A hypothetical Zika-virus question for the anti-abortion crowd

[shira]

So why stop at abortion then? Why not extend this line of thinking further into the life cycle of people?

Rationing of medical care is already doing this. And need I remind you that conservatives are the leading proponents of the "Just go away and die" school of medical care for those who lack coverage?

 

[shira]

While its not my position I can understand why someone would be against all abortions and also not want to take on the burden of supporting more babies. I don't think buckshots opinion is too crazy on this.

My question in the OP was IF you would oppose allowing these fetuses to be aborted, then HOW should society pay for the enormous cost of taking care of all of the severely damaged babies that would result? MUCH higher taxes? MUCH less defense and other social spending? Or is there some other solution?

Sounds to me like Buckshot has punted on answering the second question.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

well now. that's a mighty mean thing to say. got proof?

Piece of cake. "Human life" is constantly and deliberately killed all around him and he does nothing about it at all. Amputations, tissue extractions, HeLa cell culture disposal, masturbation, and on and on.

The crux of the issue, and where he remains deliberately obtuse is the fact that not all "human life" is a person. He doesn't want to say that he is opposed to the killing of persons because that definition doesn't include fetuses. So, he obfuscates by using an ambiguous descriptor like "human."

It's a classic case of buckwheat bullshit, so fuck him.

 

[shira]

Is there anything you would not use as a reason to raise taxes? While I know you guys enjoy that in its own right as much as spending the tax receipts surely you could more creatively use existing resources. Such as having the able-bodied members of the safety net set take care of those "severe brain damage babies" that progressives won't themselves voluntarily via charitable contributions of either time or money? You're the ones taking the easy way out by saying government should handle it if the parents don't abort and that the rich should pay for it all either way.

You're entirely missing the point: Since in a conservative-controlled U.S. women would be forced to carry these severely damaged babies to term, what is YOUR solution to the problem of caring for hundreds of thousands of these babies when the parents - very understandably - abandon these babies and make them wards of the state? You're telling us "no new taxes!" But that's a total non-solution. Please explain to us how the financial math works in this well-thought-out system of yours.

 

[glenn1]

You're entirely missing the point: Since in a conservative-controlled U.S. women would be forced to carry these severely damaged babies to term, what is YOUR solution to the problem of caring for hundreds of thousands of these babies when the parents - very understandably - abandon these babies and make them wards of the state? You're telling us "no new taxes!" But that's a total non-solution. Please explain to us how the financial math works in this well-thought-out system of yours.

Why should the state do another more than they do for any other child neglected or rejected by their parents? Stop pretending you give a fuck about these kids as people rather than just obligation for some rich person to pay for presuming you can't get them aborted first. I'd do the same thing for them as you progressives have done for millions of inner city kids; ignore them and leave them to rot so long as they stay invisible in their shitty schools and killing each other for sport.

 

[Slew Foot]

is it bad if we call these kids "the Hollowborn"?

 

[shira]

Why should the state do another more than they do for any other child neglected or rejected by their parents? Stop pretending you give a fuck about these kids as people rather than just obligation for some rich person to pay for presuming you can't get them aborted first. I'd do the same thing for them as you progressives have done for millions of inner city kids; ignore them and leave them to rot so long as they stay invisible in their shitty schools and killing each other for sport.

You're just evading. The financial costs for taking care of these additional babies would be on top of all of the other social spending. They would have to be clothed and bathed and fed and entertained. And the attempt would need to be made to try and help them improve. It would be HIGHLY labor-intensive. I'm guessing the cost would compare with the cost of taking care of late-state Alzheimer's patients. Probably $50,000 a year or more. And hundreds of thousands would be born every year. Just do the math. It's easy to imagine getting to the point where the yearly cost exceeds $100 billion. But no new taxes, right? So, again, how would we pay for the care of all of these babies?

 

[Zorba]

Lets just kill everybody who may be a burden to anybody else then.

Hyperbole much?

 

[buckshot24]

Hyperbole much?

Every now and then.

 

[Zorba]

Why should the state do another more than they do for any other child neglected or rejected by their parents? Stop pretending you give a fuck about these kids as people rather than just obligation for some rich person to pay for presuming you can't get them aborted first. I'd do the same thing for them as you progressives have done for millions of inner city kids; ignore them and leave them to rot so long as they stay invisible in their shitty schools and killing each other for sport.

