• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What about the children?

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,867
Reaction score
8,344
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Many, perhaps the majority, of those who support overturning Roe v Wade seem to care little about the child once it is born.

What about the children?

For decades, the abortion debate has been about politics and precedent, about religion and reproductive rights, about riling up voters and rewriting laws. Rarely is it about what happens to children once they roam this earth if their mothers are forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy. Where is the commitment by antiabortion warriors to take up the fight for the babies who will be born under duress?

Short answer? It hardly exists. This is the false piety hidden in the Republican Party’s zeal to roll back a woman’s right to choose. The sanctity of human life is all-important right up to the point when that flesh-and-bone child enters a world where programs designed to support women, the poor or households teetering toward economic ruin are being scaled back by a party that claims to be about family values. Family, for the radicalized GOP, is too often an inelastic framework built around powerful men, subordinate women, and children who will learn how to hurl themselves forward in life, even if there’s no money, few educational opportunities, no job prospects in their future, no proverbial boots with magical straps to lift their fortunes toward the sun.
Click to expand...

Conservatives, at least those who oppose the right to abortion, seem to care little about the child and its mother once the baby is out of the womb. They don't want those 'losers' to take their money so their attitude becomes- "screw 'em. She had sex so it's up to her to take care of the brat. Us real hard workers got other things to buy."

The women who contemplate ending their pregnancies never really take center stage in this drama. Their dilemma is framed as simply a choice. Their anguish is subject to moral policing. Their reasons (poverty, abusive partner, age, insufficient life skills) are brushed away by majority White and male lawmakers who have no problem policing women’s bodies but have been howling for months about something as simple as mask mandates. (and mandatory vaccinations)
Click to expand...

Then there's the excuse that the aborted child might have become the person who cures cancer - uh huh.

Those who have long fought to outlaw the procedure often argue that the child whose life is ended by abortion might be the very person who could discover the cure for cancer — as if the government needs to control women’s bodies to protect the future of the human race.
That argument is wickedly hollow when it comes from lawmakers who are unwilling to invest in helping expectant mothers or providing a stronger safety net for the children they will be forced to bear.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Many, perhaps the majority, of those who support overturning Roe v Wade seem to care little about the child once it is born.

Conservatives, at least those who oppose the right to abortion, seem to care little about the child and its mother once the baby is out of the womb. They don't want those 'losers' to take their money so their attitude becomes- "screw 'em. She had sex so it's up to her to take care of the brat. Us real hard workers got other things to buy."

Then there's the excuse that the aborted child might have become the person who cures cancer - uh huh.
Click to expand...
This has always been one of the lamest arguments in favor of abortion - the "mercy killing" argument.

Kill the baby so it doesn't have to suffer the [imagined] woes of life and the heartless people who wanted the baby to live.

There's no point in addressing the inanity of the argument - it does that all on its own.

But to suggest that those who are against abortion could care less about the child after it's born is first, a straw man argument of the first order, then second an ad-hominem with no basis in fact, and third, a non-sequitur for how could it logically follow for those who want the baby to live, then... don't?

The entire premise of the OP is bogus.
 
Somerville said:
Many, perhaps the majority, of those who support overturning Roe v Wade seem to care little about the child once it is born.



Conservatives, at least those who oppose the right to abortion, seem to care little about the child and its mother once the baby is out of the womb. They don't want those 'losers' to take their money so their attitude becomes- "screw 'em. She had sex so it's up to her to take care of the brat. Us real hard workers got other things to buy."



Then there's the excuse that the aborted child might have become the person who cures cancer - uh huh.
Click to expand...

The "pro-life" contingent has shed more tears about masses of cells than they ever did about 20 First Graders getting blown to bits hiding behind the toilet in Sandy Hook.
 
EdwinWillers said:
This has always been one of the lamest arguments in favor of abortion - the "mercy killing" argument.

Kill the baby so it doesn't have to suffer the [imagined] woes of life and the heartless people who wanted the baby to live.

