INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Teejay on April 09, 2007, 07:45:42 AM
-
At the risk of being hypocritical, I am against abortion, maybe expect in cases when the mother's life is at risk. Quite odd since I am all for capital punishment for murderers.
-
Read the book Freakonomics. It gives the evidence showing why abortion/infantacide is in fact GOOD!
It's how humanity prunes itsself.
It gives an excellent case in point thith Romania that outlawed abortion in the 60's. 20 years later, their society came apart at the seems with all the unwanted/neglected children who reached adulthood.
-
Read the book Freakonomics. It gives the evidence showing why abortion/infantacide is in fact GOOD!
That was a great book.
-
Yes, I believe abortion should be legal. I'm morally against it, but making it illegal won't stop abortions from happening, it will just make them more dangerous. I think that to vote for a politician that you think will push to make abortions illegal is rather foolhardy to say the least, as it will never happen. Instead, I'd suggest that we do the following, which might REDUCE abortions: Make birth contol easier to get and less stigmatized (it can be done, or at least improved), provide free counseling for women with unwanted pregnancies (or at least for women who have been raped), provide full medical coverage for women who are pregnant (wanted or unwanted), legislate decent mandatory alloted PAID maternity leave in employment, improve adoption services, make people more aware of such programs as Baby Safe Haven, and make them available nationwide, and, of course, give tougher penalties for sexually-based crimes (instead of making them, for some reason, less criminal than drug posession). Now, all of these things may sound just as quixotic as making abortion illegal, but I think that they'd probably be EASIER to get the American public to endorse, and I think they should be done even not taking the issue of abortion into account.
-
in my own situation i am totally against it. my conscience would get the better of me if i agreed to aborting my own child.
but, i feel as if i have no right to say what others should do, since it is legal.
-
I definitely think abortions should be safe, legal and available to women who want them.
In the days before abortions were legal in the U S, wealthy women could fly to Europe for an abortion while poor women used knitting needles or coat hangers, or subjected themselves to back alley abortions, sometimes under less than sanitary conditions. Sometimes they died from infection. Who am I to tell some poor woman who already has more children than she can care for that she must bear yet another child unless it is going to actually kill her? What if it is only going to make her sick? By insisting that she must bear the child but can put the child up for adoption, is it our intention to make poor women brood mares for wealthy women?
I agree with all PMS Elle's suggestions, which I think will help with making abortions as rare as possible, but I do not want to see abortions outlawed and I consistently vote against candidates who propose that we do.
-
I believe in minding your own fucking business. Fucking self-righteous, moralising busybodies. :finger:
Don't get me wrong; I'm not fond of abortion, but I'm in favour of keeping unwanted births down, since far too many kids grow up uncared for and unguided, turning into the sort of amoral, antisocial little cunts that plague British towns. Half of them would have been better never born. I'm against any government interference making it more likely for stupid people to breed. :tooledup:
-
Keep it legal. If common sense was REALLY common, abortion would be rare. But, I'm talking about the human race here, common sense doesn't factor into many things in regards to humanity.
<end cynical pessimistic rant>
I can't say it any better than Serissa, Callaway and Dunc did!
-
Read the book Freakonomics. It gives the evidence showing why abortion/infantacide is in fact GOOD!
That was a great book.
"In 1966, one year after Nicolae Ceaus¸escu became the Communist
dictator of Romania, he made abortion illegal. “The fetus is the property
of the entire society,†he proclaimed. “Anyone who avoids having
children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity.â€
Such grandiose declarations were commonplace during Ceaus
¸escu’s reign, for his master plan—to create a nation worthy of the
New Socialist Man—was an exercise in grandiosity. He built palaces
for himself while alternately brutalizing and neglecting his citizens.
Abandoning agriculture in favor of manufacturing, he forced many of
the nation’s rural dwellers into unheated apartment buildings. He
gave government positions to forty family members including his
wife, Elena, who required forty homes and a commensurate supply of
fur and jewels. Madame Ceaus¸escu, known officially as the Best
Mother Romania Could Have, was not particularly maternal. “The
worms never get satisfied, regardless of how much food you give
them,†she said when Romanians complained about the food shortages
brought on by her husband’s mismanagement. She had her own
children bugged to ensure their loyalty.
Ceaus¸escu’s ban on abortion was designed to achieve one of his
major aims: to rapidly strengthen Romania by boosting its population.
Until 1966, Romania had had one of the most liberal abortion
policies in the world. Abortion was in fact the main form of birth
control, with four abortions for every live birth. Now, virtually
overnight, abortion was forbidden. The only exemptions were mothers
who already had four children or women with significant standing
in the Communist Party. At the same time, all contraception and sex
education were banned. Government agents sardonically known as
the Menstrual Police regularly rounded up women in their workplaces
to administer pregnancy tests. If a woman repeatedly failed to
conceive, she was forced to pay a steep “celibacy tax.â€
Ceaus¸escu’s incentives produced the desired effect. Within one
year of the abortion ban, the Romanian birth rate had doubled. These
babies were born into a country where, unless you belonged to the
Ceaus¸escu clan or the Communist elite, life was miserable. But these
children would turn out to have particularly miserable lives. Compared
to Romanian children born just a year earlier, the cohort of children
born after the abortion ban would do worse in every measurable
way: they would test lower in school, they would have less success in
the labor market, and they would also prove much more likely to become
criminals.
