being drawn between human beings that effectively strip one grouping's rights.

Just because so many people can not recognize the truth, does not mean it should be left to the states to decide any more than slavery should be left to the states. As history repeats itself, people are using the term person to draw arbitrary lines between who should and should not receive equal rights. Color of skin, gender, and now stage of human development. Throughout time, humans have been incapable of feeling compassion and respect for life that doesn't most closely resemble that of their own. Throughout time, there has been a running battle against the distinctions between human beings towards a common goal of equal rights.

Just as before, ignorance and apathy towards human life leads to the abuse and destruction of it. Only though education and learned compassion, will all human beings be regarded as equal.
Like men to women, whites to blacks, the born must realize a new compassion and respect for the unborn. All of us are human beings. The unborn just happen to be incapable of speaking up for themselves. The unborn have fallen victim to our desire to lead more care free sex lives.

You can not be for legalized abortion, without devaluing unborn human beings. You can say it is about a woman's control over her body all you want. But you can not come to such conclusions without not truly appreciating the unborn for what they truly are, human beings.

I agree, but unfortunately it seems the majority of the populace in every Western nation disagrees. The first step forward will not be a national ban on abortion, and if it is, it will be overturned relatively quickly. Returning it to the states will allow us more local control in the matter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/AbortionLawsAroundtheWorld.png

Can we at least agree that the federal government was wrong to get involved in, and then remove Texas's state law, and then by extention, all other state laws?

America is supposed to work like this. We're not supposed to be centralized in power, or unified in political viewpoint. We're supposed to be linked in trade and defense and basic neccessary functions.

[AllAmericanMan]

JayDubya wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: JayDubya wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Prevention of pregnancy must be the focus here. Ending a pregnancy by definition is the end of innocent human life and must be avoided at all costs.

I agree with your opinion in that I am also a pro-lifer, but given the majority of the Western World and all the majority of the population of the "blue states" vigorously disagree with you, perhaps you can somewhat concede my point. The nation is built on the principle of freedom of religion, and as such, an argument based solely on Judeochristian morality will not affect what you and I both believe to be a positive change in the right direction, as you're arguing with people that do not agree with your sense of morality or your definition of life.

Personally, my definition of life is much closer to yours than that of someone that says a fetus is a parasite. I think an appropriate focus for the debate of this issue should not be the "it is murder" rhetoric, but rather, what gives the federal government the right to say that Texas (as it was in Roe v. Wade) does not have the right to have it's own morality laws regarding something that the Constitution does not speak about?

Abortion, like gambling and prostitution and many other so-called "legislated morality" issues, should fall within the purview of individual states to decide for themselves.

I dont see it as opinion. I see a very real consensus among embryologists that has nothing to do with morality and religion. The consensus in biology is that human life is formed at conception. If this is indeed the case as all scientific evidence suggests then this is an issue for the courts to decide. Just like racism and sexism before it, distinctions are being drawn between human beings that effectively strip one grouping's rights.

Just because so many people can not recognize the truth, does not mean it should be left to the states to decide any more than slavery should be left to the states. As history repeats itself, people are using the term person to draw arbitrary lines between who should and should not receive equal rights. Color of skin, gender, and now stage of human development. Throughout time, humans have been incapable of feeling compassion and respect for life that doesn't most closely resemble that of their own. Throughout time, there has been a running battle against the distinctions between human beings towards a common goal of equal rights.

Just as before, ignorance and apathy towards human life leads to the abuse and destruction of it. Only though education and learned compassion, will all human beings be regarded as equal.
Like men to women, whites to blacks, the born must realize a new compassion and respect for the unborn. All of us are human beings. The unborn just happen to be incapable of speaking up for themselves. The unborn have fallen victim to our desire to lead more care free sex lives.

You can not be for legalized abortion, without devaluing unborn human beings. You can say it is about a woman's control over her body all you want. But you can not come to such conclusions without not truly appreciating the unborn for what they truly are, human beings.

I agree, but unfortunately it seems the majority of the populace in every Western nation disagrees. The first step forward will not be a national ban on abortion, and if it is, it will be overturned relatively quickly. Returning it to the states will allow us more local control in the matter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/AbortionLawsAroundtheWorld.png

Can we at least agree that the federal government was wrong to get involved in, and then remove Texas's state law, and then by extention, all other state laws?

America is supposed to work like this. We're not supposed to be centralized in power, or unified in political viewpoint. We're supposed to be linked in trade and defense and basic neccessary functions.

I dont think I can agree. Only on a national level can public opinion really be swayed, and even then it will take time, lots of it. Racial and gender equality was not achieved at a state by state level, and took a long time to develop after the national mandate was made clear. We are still overcoming those differences. The same massive effort must be launched to provide basic rights to the unborn.

[Plodder]

Quote: obligatory* First post, so hi everyone.

I'm an athiest, Chicago-school loving, pro-life biology student (read: weirdo), so take what I say with a grain of salt.
welcome, but just so u know, All American Man is also a pro life atheist. so you are not the first. Quote: America is supposed to work like this. We're not supposed to be centralized in power, or unified in political viewpoint. We're supposed to be linked in trade and defense and basic neccessary functions. i actually agree. let the states decide and then the individuals in the states casn work on the issue in their own states.

[Revenant]

If abortion became illegal everwhere.....

Hangar sales would skyrocket.

The DNC would be pissed off.

The GOP would also be pissed off, because the problem would be solved, therefore they lose loyal voters. Solving said "problems" is bad for party turnout.

[JayDubya]

Plodder wrote: Quote: obligatory* First post, so hi everyone.

I'm an athiest, Chicago-school loving, pro-life biology student (read: weirdo), so take what I say with a grain of salt.
welcome, but just so u know, All American Man is also a pro life atheist. so you are not the first. Quote: America is supposed to work like this. We're not supposed to be centralized in power, or unified in political viewpoint. We're supposed to be linked in trade and defense and basic neccessary functions. i actually agree. let the states decide and then the individuals in the states casn work on the issue in their own states.

I think any approach with regards to tackling abortion first has to return the right to make laws regulating it to the state level. Granted, this doesn't stop a pregnant woman from getting on a bus and going to another state, but I don't think I care one bit - one has to go to Louisiana (where I'm from) to gamble, one has to go to Nevada if they want to hire a prostitute (or gamble). Those are regulations based on moral principles, and to whatever extent a state has sovereignty over an issue, it is appropriate for a state to disallow this sort of thing should the voters agree.

The Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade was just flat out wrong and unconstitutional, one of the worst applications of the "living document" camp yet.