There's no point in addressing the inanity of the argument - it does that all on its own.

But to suggest that those who are against abortion could care less about the child after it's born is first, a straw man argument of the first order, then second an ad-hominem with no basis in fact, and third, a non-sequitur for how could it logically follow for those who want the baby to live, then... don't?

The entire premise of the OP is bogus.
Click to expand...
I'll pull one fallacy out of your screed. Others can address the rest.

It's not a straw man, the two issues are intimately related. How can a political movement force a woman to carry a baby to term and at the same time complain about providing support and healthcare after the baby is born?
 

What about the children?​



It's just the latest example of the Republicans making war on the poor. Since they refuse to accept responsibility for anything that's wrong in this country, their response to everything is to blame the victim.
 
JMB802 said:
I'll pull one fallacy out of your screed. Others can address the rest.

It's not a straw man, the two issues are intimately related. How can a political movement force a woman to carry a baby to term and at the same time complain about providing support and healthcare after the baby is born?
Click to expand...
That's easy - they don't.
 
EdwinWillers said:
That's easy - they don't.
Click to expand...

They don't what? Are you saying that the FRW doesn't want to force a woman to carry a baby to term? Or that the FRW doesn't block measures for support and healthcare for children?
 
JMB802 said:
They don't what? Are you saying that the FRW doesn't want to force a woman to carry a baby to term? Or that the FRW doesn't block measures for support and healthcare for children?
Click to expand...
I'm saying what I said - which was in response to what you wrote. Perhaps you forgot what you wrote:

How can a political movement force a woman to carry a baby to term and at the same time complain about providing support and healthcare after the baby is born?​

Hence, my response: "they don't." Just because certain measures are blocked that [ostensibly] would provide support and healthcare for children in no way, shape, or form means those who blocked such measures don't want them at all. I mean good grief, we've both been around long enough to know how bills and politics works. Don't even tell me you're that naive - and certainly don't presume such naivete on me.

Now let me explain, since you seem to not understand the logical fallacies I'd pointed out in the original argument:
Strawman - painting conservatives as not caring about a child after it's born is classic strawman: easier to debunk an argument if the argument debunks itself, which would be the case were us not caring about the child after being born were true.
Ad-Hominem - re the above, calling us uncaring - textbook ad hom
Non-Sequitur - the entirety of the "mercy killing" argument for, as I said, how does it logically for those who want the baby to live, then afterwards... don't?
 
tres borrachos said:
The "pro-life" contingent has shed more tears about masses of cells than they ever did about 20 First Graders getting blown to bits hiding behind the toilet in Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...
What a terrible generalization you make. What if I said that those seeking abortions laugh at the thought of 20 first graders being murdered! Your point is very cruel and not worthy of consideration.
 
Last edited:
EdwinWillers said:
I'm saying what I said - which was in response to what you wrote. Perhaps you forgot what you wrote:

How can a political movement force a woman to carry a baby to term and at the same time complain about providing support and healthcare after the baby is born?​

Hence, my response: "they don't." Just because certain measures are blocked that [ostensibly] would provide support and healthcare for children in no way, shape, or form means those who blocked such measures don't want them at all. I mean good grief, we've both been around long enough to know how bills and politics works. Don't even tell me you're that naive - and certainly don't presume such naivete on me.

Now let me explain, since you seem to not understand the logical fallacies I'd pointed out in the original argument:
Strawman - painting conservatives as not caring about a child after it's born is classic strawman: easier to debunk an argument if the argument debunks itself, which would be the case were us not caring about the child after being born were true.
Ad-Hominem - re the above, calling us uncaring - textbook ad hom
Non-Sequitur - the entirety of the "mercy killing" argument for, as I said, how does it logically for those who want the baby to live, then afterwards... don't?
Click to expand...

The far right-wing wants to force women to carry babies to term.
The far right-wing blocks measures to medically and financially support children.

