What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Abortion thread: (3 Viewers)

Given the population on this rock, or perhaps overpopulation would be more to my point, I believe a better case can be made that the State has an interest in forcing abortion rather than prohibiting it.  Resources are becoming scarce and every birth represents that much more global warming, potentially.  If global warming is a crisis the State may have a strong rationale to prohibit unauthorized births.

Its a Brave New World my friends.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco said:
Surprised this didn't get much of a response from the pro-life crowd.  Truly shocked.
Click to expand...
We all agree that if you get a woman pregnant, you should be financially responsible for the child until adulthood -- that's already part of our current law and nobody thinks of it as controversial.  The rest of the post is kind of dumb.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
We all agree that if you get a woman pregnant, you should be financially responsible for the child until adulthood -- that's already part of our current law and nobody thinks of it as controversial.  The rest of the post is kind of dumb.
Click to expand...
Financially responsible is enough?  If we are threatening women and physicians with jail time for seeking an abortion, then why are there no criminal repercussions for men who are the creators of the pregnancy to begin with if they don't honor the same life long commitment (until 18 yrs of age, of course) that women are forced to?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
If you're asking whether states could inflate their numbers by pretending that all of their residents are pregnant, no, because states don't conduct the census.

If you're asking whether states could inflate their numbers by manipulating their residents into actually getting pregnant ... um, I guess so.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old Ceausescu  Decree 770.

 
gianmarco said:
Financially responsible is enough?  If we are threatening women and physicians with jail time for seeking an abortion, then why are there no criminal repercussions for men who are the creators of the pregnancy to begin with if they don't honor the same life long commitment (until 18 yrs of age, of course) that women are forced to?
Click to expand...
AOC should start proposing this just to see Fox talking heads explode

 
gianmarco said:
Financially responsible is enough?  If we are threatening women and physicians with jail time for seeking an abortion, then why are there no criminal repercussions for men who are the creators of the pregnancy to begin with if they don't honor the same life long commitment (until 18 yrs of age, of course) that women are forced to?
Click to expand...
There are.  If you don't pay child support, you'll eventually find yourself in jail.  

 
2Squirrels1Nut said:
Should pass a law if you get a woman pregnant you have to marry her and are financially responsible for her and all of her children's well being for the rest of their lives. If you get caught cheating or unemployed for more than 6 months, you are accused of abuse or not giving them proper food, shelter, and clothing, you get 99 years in prison. 
Click to expand...
There's an idea here that's worth exploring.

The part about marrying, being responsible for all of her children (including the ones you had nothing to do with) and being punished for cheating or losing your job are not worth exploring.

But there is a bit of needless legal asymmetry between males and females here. If a man fathers a child (outside of marriage), he is legally responsible for making child-support payments, but he's not legally responsible the way the mom is for actually raising the child.

I think there's a decent case to be made for flipping a coin in situations where the parents don't agree among themselves about which one should raise the child. Heads, the mother raises the child while the father pays child support. Tails, the father raises the child while the mother pays child support.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
There are.  If you don't pay child support, you'll eventually find yourself in jail.  
Click to expand...
That's not my point. 

Being financially responsible should NOT be enough.  Of course men find themselves in jail eventually if they don't pay support, but they should be doing MORE.  Sending a monthly check shouldn't be the minimum required for creating another life.  If a woman is forced to go through a pregnancy and bear a child and then be responsible for the child (unless given up for adoption), then the father should have far more REQUIRED responsibility than the financial burden. 

For a pro-life stance, the woman has no choice but to carry through with her physical and emotional responsibility of pregnancy and birth.  For a man who created the pregnancy, why aren't there similar requirements of time and commitment?  Especially with jail time for those that don't honor those commitments.  If that were in place, maybe we'd see a significant decrease in unwanted pregnancies, especially since you can't have one without a man's contribution.

I wonder how many stringent laws like we're seeing now we'd see if men had the option of being pregnant and having to carry a baby to term.  Methinks it would be less than today.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
Hypothetical question: if the Supreme Court rules that a fetus is a "person", could all of the pro-choice states inflate their populations in order to gain more seats in Congress?
Click to expand...
And along the same lines, could one drive in the HOV lanes?  Or add an extra dependent onto their taxes?

 
gianmarco said:
That's not my point. 

Being financially responsible should NOT be enough.  Of course men find themselves in jail eventually if they don't pay support, but they should be doing MORE.  Sending a monthly check shouldn't be the minimum required for creating another life.  If a woman is forced to go through a pregnancy and bear a child and then be responsible for the child (unless given up for adoption), then the father should have far more REQUIRED responsibility than the financial burden. 