The abortion ban stayed in effect until Ceaus¸escu finally lost his
grip on Romania. On December 16, 1989, thousands of people took
to the streets of Timisoara to protest his corrosive regime. Many of
the protestors were teenagers and college students. The police killed
dozens of them. One of the opposition leaders, a forty-one-year-old
professor, later said it was his thirteen-year-old daughter who insisted
he attend the protest, despite his fear. “What is most interesting is that
we learned not to be afraid from our children,†he said. “Most were
aged thirteen to twenty.†A few days after the massacre in Timisoara,
Ceaus¸escu gave a speech in Bucharest before one hundred thousand
people. Again the young people were out in force. They shouted
down Ceaus¸escu with cries of “Timisoara!†and “Down with the
murderers!†His time had come. He and Elena tried to escape the
country with $1 billion, but they were captured, given a crude trial,
and, on Christmas Day, executed by firing squad.
Of all the Communist leaders deposed in the years bracketing the
collapse of the Soviet Union, only Nicolae Ceaus¸escu met a violent
death. It should not be overlooked that his demise was precipitated in
large measure by the youth of Romania—a great number of whom,
were it not for his abortion ban, would never have been born at all."
-Freakonomics
-
Pro abortion. Should be mandatory.
-
The text of that book, if anyone wants to read it:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The text of that book, if anyone wants to read it:
Read the one about how they used children to shame the KKK, that was my favorite.
About the topic at hand. I believe that abortion should be okay. I used to live next to a home where the parents took in foster kids strictly for the cash. It was truly a shame. The kids were neglected and were left to do as they please. I´m sure they didn´t exaclt turn into outstanding citizens, although I don´t know exactly where they are now. They might have, but I highly doubt it. Outlaw abortions and we´ll have more money making farms like that popping up everywhere. The adoption/foster care system will collapse, and we´ll have to raise taxes for the extra million or so orphans that we´ll need to start supporting every year. Add them all up cause they ain´t going nowhere till they turn 18, and we´ll have 17 million more kids in foster care after 17 years. I don´t think the system could handle that.
-
The text of that book, if anyone wants to read it:
Read the one about how they used children to shame the KKK, that was my favorite.
About the topic at hand. I believe that abortion should be okay. I used to live next to a home where the parents took in foster kids strictly for the cash. It was truly a shame. The kids were neglected and were left to do as they please. I´m sure they didn´t exaclt turn into outstanding citizens, although I don´t know exactly where they are now. They might have, but I highly doubt it. Outlaw abortions and we´ll have more money making farms like that popping up everywhere. The adoption/foster care system will collapse, and we´ll have to raise taxes for the extra million or so orphans that we´ll need to start supporting every year. Add them all up cause they ain´t going nowhere till they turn 18, and we´ll have 17 million more kids in foster care after 17 years. I don´t think the system could handle that.
I certainly hope you're not implying people in foster care are destined to become psychopaths.
-
i suspect that he meant that it depemded on the care given by the care givers.
-
The text of that book, if anyone wants to read it:
Read the one about how they used children to shame the KKK, that was my favorite.
About the topic at hand. I believe that abortion should be okay. I used to live next to a home where the parents took in foster kids strictly for the cash. It was truly a shame. The kids were neglected and were left to do as they please. I´m sure they didn´t exaclt turn into outstanding citizens, although I don´t know exactly where they are now. They might have, but I highly doubt it. Outlaw abortions and we´ll have more money making farms like that popping up everywhere. The adoption/foster care system will collapse, and we´ll have to raise taxes for the extra million or so orphans that we´ll need to start supporting every year. Add them all up cause they ain´t going nowhere till they turn 18, and we´ll have 17 million more kids in foster care after 17 years. I don´t think the system could handle that.
I certainly hope you're not implying people in foster care are destined to become psychopaths.
You know much more about foster care than I do, but even I know that there are some very good foster homes and some very bad ones. Some people who do it because they really love the kids and others who just want the money. I read about a two or three year old boy who was beaten to death by his foster father because he soiled himself. I read about another little boy who was beaten to death by his foster mother with a wooden spoon because he would not mind her. In another state, one little boy was taken from his mother because he was overweight and his foster parents made him chop wood with an axe and mow their lawn with a gasoline powered lawn mower. He was just eight years old. His mother had to jump through all sorts of hoops with social services to get him back home and it took months, but she could not do anything about the dangerous things his foster parents were making him do in the meantime. There are biological parents who do horrible things to their children too, but I have read some truly horrible things that have happened to children in foster care, which is especially surprising to me because foster parents and homes have to be certified by social services. How are these social service people so easily fooled by foster parents, yet they take children from their loving biological parents and put them into abusive or dangerous situations? I think they view biological parents very negatively and they view foster parents very positively and their bias warps their judgement.
