Officials: Obama to reverse abortion policy

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
More tax money going out the door. :thumbsdown:

Consider it an investment. Less unwanted babies, less people locked up in prison 18 years from now, less food stamps for poor mothers, less medicare, etc.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

No amount of education is going to 100% fix this. People make mistakes.

So taking the causality argument out of the equation leaves you with a choice.

Theres 2 logical arguments:
1. Girl gets knocked up, girls life is over.
2. Girl gets knocked up, girl has choices she can make to rectify her mistake.

Basic sociology, economics, and psychology training required to read ahead:

It is fucking expensive to raise a child. If you dont think so, you obviously dont have one. Abortion is common and because of the stigma levied by the evangicals it is hidden from the public eye. 800,000 pregnancies are artificially terminated each year in the US. That is a huge social problem to deal with if you were to suddenly dump 800,000 children into the laps of a society not ready to care for them.

Premise 1: It is not necessary to get knocked up. Girl can avoid if she so desires, excluding rape.

Conclusion: Pregnancy is avoidable.

There is only one logical argument. After pregnancy, a woman has two choices. Keep the baby or don't keep it. Killing it should not be a valid option in a civilization that touts itself as humane.

You are misunderstanding me, people make mistakes.

Your beliefs cloud what i am saying to you.

If she puts the child up for adoption, as do 800,000 other women yearly; you will have an enormous social problem. If they keep the child, as many women already do;you will have an enormous number of women driven into poverty and out of education systems in a few years time.

Lets not even discuss the ethics of children with genetic defects... That will further cloud the argument.

What i am saying is outlawing abortion is a bad move for society as a whole. Nothing good can come from the change. It's a lot like banning gay marriage. No one benefits from the ban.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that killing babies is an acceptable way to improve society, regardless of why we do it. You don't begin the improvement of society by harming its constituents.

So what is your solution for the overpopulation issues we will inevitably face worldwide?

I don't know. But baby killing doesn't seem viable. Humanity has plenty of ways to kill itself on its own.

You're asking a question, incidentally, that I've pondered before. If we can exclude our disagreement over abortion for the time-being, I wanted to get input on this idea: If we had an explosion of births, wouldn't it be followed by an explosion of natural deaths? We may have no natural predators, but we sure get sick alot. How does nature deal with overpopulation of a species with no natural predator?

By droves of people starving to death when they cross the threshold their environment can sustain.

As for the mass deaths, that is a logical fallacy. There are more people alive right now than have died since the beginning of humanity.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

This is not a ban on abortion, we just don't pay for it.

For Christ's sake-- our money is ALREADY GOING to faith-based abstinence-only shit thanks to George W Bush. YOU ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MORE FOR THIS MOVE BY OBAMA.

Should the government pay for a personal procedure, that most Americans don't support and a good chunk find morally the equivalent of murder?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

This is not a ban on abortion, we just don't pay for it.

For Christ's sake-- our money is ALREADY GOING to faith-based abstinence-only shit thanks to George W Bush. YOU ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MORE FOR THIS MOVE BY OBAMA.

Should the government pay for a personal procedure, that most Americans don't support and a good chunk find morally the equivalent of murder?

AS opposed to having the unwanted baby, growing up either in a state funded orphanage, or foster homes (also state funded), or even raised badly by the natural parents that didnt want it, possible welfare, and prison housing when the unwanted child grows up without a chance to be normal. ??? Throw on top of that the lives this screwed up unwanted child might ruin in its screwed up life. I'll take abortion any day.

But we arent going to solve this here... Liberals are for the most part pro choice, and conservatives are mostly pro life. There are more liberals than consevatives in this country, and there are more pro choicers than pro lifers. Deal with it.

 

[budafied]

I think people are missing the point that pregnancy is 100% avoidable. It's no secret as to how women become pregnant. Even without abstinence (which I support, but whatever), women have a myriad of contraceptive methods available to them (given freely in many places). Thus, the need for abortion is non-existent, given the existence of choice and contraception. If women would either 1) keep their legs closed, or 2) have safe sex, then we would not have the need for abortion.

But women are not the only ones to blame. Men should be more responsible. If men would keep it in their pants, then they would not have to deal with these problems.

Since when is it the government's responsibility to cover the ass of those who make poor choices?