For a pro-life stance, the woman has no choice but to carry through with her physical and emotional responsibility of pregnancy and birth.  For a man who created the pregnancy, why aren't there similar requirements of time and commitment?  Especially with jail time for those that don't honor those commitments.  If that were in place, maybe we'd see a significant decrease in unwanted pregnancies, especially since you can't have one without a man's contribution.

I wonder how many stringent laws like we're seeing now we'd see if men had the option of being pregnant and having to carry a baby to term.  Methinks it would be less than today.
Click to expand...
I give you credit for trying very hard to steel-man a terrible post, but you answered your own question.  Nobody is actually forcing either parent to care and nurture a child until they hit 18.  Adoption is and should be an option.

 
gianmarco said:
That's not my point. 

Being financially responsible should NOT be enough.  Of course men find themselves in jail eventually if they don't pay support, but they should be doing MORE.  Sending a monthly check shouldn't be the minimum required for creating another life.  If a woman is forced to go through a pregnancy and bear a child and then be responsible for the child (unless given up for adoption), then the father should have far more REQUIRED responsibility than the financial burden. 

For a pro-life stance, the woman has no choice but to carry through with her physical and emotional responsibility of pregnancy and birth.  For a man who created the pregnancy, why aren't there similar requirements of time and commitment?  Especially with jail time for those that don't honor those commitments.  If that were in place, maybe we'd see a significant decrease in unwanted pregnancies, especially since you can't have one without a man's contribution.

I wonder how many stringent laws like we're seeing now we'd see if men had the option of being pregnant and having to carry a baby to term.  Methinks it would be less than today.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think you guys don't realize the stuff you propose, wheher it is off the cuff, or you are actually serious...reminds me of a dictatorship..or communism....It blows my mind that anyone can sit around and come up with this gibberish..

 
Politician Spock said:
Now those who claim she is violating the fetus's right to life, where is the logic that she has that obligation to an uninvited fetus, but not to an uninvited 4 year old boy?
Click to expand...
Are you assuming Pro-Lifers agree with you that there wouldn't be an obligation to the uninvited 4 year old boy? I'm not sure that's true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
What don't you get?  I didn't know the word until reading threads here, but it's the scientific word for a fertilized egg (in humans, the combination of the male and female parents).  As for IVF centers - in general don't we have more lives because of them than we would without them?  Isn't that the complete opposite of abortion clinics?

Why are you bringing religion into this conversation?  I didn't arrive at my thoughts on the subject from any religious feelings or teachings. 
Click to expand...
IVF centers destroy thousands of embryos every year.  Nobody knows how many.  The goal is to have as many viable embryos as possible, so you usually end up with more than you use.

 
Henry Ford said:
IVF centers destroy thousands of embryos every year.  Nobody knows how many.  The goal is to have as many viable embryos as possible, so you usually end up with more than you use.
Click to expand...
I get what they do.  We have more (loved) lives with these centers than we do without them.  It’s the opposite of what we have with abortion clinics.  So I’m not understanding why you think your average pro lifer would, in general, be against these centers.  

 
matttyl said:
I get what they do.  We have more (loved) lives with these centers than we do without them.  It’s the opposite of what we have with abortion clinics.  So I’m not understanding why you think your average pro lifer would, in general, be against these centers.  
Click to expand...
Because each embryo is a life.  And you're ending it.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is literally question-begging.  If I think about the problem and answer the "Does a woman have the right to disconnect a 4-year-old from her even if it means the child's death?" question differently than you, that in no way implies a lack of respect for rape victims.  

(It also doesn't have anything to do with religion).
Click to expand...
Of course the woman has that right if she had nothing to do with it becoming attached to her. How is that even a question?

 
Politician Spock said:
Of course the woman has that right if she had nothing to do with it becoming attached to her. How is that even a question?
Click to expand...
If you don't see how it's even a question, then you don't have a good enough understanding of the issue to write off the other side as unacceptable.  I don't think your answer to this question is silly or evil or thoughtless, but your inability even to realize that there's another side to this argument should trigger your inner sense of epistemological humility.

 
Actually, to put it more broadly, it would be good for everyone to recognize that abortion is an ethically complex issue.  Despite your best efforts, you might be getting this one wrong.  The corollary is that people on the other side might not be evil monsters, but might just be well-meaning people of good will who are also getting a difficult problem wrong. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Actually, to put it more broadly, it would be good for everyone to recognize that abortion is an ethically complex issue.  Despite your best efforts, you might be getting this one wrong.  The corollary is that people on the other side might not be evil monsters, but might just be well-meaning people of good will who are also getting a difficult problem wrong. 
Click to expand...
I think it unlikely enough people will be able to agree that there are objective boundaries for what is and isn't acceptable such that you could govern by consensus on this issue. If that is the case, what is the proper role of a representative/democratic government in relation to this issue?