So as long as they are forced to be born, you don't care about them at all afterwards? What a terrible person you are.

It is you and your fellow pro-lifers that want them to be forced to kept alive, you can't then punt all responsibility on other people after you forced them.

 

[glenn1]

So as long as they are forced to be born, you don't care about them at all afterwards? What a terrible person you are.

It is you and your fellow pro-lifers that want them to be forced to kept alive, you can't then punt all responsibility on other people after you forced them.

I'm not a pro-lifer and I don't care about them before birth or after. I share that with progressive folks but unlike them my "solution" isn't just a new tax on people I dislike so a bureaucrat can do the dirty work for me.

 

[glenn1]

You're just evading. The financial costs for taking care of these additional babies would be on top of all of the other social spending. They would have to be clothed and bathed and fed and entertained. And the attempt would need to be made to try and help them improve. It would be HIGHLY labor-intensive. I'm guessing the cost would compare with the cost of taking care of late-state Alzheimer's patients. Probably $50,000 a year or more. And hundreds of thousands would be born every year. Just do the math. It's easy to imagine getting to the point where the yearly cost exceeds $100 billion. But no new taxes, right? So, again, how would we pay for the care of all of these babies?

What costs are there to entertain the children you say should be aborted because they are vegetables? Just put them under a grow lamp and feed them hydroponically and you are good to go and out all of $5 or something?

 

[shira]

What costs are there to entertain the children you say should be aborted because they are vegetables? Just put them under a grow lamp and feed them hydroponically and you are good to go and out all of $5 or something?

In other words, since you've painted yourself into a corner, you refuse to answer the question.

 

[glenn1]

In other words, since you've painted yourself into a corner, you refuse to answer the question.

How did I paint myself into a corner? I support abortion and think it's one of the greatest boons the country has ever seen. We literally have millions less welfare babies then we would have otherwise; hell if I had my way people on government assistance wouldn't be allowed to NOT have an abortion and remain on assistance. As for this particular hypothetical, if you're the kind of prospective parent who aborts because you didn't have the perfect child (whether it's Downs, Zika-virus victim, selective sex abortion, etc.) then I'm glad you're not passing along your genes and burdening the rest of us. We already have enough selfish people in this country without them adding more.

 

[WelshBloke]

What costs are there to entertain the children you say should be aborted because they are vegetables? Just put them under a grow lamp and feed them hydroponically and you are good to go and out all of $5 or something?

I'm not entirely sure that your not being deliberately perverse here but...

Care for kids like that is really expensive, and once you take responsibility for their care you cant just warehouse them.

This is pretty simple with a few big "ifs".

If zika spreads into the US and if zika causes these abnormalities at a significant rate then it is going to have to be dealt with, and the "solution" is going to be horrible what ever we choose.

Personally I think that the most humane solution would be abortion but I can see why people would be against that.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not entirely sure that your not being deliberately perverse here but...

Care for kids like that is really expensive, and once you take responsibility for their care you cant just warehouse them.

This is pretty simple with a few big "ifs".

If zika spreads into the US and if zika causes these abnormalities at a significant rate then it is going to have to be dealt with, and the "solution" is going to be horrible what ever we choose.

Personally I think that the most humane solution would be abortion but I can see why people would be against that.

Of course it's the most humane and I support it. Those who have abortions are doing the Lord's work and the nation and world are far better without tens of millions of additional welfare babies and Democrats (but I repeat myself). I would just like your side to be consistent in its cynical utilitarianism; if an embryonic future drain on taxpayer funds should be aborted we should likewise let die the current born drains on taxpayer resources too. Instead you clamor to raise taxes and give it to those money pits, I guess not all drains all equal much less more equal than others.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My question in the OP was IF you would oppose allowing these fetuses to be aborted, then HOW should society pay for the enormous cost of taking care of all of the severely damaged babies that would result? MUCH higher taxes? MUCH less defense and other social spending? Or is there some other solution?

Sounds to me like Buckshot has punted on answering the second question.