These are facts. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
 
LittleNipper said:
What a terrible generation you make. What if I said that those seeking abortions laugh at the thought of 20 first graders being murdered! Your point is very cruel and not worthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

"Generation"? Who on Earth are you, and what is my "generation"? And why are you laughing at the deaths of the First Graders in Sandy HooK?
 
JMB802 said:
The far right-wing wants to force women to carry babies to term.
The far right-wing blocks measures to medically and financially support children.

These are facts. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
Click to expand...
The far right-wing (as you label them) ideally wish fathers to support the mother's and the children. To preach otherwise is dishonest.
 
LittleNipper said:
The far right-wing (as you label them) ideally wish fathers to support the mother's and the children. To preach otherwise is dishonest.
Click to expand...
Why would you reply to my comment and ignore the content?
 
Last edited:
JMB802 said:
Why would you reply to my comment but ignore the content?
Click to expand...
The reality is that many people including physicians --- both liberal and conservative would rather the life of a baby be saved. I know of no woman who would prefer the death of a baby to allowing same to be born. The issue seems to be one of personal convenience and not any animosity towards the baby in question.
 
LittleNipper said:
The reality is that many people including physicians --- both liberal and conservative would rather the life of a baby be saved. I know of no woman who would prefer the death of a baby to allowing same to be born. The issue seems to be one of personal convenience and not any animosity towards the baby in question.
Click to expand...
Again, why would you reply to my comment and ignore the content?

The far right-wing wants to force women to carry babies to term? Is this true or false?

The far right-wing repeatedly blocks legislation intended to medically and financially support children. Is this true or false?
 
JMB802 said:
Again, why would you reply to my comment and ignore the content?

The far right-wing wants to force women to carry babies to term? Is this true or false?

The far right-wing repeatedly blocks legislation intended to medically and financially support children. Is this true or false?
Click to expand...
I intimated that conservatives in general see no rational reason for healthy pregnancies not to be carried to term. I would disagree that conservatives block legislation intended to medically and financially support children.
 
LittleNipper said:
I intimated that conservatives in general see no rational reason for babies not to be carried to term. I would disagree that conservatives block legislation intended to medically and financially support children.
Click to expand...
Research child care tax credit. Have a lovely day.
 
LittleNipper said:
The far right-wing (as you label them) ideally wish fathers to support the mother's and the children. To preach otherwise is dishonest.
Click to expand...
And if there is no father to support them? How are you going to force a "father" to actually support them? How do you force good, involved parenting?
 
roguenuke said:
And if there is no father to support them? How are you going to force a "father" to actually support them? How do you force good, involved parenting?
Click to expand...
If an individual realizes that he or she will be held accountable in the event of a pregnancy, the chances of arbitrary sexual encounters likely will drop. On the other hand, if there is provided an easy and cheap means to remedy such "situations" there becomes no accountability and acts of sex become increasingly leisure entertainment and without forethought. There needs to be a balance. Rape needs to be seriously punished; however, enticement also needs to be curtailed and not rewarded.
 
LittleNipper said:
If an individual realizes that he or she will be held accountable in the event of a pregnancy, the chances of arbitrary sexual encounters likely will drop. On the other hand, if there is provided an easy and cheap means to remedy such "situations" there becomes no accountability and acts of sex become increasingly leisure entertainment and without forethought. There needs to be a balance. Rape needs to be seriously punished; however, enticement also needs to be curtailed and not rewarded.
Click to expand...
Guess what? Choosing to have an abortion does not have anything to do with not being held accountable for having sex, getting pregnant.

Abortion is not "cheap", certainly not cheaper than birth control. The balance is in choice and education, as well as easy access to birth control, together, not one or the other.
 
There are too many children in foster care for various reasons and we don't need more..

A woman knows whether or not she in a position to care for a child and if she can't and knows that child may be subjected to a below quality of life; it is more humane to have an abortion. While some children overcome their struggles in foster care, many don't as evidenced by some of the crime rates. MOO

Having said that IMO all abortions should be conducted in the first trimester prior to a fetus becoming viable unless it is to save the life of the mother; or a serious birth defect is uncovered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom