What's wrong with everybody choosing what is best for their situation.

[weaver2]

Read much? I state the regulatory state controls how much people can work for. In the state of CA, for example, it is illegal for employers to pay their employees less than $14 per hour. This means someone who has skills and experience which are only worth $10 will not be able to get a job, since any employer who hires him would lose $4 per hour. To prevent someone from working for less than some arbitrary number is a violation of his liberty.
I'm guessing you learned to read in a government-run school.
Occupational licensing laws create labor cartels, which prevent consumers from hiring people not in the cartel.
Lots of different kinds of drugs.
No, they are yet another example of how the progressive regulatory state violates my rights and the rights of those who I buy beer from.
Now if we broaden that a bit, we come to the idea that you should need state permission to do virtually anything which may affect another person. Isn't that what you believe?
Let's see if you really believe this. Should all houses be forced to meet modern building codes?
Good, then don't complain about them wanting to regulate women's vaginas. There are good reasons for vagina regulations.

Fortunately happier and more rational heads prevail.

 

[weaver2]

losing their job ...... seems like death.

Great post, although I would say for some losing their job is death for them and their their families. Many of the job losses were not necessary but the result of rapacious capitalism.

 

[weaver2]

I don't know why questions like this keep getting asked. Everyone has the answer already. If you think that unborn are innocent humans deserving of life and dignity, then you would be pro-life or a monster. If you think that they are just a clump of cells of no import, than you'd be pro-choice.

However, the pro-choice crowd always falls short as they won't admit that unborn humans are deserving as such, even when they are at the point of development where they obviously are. I can only assume that they believe in cervix and vagina are magic that turn a meaningless clump of cells that exist on one side to a baby when it comes out the other.

A fetus deserves to be treated in ways that enhance a healthy child. Very few women treat a pregnancy they want in an unhealthy way. Women quit smoking, quit drinking alcohol, take vitamins, see the doctor, follow her/his orders, get checkups, etc. An unwanted pregnancy is another situation. Giving birth to an unwanted child may mean disaster for the child. Aborting an in the 1st trimester because you cannot be a good mother, do not have the resources to support a child is the responsible thing to do. It is irresponsible to give birth and then not care for a child.
Your argument fails when you start accusing women of aborting a fetus that is viable. This is not happening. The less than 1% of abortions that happen after viability, about 24 weeks, are done for medical reasons. If a fetus has not been aborted before 20 weeks it is obviously a pregnancy that the woman wanted and is looking forward to a child.

 

[Fishking]

A fetus deserves to be treated in ways that enhance a healthy child. Very few women treat a pregnancy they want in an unhealthy way. Women quit smoking, quit drinking alcohol, take vitamins, see the doctor, follow her/his orders, get checkups, etc. An unwanted pregnancy is another situation. Giving birth to an unwanted child may mean disaster for the child. Aborting an in the 1st trimester because you cannot be a good mother, do not have the resources to support a child is the responsible thing to do. It is irresponsible to give birth and then not care for a child.

Purposefully killing your child to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year is the definition treating a pregnancy in an unhealthy way. You premise fails at the very start and isn't distinct in its verbiage from what you could say of a child that has been born. What's beyond what could be described with such a benign word as "irresponsible" is killing your child and thinking that is a viable solution.

Your argument fails when you start accusing women of aborting a fetus that is viable. This is not happening. The less than 1% of abortions that happen after viability, about 24 weeks, are done for medical reasons. If a fetus has not been aborted before 20 weeks it is obviously a pregnancy that the woman wanted and is looking forward to a child.

Yeah...none of your statistics is actually backed up by solid date and it even fails the sniff test when you ask a pro-choicer if they are then OK with restrictions at a certain point of development. Nearly all pro-choicers support unrestricted abortions, at any point of the pregnancy, for any reason. If you comment was based in reality you wouldn't see objections to reasonable restrictions.

 

[minnie616]

…

Yeah...none of your statistics is actually backed up by solid date and it even fails the sniff test when you ask a pro-choicer if they are then OK with restrictions at a certain point of development. Nearly all pro-choicers support unrestricted abortions, at any point of the pregnancy, for any reason. If you comment was based in reality you wouldn't see objections to reasonable restrictions.

No one would want to to abort a viable fetus unless medically necessary. That thought is just wrong.


Stats

Over 92 percent of all pregnancies are aborted before the end of the first trimester.
Over 50 percent of all pregnancies are aborted using pills within the first 10 weeks.

Clinic doctors do not preform abortions on viable pregnancies unless the life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman would occur if the pregnacy continued.

80 percent of all abortions between week 21 and week 24 which is the limit viability are because the fetus had/has catastrophic fetal defects.

from KKF December 2019

Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon, and represent 1% of all abortions in the US.

The CDC does not elaborate on the breakdown by gestational age for abortions occurring past 21 weeks, but it is likely that the vast majority occur soon after 21 weeks rather than in the later in the pregnancy. While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased.

In 2008 Kansas was one a few clinics were abortions past 22 occurred for these extreme situations.
323 abortions at or past 22 weeks occurred.

131 were non viable.
192 were because the woman would suffer irreparable damage to a major bodily function such as stroke, heart attack , kidney failure or liver failure.