We already know it would be some combination of:

Don't do more than basic care and let gods will guide them
Or
They have Obamacare let Obama handle them
Or
Reduce business and income taxes to get more people working and more money in their pockets
Or
Its their families responsibility to provide care
Or
That's what Charities are for
Or
Take some money from single people on ling term welfare and give it to the kids

Another scenario is from a Nun or a Pastor. We should care for every baby the best and most appropriate way possible and we should all give time & money until it hurts.

 

[glenn1]

We already know it would be some combination of:

Don't do more than basic care and let gods will guide them
Or
They have Obamacare let Obama handle them
Or
Reduce business and income taxes to get more people working and more money in their pockets
Or
Its their families responsibility to provide care
Or
That's what Charities are for
Or
Take some money from single people on ling term welfare and give it to the kids

Another scenario is from a Nun or a Pastor. We should care for every baby the best and most appropriate way possible and we should all give time & money until it hurts.

I thought you guys were against " socializing losses" but I guess that's only for corporations; if it's a baby and parents who care more about saving a buck than their own offspring then hell yeah socialize the shit out of it. Because that's what taxpayers are for,to ensure that you don't need to spend any more on your child than you desire to.

 

[WelshBloke]

Of course it's the most humane and I support it. Those who have abortions are doing the Lord's work and the nation and world are far better without tens of millions of additional welfare babies and Democrats (but I repeat myself). I would just like your side to be consistent in its cynical utilitarianism; if an embryonic future drain on taxpayer funds should be aborted we should likewise let die the current born drains on taxpayer resources too. Instead you clamor to raise taxes and give it to those money pits, I guess not all drains all equal much less more equal than others.

I'm not entirely sure why you're being so irrationally angry about this.

It's a disease and, at the moment, there's no vaccine (and I doubt that there will be one for a couple of years yet).

This isnt about my side/your side (and for the record I'm not a Democrat, I'm not American so I've never voted to spend any of your precious tax dollars).
This isnt (for me anyway) about money at all (although it is going to be expensive either way). Its about compassion mostly. What sort of existence do you think those children will have? It's going to be short and full of suffering. Unless you want to spend huge amounts of resources, in which case it's going to be longer and still have a lot of suffering in. Could your health care system cope with a huge number of severely disabled children dumped on it? Because I guarantee that that's what will happen if this virus does its worst.

There's nothing analogous between this and "additional welfare babies" as you put it. To even suggest that shows that you can't see any problem without desperately trying to make it some parties "fault".
Shit happens and we have to deal with it. Flailing round in a fury, desperate for someone to blame is not dealing with it. You do that and other people, more suited to making decisions for you, will decide.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not entirely sure why you're being so irrationally angry about this.

It's a disease and, at the moment, there's no vaccine (and I doubt that there will be one for a couple of years yet).

This isnt about my side/your side (and for the record I'm not a Democrat, I'm not American so I've never voted to spend any of your precious tax dollars).
This isnt (for me anyway) about money at all (although it is going to be expensive either way). Its about compassion mostly. What sort of existence do you think those children will have? It's going to be short and full of suffering. Unless you want to spend huge amounts of resources, in which case it's going to be longer and still have a lot of suffering in. Could your health care system cope with a huge number of severely disabled children dumped on it? Because I guarantee that that's what will happen if this virus does its worst.

There's nothing analogous between this and "additional welfare babies" as you put it. To even suggest that shows that you can't see any problem without desperately trying to make it some parties "fault".
Shit happens and we have to deal with it. Flailing round in a fury, desperate for someone to blame is not dealing with it. You do that and other people, more suited to making decisions for you, will decide.

Because to me parents who "dump their children on the healthcare system" because they aren't the perfect snowflake they wanted is the worse problem than some dollars. But then again I'm no longer surprised when to folks like you "compassion" is all about allowing adults to wash their hands of their "mistakes" like these kids. Might as well just put them in a bag and drown them in the river like they're a litter of unwanted kittens in the name of compassion. But you guys don't have the guts to do that so you'll do it in utero so you can pretend it never happened, anything to avoid the reality of the action.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because to me parents who "dump their children on the healthcare system" because they aren't the perfect snowflake they wanted is the worse problem than some dollars. But then again I'm no longer surprised when to folks like you "compassion" is all about allowing adults to wash their hands of their "mistakes" like these kids. Might as well just put them in a bag and drown them in the river like they're a litter of unwanted kittens in the name of compassion. But you guys don't have the guts to do that so you'll do it in utero so you can pretend it never happened, anything to avoid the reality of the action.