I don't think it should be regulated at a Federal, or even State level - that's too broad a scope. You can't expect people to have to move to another state that better fits their views on this subject, particularly those who would be directly affected by these decisions.

 
joffer said:
you’re better than this
Click to expand...
I think the "amirite" part should indicate that I'm being sarcastic, and I don't think pro-choicers actually hold the view I'm attributing to them.

Likewise, the view about pro-lifers being upset over IVF clinics is similarly off base.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
I think the "amirite" part should indicate that I'm being sarcastic, and I don't think pro-choicers actually hold the view I'm attributing to them.

Likewise, the view about pro-lifers being upset over IVF clinics is similarly off base.
Click to expand...
I know you’re being sarcastic. It’s still a terrible comparison. 

 
I mean, that’s low hanging fruit, right? No consequences for the woman.  In almost all cases the people involved have large financial investments and therefore can pay.  These are just conceived lives sitting in a freezer... why isn’t it murder when they’re destroyed?  

 
I’ll tell you what I think.  I think it’s because relatively few people actually believe that life begins at conception.  But I think admitting that it’s implantation that they think is important makes it sound like viability is important. And that’s kind of an argument loser in this case because that’s what the law is actually about. 

 
Henry Ford said:
The question, Ivan, is why there isn’t a law against destroying viable embryos at IVF clinics if life begins at conception. 
Click to expand...
Because when people say that "life begins at conception," what they really mean (in most cases -- there are outliers in every facet of this argument) is that "life begins at conception in a womb."  That's definitely my view, and I think your own observation is a revealed preference argument along those lines.

All of us understand that where you draw the line on personhood is difficult.  It is absolutely not helpful for people on my side of this issue to paint pro-choicers as supporting infanticide, which I know perfectly well you don't support.  So let's extend the courtesy both ways.  Arguments on this topic of the form "By your logic, ___(something preposterous)___" almost always come across as personal insults and not as serious attempts at dialogue.  

 
Henry Ford said:
I’ll tell you what I think.  I think it’s because relatively few people actually believe that life begins at conception.  But I think admitting that it’s implantation that they think is important makes it sound like viability is important. And that’s kind of an argument loser in this case because that’s what the law is actually about. 
Click to expand...
You and I were typing at the same time.  I definitely agree that implantation is important.  That's the point at which, if you leave things alone and let nature take its normal course, you end up with something that everyone agrees is a person.  That's the reason why a sperm cell is not a person, but a newborn infant is.  That's the point at which the violinist-attached-to-me argument makes any sense at all.  I freely grant this point.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Because when people say that "life begins at conception," what they really mean (in most cases -- there are outliers in every facet of this argument) is that "life begins at conception in a womb."  That's definitely my view, and I think your own observation is a revealed preference argument along those lines.

All of us understand that where you draw the line on personhood is difficult.  It is absolutely not helpful for people on my side of this issue to paint pro-choicers as supporting infanticide, which I know perfectly well you don't support.  So let's extend the courtesy both ways.  Arguments on this topic of the form "By your logic, ___(something preposterous)___" almost always come across as personal insults and not as serious attempts at dialogue.  
Click to expand...
I don’t have an issue with your position if you state your actual position using what words actually mean.  And implantation is a reasonable moment to use as the beginning.  But then we all can admit we’re talking about viability in various forms, not DNA or conception. And then the side that claims to side with you can admit you’re right, we’re all just arguing very similar points. 

We have to discuss these things honestly. That means using words that mean what we mean. I’m not really on you about this, because I know you know that.  But then don’t misrepresent the other side as saying you should be against IVF, which isn’t what was said. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You and I were typing at the same time.  I definitely agree that implantation is important.  That's the point at which, if you leave things alone and let nature take its normal course, you end up with something that everyone agrees is a person.  That's the reason why a sperm cell is not a person, but a newborn infant is.  That's the point at which the violinist-attached-to-me argument makes any sense at all.  I freely grant this point.  
Click to expand...
Do you know the percentage of implanted pregnancies that fail without intervention?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Don't care, not relevant.  People die of natural causes all the time.  It should still be illegal for me to go around stabbing people.
Click to expand...
It is relevant if your actual argument is “if left alone we will have a person.”  Especially if the percentage is 50-75 percent. 

 
Henry Ford said:
It is relevant if your actual argument is “if left alone we will have a person.”  Especially if the percentage is 50-75 percent. 
Click to expand...
Sure, but that's outside of any human agency.  I don't think anybody on either side of this issue views a miscarriage (for instance) as the same thing as an abortion.  

I'm going to log out for the night, but I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed this last sidebar.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Sure, but that's outside of any human agency.  I don't think anybody on either side of this issue views a miscarriage (for instance) as the same thing as an abortion.  

I'm going to log out for the night, but I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed this last sidebar.  
Click to expand...
Me too. It’s nice to discuss this honestly with someone else who wants to discuss it honestly. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
473
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
237
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top