Thread: Liberals and Paul happy with gender based abortion.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

I have a potential answer to your question and your premise, but I don't think you'd like it too much and I don't have the time to actually type it out right now, but I can later if you want. Basically, it depends on what perspective you come from with regard to the welfare state and its effect on the poor...

As you are one of the rational posters here, I'd be interested in hearing your answer when you have the time.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You want a government program to deal with people who have children who cannot afford them. The possible solution involves the fact that modern science has advanced in the 21st century to the point we now know what causes children to be conceived.

The possible solution involves the whole purpose of sex thingy. Expecting other people to pay for your choice is not exactly the poster child, pun intended, mentality of an adult who takes personal responsibility. Such matter are a personal matter, not the province of government and certainly not the task for which our federation was created.

I'm not necessarily saying it has to be a government program (although that would seem to be the most obvious solution). I'd be interested in hearing any realistic approach. You say science has advanced to the point where we know what causes children to be conceived, but we have 10+ years of a number of states teaching the highly ineffective approach of "abstinence only" education. Abstinence indeed will prevent children, but that ignores the fact that science shows that kids taught abstinence-only actually DO screw and therefore get pregnant. Of course a broad-based approach which includes a discussion of abstinence but also talks about various other birth control methods would be part of a sane plan to reduce abortions (another reason republican logic fails on this issue).

Yes, I completely understand personal responsibility. Is that your answer to the single mom who has 3 kids by age 22? Tell her "tough luck - you should have been more responsible" and leave her 3 kids out to dry? Or do you realize that although she fundamentally fails as a responsible adult, some measures should be taken to protect her 3 children from growing up in a highly disadvantaged poverty situation (without adequate nutrition, without access to medical care, without supplemental education, etc)?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

That logic is flawed as we have many laws on the books that we shouldn't remove because people violate them. How about I just walk into your house and steal all your shit and have it not be illegal because making it illegal causes far more problems than it solves.

I don't think that's a particularly good example because letting criminals have free reign in our society and letting them steal freely without consequences would indeed cause more problems than it would solve. Hence, making stealing illegal is the better solution. If you can think of an example where more problems are caused by a law than solved, then we can discuss it. I will admit though that just because problems are caused doesn't mean something should be legal. On the other hand if a law causes problems, rational people would seem to want to implement measures to reduce those problems. So how would you reduce the problems that outlawing abortion would cause? (You've already answered it next).

Streamlining adoptions in the US would be a good step in solving the problem. There is no reason that it should cost people tens of thousands of dollars (which many can't afford) to adopt.

I believe that would be a good idea, however I suspect that would only address the problem in an extremely small percentage of cases. Most young mothers simply wouldn't want to part with their children. Lets give your idea the benefit of the doubt and say streamlining adoptions takes care of 10%-15% of the extra babies who were born into poverty as a result of outlawing abortion. What about the 10's of millions of other poverty babies? How do you help keep them from growing up in a life of poverty - lacking proper nutrition, proper parenting, and proper education? Since you, like me, are a RP supporter, I'm pretty sure you'd oppose the government mandating that the mothers put their kids up for adoption.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I must have missed the part of the constitution which grants congress the right to have a federal bureaucracy complete with cubicles inside of a woman's vagina.

So I guess murder is fine with you.......Whats next grandma or the down syndrome kid down the street???? Oh and those on welfare I mean they are not helping with society and are a drain I guess they can go too....

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Exactly. Any conservative who supports this bill is hurting the pro-life cause more than helping it because:

1. By supporting this bill you are defacto saying that you agree with the premise that abortion is ok and fine to do as long as it isn't gender-based, which of course is ridiculous, it's wrong no matter what; abortion is just wrong. So, by agreeing with this bill, the conservative Right is admitting that abortion is "ok" as long as it isn't along gender lines

2. The conservative Right, by supporting this bill, is admitting that the premise of Roe v. Wade is correct, or rather, that the power of the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over abortion is correct, constitutional, and legitimate. I submit that it is not; by supporting this bill at the Federal level, you are admitting that it is.