Oh look, children. This troglodyte thinks acorns are oak trees. Let's all point and laugh at the moron! Hahaha! Poor fool will probably never be smarter than rock he crawled out from under. So sad.

 

[realibrad]

Because to me parents who "dump their children on the healthcare system" because they aren't the perfect snowflake they wanted is the worse problem than some dollars. But then again I'm no longer surprised when to folks like you "compassion" is all about allowing adults to wash their hands of their "mistakes" like these kids. Might as well just put them in a bag and drown them in the river like they're a litter of unwanted kittens in the name of compassion. But you guys don't have the guts to do that so you'll do it in utero so you can pretend it never happened, anything to avoid the reality of the action.

But, its more than being unhappy with your kid. Some of these kids will require care that the average person could not afford. Some of the brain defects will make the child so underdeveloped that they will require having someone with them at all times. Its not like little Johnny will be bagging groceries at the local supermarket. Some will have medical conditions as well as mental issues.

That type of care can easily be over 50k a year. That is as much as some people make before taxes. Once someone gets pregnant, what should be done?

*edit

To be clear, I say abort if the parent wants to. It is a value judgement on a life sure, but I can admit that. Many on the left will try to pretend its not, but it is.

 

[WelshBloke]

Because to me parents who "dump their children on the healthcare system" because they aren't the perfect snowflake they wanted is the worse problem than some dollars.

You're coming over as childish and irrational. This isn't about parents not getting the perfect child that they wanted.

But then again I'm no longer surprised when to folks like you "compassion" is all about allowing adults to wash their hands of their "mistakes" like these kids.

This isnt about "allowing" something to happen. I'm telling you what will happen regardless of what you, I or the white rabbit wants.
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this is something that won't happen if you disapprove of it is cowardly and irresponsible.

Might as well just put them in a bag and drown them in the river like they're a litter of unwanted kittens in the name of compassion. But you guys don't have the guts to do that so you'll do it in utero so you can pretend it never happened, anything to avoid the reality of the action.

And you don't have the courage or honesty to actually try to think of a solution.
That's why you'll have to step aside and let people who can make decisions make them for you.

Then you can sit back in your cowardly comfort and heap all the blame on bigger people than you.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I thought you guys were against " socializing losses" but I guess that's only for corporations; if it's a baby and parents who care more about saving a buck than their own offspring then hell yeah socialize the shit out of it. Because that's what taxpayers are for,to ensure that you don't need to spend any more on your child than you desire to.

So its:

Take some money from single people on long term welfare and give it to the kids

 

[glenn1]

You're coming over as childish and irrational. This isn't about parents not getting the perfect child that they wanted.

Yeah, I know it's not about the "perfect child they wanted" - let's not mince words here and just say you really don't care about the parent's motivations at all and would support abortion for any reason at all and that reason as almost always that the parents DON'T want the child. I don't have any problem with you claiming that as your moral stance, but then don't go around trying to treat the hypothetical edge case like Zika differently as if you're doing us all a favor by saving us money.

This isnt about "allowing" something to happen. I'm telling you what will happen regardless of what you, I or the white rabbit wants.

So IOW you're perfectly fine with parents claiming no obligation to kids and abandoning them but if you think it's someone other than the parents doing the same that's wrong and immoral and we should use the state to confiscate their wallet.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this is something that won't happen if you disapprove of it is cowardly and irresponsible.



And you don't have the courage or honesty to actually try to think of a solution.
That's why you'll have to step aside and let people who can make decisions make them for you.

Then you can sit back in your cowardly comfort and heap all the blame on bigger people than you.

No, if the parents don't want the child and care more about their money than the life they created, they should carry the child to term and kill it themselves. Look the child in the eye as you take away its life. Doing it via abortion is a fucking coward and we shouldn't pander to their emotions to make it easier on them. Own your choice to kill. Next up is bashing in the skulls of Downs kids, they cost too much.