 

[Lursa]

Purposefully killing your child to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year is the definition treating a pregnancy in an unhealthy way. You premise fails at the very start and isn't distinct in its verbiage from what you could say of a child that has been born. What's beyond what could be described with such a benign word as "irresponsible" is killing your child and thinking that is a viable solution.

Pretending your opinion on someone else's unborn is shared by strangers isnt 'healthy' either. If someone doesnt want a child, or cant afford a child, or cant afford lost work time to sickness for a child they cant afford AND may mean not being able to support the dependents you already have (kids, elderly, disabled, younger siblings, etc) certainly does not lend itself to considering an unborn as a child-to-be.

Keeping that in mind, choosing abortion is demonstrably responsible:

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you know you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.​

​

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home, that's a direct, harmful impact on those kids.​

So can you see that it can be a very responsible decision? If not, why not?

Is it all just about 'more boots on the ground' for you unless a woman's life is immediately on the line? For me, I support quality of life over quantity.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah...none of your statistics is actually backed up by solid date and it even fails the sniff test when you ask a pro-choicer if they are then OK with restrictions at a certain point of development. Nearly all pro-choicers support unrestricted abortions, at any point of the pregnancy, for any reason. If you comment was based in reality you wouldn't see objections to reasonable restrictions.

No restrictions are needed to prevent elective abortions of healthy, viable fetuses because no such abortions take place. There are several states with no limits, same with all of Canada. No such abortions take place. If you disagree, please come back with the data proving otherwise.

And I am against useless, feel-good legislation, esp. such that implies women actually do that. It's insulting and disrespectful. There are many reasons why women do not have elective abortions that late.

Is it really "reasonable" to create laws for things that dont happen? Do we need laws forbidding people from riding unicorns?

 

[lwf]

It's the same principle: the government knows what's best.

The government is the people. The people know what is best for themselves.

 

[aociswundumho]

The government is the people. The people know what is best for themselves.

I've always been fond of Rothbard's response to the idiotic assertion that the government is the people:

With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[lwf]

I've always been fond of Rothbard's response to the idiotic assertion that the government is the people:

The government is the people in the United States. Part of being a member of a society of people is compromise with the majority. If you are intolerant of any sort of compromise period, then what you are calling for is anarchy.

 

[aociswundumho]

The government is the people in the United States.

You can repeat it as many times as you like, but it's still false. Here's Thomas Paine, 250 years ago:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

The state is an evil institution predicated on violence and coercion. There is nothing civilized about government.

Part of being a member of a society of people is compromise with the majority.

Part of being a member of a free society is knowing when to mind your own business.

 

[lwf]

You can repeat it as many times as you like, but it's still false. Here's Thomas Paine, 250 years ago:

The state is an evil institution predicated on violence and coercion. There is nothing civilized about government.

Part of being a member of a free society is knowing when to mind your own business.

And you are free to express this belief with your vote.

The state is not by definition an evil institution predicated on violence and coercion. It certainly can be, but it can just as easily be a good institution predicated in peace and cooperation, and more often than not, this is exactly what it is.

The ONLY thing civilized about the human race is its ability to form a government.

 

[Mach]

It's the same principle: the government knows what's best.

That's a fallacy, unfortunately for you. How much of your personal philosophy rests on this lie?
For ever law (regulation), there is a set of reasons that its based on, that may or may not be reasonable.
It is NOT the principle of "government knows best". Government is just the enforcing body in many cases (not all). We also leave some things to private REGULATION, state (is state government not different than federal), local, and individual discretion.

It all depends on the particulars. Good reasoning and judgement can lead to good regulations and laws, just like good reasons/judgement in business can lead to good policy, and good judgement/reason can lead to victory, etc.

 

[weaver2]

Yeah...none of your statistics is actually backed up by solid date

According to CDC only .2% of all abortions happen after viability. 91% happen before the end of the 1st trimester.

and it even fails the sniff test when you ask a pro-choicer if they are then OK with restrictions at a certain point of development. Nearly all pro-choicers support unrestricted abortions, at any point of the pregnancy, for any reason. If you comment was based in reality you wouldn't see objections to reasonable restrictions.

The mythology of abortion is that women have indiscriminate sex, don't use contraceptives, have unwanted pregnancies and treat abortion frivolously as birth control. The reality is pretty far from that.

Demographics

The Guttmacher Institute studies trends in abortion service provision and patient demographics at the state and national level. By providing crucial data and policy analysis on the characteristics of women seeking abortions, the Institute strives to paint a more comprehensive picture of met and...

www.guttmacher.org

37% of all all non-evangelical Protestants say there should be restrictions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins and the legal battle shifts to the states, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion.

www.pewresearch.org

What most pro-choice advocates think is that there ought not to be any restrictions since women and doctors can be trusted to make intelligent decisions. What they do is acknowledge that unrestricted abortion laws will not pass and concede that some restrictions are needed in order to get the legislation passed.
The reality is that Americans have so politicized abortion that it is no longer possible to leave the issue as a private medical matter between a woman, her family and her doctor.