What fucking nonsense. You attack evil anyway you can .....Just cause your God approved of it does not make it good.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

No you just simply missed the entire Constitution altogether and the original intent of it. The Constitution does not say every single thing the government "cannot do", it simply grants the different branches certain powers, which can then be amended later and added or taken away. It leaves the rest of the powers to the States, hence the reason no amendment is needed to give the government "no right to keep you from killing your babies". According to the 10th amendment it is the job of the States to make laws on anything not specifically granted to the Federal government, in this case, abortion. The Constitution was designed to restrain Federal power by clearly enumerating its powers and leaving the rest (specific questions of life and liberty) to the States and the People. That's it man, that simple.

I mean really, is this concept that damn hard to understand. I mean literally you are making the same argument liberals use in defense of abortion, government healthcare, welfare, etc.

Yes why dont you follow the constitution you say you support.....Seeing as Planned Parenthood is a multistate company that trades ACROSS state lines they can be regulated by the federal government...

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Again Zonation has his head up his ass.

Let's allow James Madison to correct that by giving a history lesson, once again:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
― James Madison

You really do hate conservatives dont you????? Is it cause they make you realize how liberal you are?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Yes why dont you follow the constitution you say you support.....Seeing as Planned Parenthood is a multistate company that trades ACROSS state lines they can be regulated by the federal government...

Since Planned Parenthood is not the only provider of abortions in the country, this post makes no sense.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Yes why dont you follow the constitution you say you support.....Seeing as Planned Parenthood is a multistate company that trades ACROSS state lines they can be regulated by the federal government...

A far right guy wanting the feds to REGULATE. Ok, now I understand, you guys are ok with regulations as long as its YOURS? LOL.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Well I am sort of a libertarian. I dont think the govt has the power to stop someone from doing something to their own body. But, I also dont believe in the soul, so I have no moral or emotional attachment to fetuses. Im sure if I was willing to force someone not to do something to their body, I could come up with a way of enforcing the law. Executing mothers who abort fetuses, for example. Its murder after all, if you think that way.

Actually you have no attachment to human life. You can call it anything you want, of course. That's fine. Many men in the history of the world had no attachment to human life, except of course their own!

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I don't think that's a particularly good example because letting criminals have free reign in our society and letting them steal freely without consequences would indeed cause more problems than it would solve. Hence, making stealing illegal is the better solution. If you can think of an example where more problems are caused by a law than solved, then we can discuss it. I will admit though that just because problems are caused doesn't mean something should be legal. On the other hand if a law causes problems, rational people would seem to want to implement measures to reduce those problems. So how would you reduce the problems that outlawing abortion would cause? (You've already answered it next).

I don't think it was the best example, either, I was simply pointing out that just because problems might be lessened if it's not criminalized doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against it. Personally, I think abortion is murder and shouldn't be legal, despite the so-called problems that would be cause by it. I mean, you can't always judge morality based on a 0 sum gained POV. For example, would you be fine if we rounded up all the inner-city hood areas and killed everyone? If you take away the immorality of the action itself I think you could make the argument that the overall outcome very well might be positive. This might be a better example/analogy that my initial one.

I believe that would be a good idea, however I suspect that would only address the problem in an extremely small percentage of cases. Most young mothers simply wouldn't want to part with their children. Lets give your idea the benefit of the doubt and say streamlining adoptions takes care of 10%-15% of the extra babies who were born into poverty as a result of outlawing abortion. What about the 10's of millions of other poverty babies? How do you help keep them from growing up in a life of poverty - lacking proper nutrition, proper parenting, and proper education? Since you, like me, are a RP supporter, I'm pretty sure you'd oppose the government mandating that the mothers put their kids up for adoption.

Well, I think you and I both agree that government involvement isn't always the solution. If people screw up, they need to learn from their mistakes, adapt and overcome. American used to have a "can do" attitude. Now it's changed to "can't do for myself". The real question is whether this problem exists because of government involvement to begin with. When people know someone else can do it for them they lose that sense of urgency. I think if people knew that only they can solve their problems they'd have much more motivation to solve them.

Personally, since I greatly value human life, and life in general, I think the truly civilized manner in which to address this abortion issue is to make abortion for convenience, illegal, with the doctor that does them charged with 1st degree murder, with life without parole as the punishment.

Yet some abortions are absolutely necessary when the health of the mother is in peril. Those would be legal. Not talking about mental health here.

Then perhaps parents should start doing like they did in the old days and never leave young people alone, without an adult "minding the baby store". We were smarter back then and actually knew of the power of young hormones racing through the physical organism. Lots more common sense back then.