Obviously, my argument does not apply to rape victims, I do indeed have a soul after all...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Jeffg010
"WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

<SNIP>

More tax money going out the door. :thumbsdown:

The tax money was already going out the door and efforts to reduce worldwide population explosion, especially through abortion--the most effective way to prevent unwanted births a couple weeks into a pregnancy--might prove to have an excellent return on investment.

Ever heard of a philosopher/priest named Thomas Malthus? It turns out that one of the causes of war and conflict (not to mention tremendous amounts of human suffering) is resource shortages--arable land, water, food, energy etc., caused by overpopulation. (Duh.)

I just wish we could focus more on ending the American population explosion. I'd start by ending illegal immigration and dramatically reducing the amount of mass legal immigration.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

How can you murder a person who never existed by preventing him from coming into existence? There's no person inside of a fetus and there isn't any magic God-being that breathes a soul into embryos at conception; grow up, accept reason, and acknowledge that a god doesn't exit.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Because AIDS and other STDs are a huge fucking pandemic in Africa.

...And the welfare and well-being of the people in hopeless Africa is a concern to us because?

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

i dont like abortion

I don't either but I believe in giving people the choice to do this or not according to their morals and circumstances.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't mean we'll actually spend more money. It just means we'll be channelling it through organizations that offer comprehensive services rather than through fundie-whack fronts for abstinence only claptrap...

Which probably means we'll be spending our money more effectively.

Let's face it- preaching against sin is a helluva lot more profitable when there are lots of suffering sinners, and Bush policy was geared towards making sure there were plenty of 'em...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Because AIDS and other STDs are a huge fucking pandemic in Africa.

...And the welfare and well-being of the people in hopeless Africa is a concern to us because?

That whole thing about being human and, you know, moral.

:roll:

 

[her209]

Obama also lifted the ban on embroyonic stem cell research.

w00t!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Maybe he could do something useful like cutting off funding for pissing into a cup, putting a cross in it, and calling it art - All funded with public money. Then I'll look the other way on this one.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Because AIDS and other STDs are a huge fucking pandemic in Africa.

...And the welfare and well-being of the people in hopeless Africa is a concern to us because?

That whole thing about being human and, you know, moral.

:roll:

That is why I support private citizens being able to go there and/or send their own money there.

But it isn't moral to take my money from me and send it there. Sorry.

 

[frostedflakes]

Looking at the Wikipedia article for USAID, seems that most of the funds go to the middle east anyways (specifically Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel). Does't seem like very much goes to Africa.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Looking at the Wikipedia article for USAID, seems that most of the funds goes to the middle east anyways (specifically Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel). Does't seem like very much goes to Africa.

I'd like to see everyone cut off, every single country.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Hey put it this way, this is effectively a decrease in American influence in Africa. The entire abortion policy centered around faith based initiatives and basically people going in armed with bibles and anti condom pamphlets in the name of America and stopping AIDS through god.

With this, proper condom usage and sex education can resume without American Religion continuing to breed a generation of ignorant people.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

Haha you're joking right? Because after educating them about sex teenage pregnancies dropped. Syke! They exploded 80% in the next 2 years. Same happened in Great Brittain with their sex ed.

Sex ed was a failure and it's time the liberals admit the parents were right all along. Like usual.

I'm interesting in hearing more about this. Seriously. Can you elaborate?

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

:thumbsup: Good to see a faith-based policy go away.

Why is this necessary a faith based policy?

Our bodies didn't come with built in contraception. People used to respect sex, and treat it like something very serious. People would wait till marriage, so they could share that experience with one person they loved.

I'm guilty of multiple sex partners. I think everyone now-n-days is. Because our culture has changed. It isn't as "big of a deal" anymore. But why is that?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The federal government should not be preventing a personal medical procedure that is in such dispute.

Fixed

I agree but it should cost a fortune, figure an abortion should run individuals about $550,000 and it shouldn't be covered by insurance unless in the case of rape or incest....now that would make alot of people think twice.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: shrumpage
The federal government should not be preventing a personal medical procedure that is in such dispute.

Fixed

I agree but it should cost a fortune, figure an abortion should run individuals about $550,000 and it shouldn't be covered by insurance unless in the case of rape or incest....now that would make alot of people think twice.