What's so disheartening about the abortion issue is that so many men, who are otherwise intelligent and caring people think women are selfish ditzy idiots when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. The lack of trust that women are also caring and intelligent is astounding.

 

[trouble13]

Letting each person, each family, each man and women work out their reproductive lives privately seems like a reasonable philosophy. Those that need to end a a pregnancy that will be devastating to a family are free to do so. Those that consider abortion a sin are free to eshew abortions and bring a child into this world. Everybody gets to pick the action that is best for them and their families.

So why do conservative religious groups want to make everybody follow their single set of rules, rules that don't allow for individual situations, privacy, personal needs or personal freedom. If you think one group can control the private lives of others defend your thoughts with reliable sources keeping in mind that your God (if you believe in God) is not the same as the God pro-choice people believe in. .

Where do fathers fall in your position?

What if they want a different outcome than the mother? Do they also get to decide what's best for them because traditionally that has not been the case.

 

[minnie616]

Where do fathers fall in your position?

What if they want a different outcome than the mother? Do they also get to decide what's best for them because traditionally that has not been the case.

As I pointed out in other abortion threads the following study showed that 44 percent of the men in a committed relationship instigate the abortion discussion.

From Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change:

https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol6no4_1994.html



One study found that 44% of husbands instigated the abortion decision. 2 If the couple is dependent on the wife’s income to supplement the household budget, a new baby is often seen by the man primarily in terms of the negative impact it will have on the family’s finances. Or he may not be willing to see his wife’s attention diverted away from himself as she cares for the young child.

 

[aociswundumho]

And you are free to express this belief with your vote.

Lysander Spooner Quotes

"A man is no less a slave because he is..." - Lysander Spooner quotes from BrainyQuote.com

www.brainyquote.com

The state is not by definition an evil institution predicated on violence and coercion.

You might want to consider the way the state funds itself. I'll give you a hint - it doesn't ask for voluntary contributions.

It certainly can be, but it can just as easily be a good institution predicated in peace and cooperation, and more often than not, this is exactly what it is.

A quote by Friedrich Nietzsche

Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.

www.goodreads.com

The ONLY thing civilized about the human race is its ability to form a government.

Lol, you can't be serious.

 

[weaver2]

Where do fathers fall in your position?
What if they want a different outcome than the mother? Do they also get to decide what's best for them because traditionally that has not been the case.

When there is an unplanned pregnancy in a relationship most partners work together to decide on what is best for everybody concerned; that would include mother and father, other effected family, and already born children. Most relationships are caring and intelligent and what ever decision they come to they both agree upon. There are only a small % of acrimonious relationships. And yes, in many of those relationships the man has justly earned his position as a persona non grata and gets very little input. Sorry but it's also a fine old tradition that nobody wants input from an asshole.

 

[trouble13]

As I pointed out in other abortion threads the following study showed that 44 percent of the men in a committed relationship instigate the abortion discussion.

From Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change:

https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol6no4_1994.html



One study found that 44% of husbands instigated the abortion decision. 2 If the couple is dependent on the wife’s income to supplement the household budget, a new baby is often seen by the man primarily in terms of the negative impact it will have on the family’s finances. Or he may not be willing to see his wife’s attention diverted away from himself as she cares for the young child.

That does not answer my question though, does it. But you of course know this already so why are you trying to distract people from what im asking?

 

[trouble13]

When there is an unplanned pregnancy in a relationship most partners work together to decide on what is best for everybody concerned; that would include mother and father, other effected family, and already born children. Most relationships are caring and intelligent and what ever decision they come to they both agree upon. There are only a small % of acrimonious relationships. And yes, in many of those relationships the man has justly earned his position as a persona non grata and gets very little input. Sorry but it's also a fine old tradition that nobody wants input from an asshole.

Your position is one of misandry

 

[minnie616]

That does not answer my question though, does it. But you of course know this already so why are you trying to distract people from what im asking?

Oh but it does answer your question.

Men and women in committed relationships do discuss the abortion issue.

You want us to believe that men do not have a say…. Either way.

 

[weaver2]

The state is an evil institution predicated on violence and coercion. There is nothing civilized about government.

What do you suggest that would work better than government. Considering that all Simiformes govern their behavior it would seem that forming a government is part of our genetic makeup.

 

[weaver2]

Your position is one of misandry

Nope it's just a reality. If you want to have a say in any matter you have to be willing to act cooperatively, pleasantly and intelligently.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life, it cant be predicted and all cant be prevented. Every single one risks her health. Each one risks sickness and missing work and losing a job. Risks her ability to feed and care for her family, pay the rent, risks her ability to uphold her commitments and obligations to others...family, friends, church, community, society.

Holy crap. Its a wonder that the human species isnt extinct since pregnancy is so terrible. Why are we all still here?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Giving birth to an unwanted child may mean disaster for the child. Aborting an in the 1st trimester because you cannot be a good mother, do not have the resources to support a child is the responsible thing to do. It is irresponsible to give birth and then not care for a child.

Do you know how many couples who cannot procreate on their own want to adopt? The adoptive parents usually pay for prenatal care in these cases also. What a waste of a life to abort as long as the mother's life isnt in danger.