We have a great advantage today in stopping pregnancies, the birth controll pill, implants etc. Yet we still do abortions for convenience. Also these welfare babies could be stopped by involuntary sterilization, since with any kind of future national healthcare, the gov't will be dictating whether one can use tobacco, and certain foods that lead to disease and higher health costs. It is a shame when we are so irresponsible that gov't has to step in to try to correct this behavior. Which they will if gov't runs healthcare. We will not run deficets and grow the debt in the future because of personal irresponsibility, and I think that is inevitable.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Ok then we were talking about two different things like you said. As you said, some states do allow direct voting of Amendments to state Constitutions, but an Amendment to the US Constitution is something altogether different. As far as any State proposals to make abortion illegal (or even Amend state constitutions to make it illegal), the States technically cannot do that right now because of Roe v. Wade, hence the need to get rid of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this issue (because we both know it will likely never be overturned).

No, i mean its possible that a state govt could have a referendum on a national amendment. That would be direct democracy, and I think it would be good in certain cases. Obamacare for example. Let the people vote on ratifying an amendment.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I'm not necessarily saying it has to be a government program

Yes, you are in your own little passive aggressive way, saying it has to be a government program. See below

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

some measures should be taken to protect her 3 children from growing up in a highly disadvantaged poverty situation

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

but we have 10+ years of a number of states teaching the highly ineffective approach of "abstinence only" education.

I submit to the extent it is ineffective is due to the extent there are government programs that undermine personal responsibility. Abstinence works 100% of the time it is tried.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Yes, I completely understand personal responsibility.

No you do not. See above.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Abstinence indeed will prevent children, but that ignores the fact that science shows that kids taught abstinence-only actually DO screw and therefore get pregnant.

That is due to a lack of personal responsibility not with abstinence.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Of course a broad-based approach which includes a discussion of abstinence but also talks about various other birth control methods would be part of a sane plan to reduce abortions (another reason republican logic fails on this issue).

I know a "broad based approach" appeals to your multiculturalism but I say it is not the proper role of government. I thought Liberals wanted government out of the bedroom? The goal is conception prevention not birth control. Conception prevention has nothing to do with abortion. You want to deal with the symptom not the cause. The problem is not a deficiency of abortions but a deficiency of personal responsibility. The first deficiency is in choosing not to practice abstinence. The 2nd is in choosing not to use contraceptives. The 3rd is in choosing non-adoption.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Yes, I completely understand personal responsibility. Is that your answer to the single mom who has 3 kids by age 22?

Yes.

I noticed you used the gyno-centric approach in your Appeal to Emotion. Let's consider how absurd it sounds when you try to defend your position from the point of men ... we ought to abolish child support payments because a 22 year old man with 3 kids with 3 different women has obviously failed as a responsible adult.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

some measures should be taken to protect her 3 children from growing up in a highly disadvantaged poverty situation (without adequate nutrition, without access to medical care, without supplemental education, etc)?

No. Why do you think her choices impose an obligation on me? There is no substitute for personal responsibility but I know you will keep trying to find it.

By the time she gets to this scenario, she has failed to demonstrate personal responsibility at least 6 times. Now it is not her who suffers but her children. This makes them a charity case. This is why we have charitable organizations. Can this mother demonstrate personal responsibility enough to humble herself in acknowledging she is a charity case? Or do you demand we have a government program to save her the reduction in her self esteem to do what it takes to meet her children's needs? Or being a statist do you advocate forced adoptions over freedom?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You really do hate conservatives dont you????? Is it cause they make you realize how liberal you are?

You really hate the Constitution and the Founders don't you because it reminds you of how liberal YOU are.

So, now, you disagree with James Madison.

See you are a Statist!

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by thanatos144

So I guess murder is fine with you.......Whats next grandma or the down syndrome kid down the street???? Oh and those on welfare I mean they are not helping with society and are a drain I guess they can go too....

- - - Updated - - -


What fucking nonsense. You attack evil anyway you can .....Just cause your God approved of it does not make it good.

Nothing nonsensical about basic fucking logic. If you support a bill that defines abortion as "ok" as long as it isn't gender based, that is the same thing as saying abortion in general is "ok". Murder is murder, no matter how it is done or by what criteria. You are accepting that abortion is ok, period.