No, they would just get a black market one for 1% of the price. Studies have repeatedly shown attempting to place barriers in the way of women getting abortions does nothing to affect the abortion rate.

Abortion is here, it's never going away, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

:thumbsup: Good to see a faith-based policy go away.

Why is this necessary a faith based policy?

Our bodies didn't come with built in contraception. People used to respect sex, and treat it like something very serious. People would wait till marriage, so they could share that experience with one person they loved.

I'm guilty of multiple sex partners. I think everyone now-n-days is. Because our culture has changed. It isn't as "big of a deal" anymore. But why is that?

I think you have created an imaginary history. People have been fucking eachother silly since the days of Moses, nothings changed.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: manlymatt83

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ayabe
:thumbsup: x 10

Yeah so let's talk about wasting money OP, ever heard of abstinence-only education?

:thumbsup: Good to see a faith-based policy go away.

Why is this necessary a faith based policy?

Our bodies didn't come with built in contraception. People used to respect sex, and treat it like something very serious. People would wait till marriage, so they could share that experience with one person they loved.

I'm guilty of multiple sex partners. I think everyone now-n-days is. Because our culture has changed. It isn't as "big of a deal" anymore. But why is that?

Bull. Throughout the ages, Sex was just something to have fun with. Of course there was still the idea of remaining faithful after marriage, but you're deluded to think that sex always used to be some sacred thing. Case in point, the Egyptians apparently didn't have a word for Virgin, mostly because the idea of one really didn't exist. They had fun.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Using taxpayer dollars to fund murder of future children. Good job Obama.
Why don't you just tell us how you really feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I

You do realize that in the US alone an abortion ban would create 800,000 children a year to parents who are mentally or financially unprepared to have children. Youre talking a whole lot of fucked up kids or a whole lot of government funded fucked up kids in orphanages.

Or, just maybe, people would start thinking before they had unprotected sex.

Overall, people didn't think any more than they do today about unprotected sex BEFORE abortion became legal. If anything, people think about it much more today as it is much more dangerous as far as STDs, etc. That "legalized abortion leads to decreased responsibility in choosing to have sex" argument is a whole lot of hot air. Changing the situation to fit someone's restrictive idealogy regarding sex will only make matters worse.

Besides, the expense of children isn't often a factor in people having sex overall. See the days of pre-griswald when BC was either nonexistent or unavailable - having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty back then...

I disagree. It seems to me conventional wisdom that if you have little to no consequences for making a mistake, you'll be more careless.

I disagree also with the picture you're painting. Children aren't the cause of poverty. The lack of money is. Saying children are the cause of poverty is like saying heads are the cause of excess hair.

Experience trumps conventional wisdom if it is backed up by historical facts. People had plenty of unprotected sex prior to Roe and will continue to do so for the same reasons. If anything, since the "sexual revolution" as some call it, the consequences have gone dramatically up with the prevalence of STDs that we simply didn't have on such a scale before. Herpes/HIV/etc. are much more of a deterrent than pregnancy ever was. Besides, as has been mentioned in this thread, the legalization of abortion has had little statistical effect on the number of ones performed. It just has made it safer for the potential mothers.

Lack of money the cause for poverty!?! Why didn't I think of it sooner! The answer has just been staring at us in the face all along! Seriously, I'm not sure whether to :laugh: or be over that one... The picture I paint was VERY common prior to the early parts of the 20th century. Woman gets married (or not), and has a kid. But there is no BC available, so another one pops out....and another one.....and another one... ad nauseum until menopause. Having A child won't necessarily put you into poverty, but not having any control over the process will definitely lead there fast. Once BC became more prevalent, and was legalized, poverty among women of childbearing age went down dramatically. That is a fact.

I question the validity of your claim that STDs are a greater deterrant than the risk of pregnancy.

Wait a second. Are we talking about abortion or Birth Control here? Are you equating abortion to Birth Control? I have no argument against birth control prior to conception.

No, I wasn't equating the two per se, just analyzing the whole claim that was made about fewer or diminished consequences making people more irresponsible. BC does fall into that area. There are also a lot of paralells between the fight to legalize BC back in the first two decades in the 20th century and today...

 

[manowar821]

It's not a stupid cause, you heartless fascist.