-
I certainly hope you're not implying people in foster care are destined to become psychopaths.
No, they're not DESTINED, just more likely. The stats proved it.
-
You know much more about foster care than I do, but even I know that there are some very good foster homes and some very bad ones. Some people who do it because they really love the kids and others who just want the money. I read about a two or three year old boy who was beaten to death by his foster father because he soiled himself. I read about another little boy who was beaten to death by his foster mother with a wooden spoon because he would not mind her. In another state, one little boy was taken from his mother because he was overweight and his foster parents made him chop wood with an axe and mow their lawn with a gasoline powered lawn mower. He was just eight years old. His mother had to jump through all sorts of hoops with social services to get him back home and it took months, but she could not do anything about the dangerous things his foster parents were making him do in the meantime. There are biological parents who do horrible things to their children too, but I have read some truly horrible things that have happened to children in foster care, which is especially surprising to me because foster parents and homes have to be certified by social services. How are these social service people so easily fooled by foster parents, yet they take children from their loving biological parents and put them into abusive or dangerous situations? I think they view biological parents very negatively and they view foster parents very positively and their bias warps their judgement.
I personally think there's too much of a bias to keep families TOGETHER. Just because someone gave birth to a child doesn't give them any qualifications to being able to raise him or her.
In my experience, there's good, bad, and ugly, just like with biological parents. I've seen people who are loving and really want to help, I've seen people who really want to help but were actually fucking all of us up horrifically (but still probably less than the bio parents of the main family who was there- long story), and one psychotic bitch who wasn't in it for the money but rather because she wanted the chance to raise kids who DIDN'T turn out like her alcoholic son, who later trashed their house. (She was a psychotic bitch for other reasons, too.)
It's not specifically foster care that's fucked up. It's humanity.
-
+ for Serissa Who puts it in a perfectly sized nutshell.
-
i suspect that he meant that it depemded on the care given by the care givers.
Yep
I certainly hope you're not implying people in foster care are destined to become psychopaths.
No, they're not DESTINED, just more likely. The stats proved it.
Exactly
Yes, there are some good foster parents out there. But, if abortion gets outlawed, the system will probably skew towards those that are in it for the money. We will need millions more of these good foster parents should abortion be outlawed, yet I don´t believe that these millions are out there. Those who truly, truly want to help are most likely in the game already.
No, giving birth doesn´t qualify someone as a good parent, but outlawing abortions is a sure way to bring in parents who are gauranteed to not want their children. After all, they wouldn´t be considering abortion in the first place if they wanted to raise a child.
-
Yes, there are some good foster parents out there. But, if abortion gets outlawed, the system will probably skew towards those that are in it for the money.
or the food, or sex toys.
-
I just can not understand the Christian point of view.
Now, if a baby is aborted, it has no change to sin, thus it will automatically go to heaven (using religious logic). Therefore, all aborted babies go to heaven, using that logic.
Well, any parent would want their children to go to heaven, right? And what better method of insuring that then making sure they never have the chance to sin in the first place?
How can anyone believe in heaven, that sin prevents one from reaching heaven, and allow their children the change to be born (and to sin)?
So, using that logic, only a monster would not abort their children. And good Christian would send their children to heaven before hey are born.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7041&start=240 (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7041&start=240)
-
I don't agree with abortion in one sense because it can have long lasting emotional damage to some...then again, so can having an unwanted child...
I particularly detest it when abortion is illegal. It used to illegal in the state I live in and basically people had to fly interstate to have them.
Just wish the extreme pro lifers wouldn't protest out the front of legal clinics...they just add to the emotional trauma to the people concerned. What would be more productive is to dedicate their lives to unwanted children or educating the community on parenting...I don't know, but I just think protesting is not going to make a couple walk away from the clinic and say, 'oh thank God those people saved us from making the biggest mistake of our lives'.
-
I just wish that the extreme pro-deathers would organize
and work harder for mandatory abortion.
-
I just wish that the extreme pro-deathers would organize
and work harder for mandatory abortion.
Mandatory? As in - abort ALL babies?
-
I just wish that the extreme pro-deathers would organize
and work harder for mandatory abortion.
Mandatory? As in - abort ALL babies?
Don't think small. We can do better.
Postnatal too.
-
I just wish that the extreme pro-deathers would organize
and work harder for mandatory abortion.
Mandatory? As in - abort ALL babies?
Don't think small. We can do better.
Postnatal too.
No, I reckon keep at least some of the babies...abort the parents...that's what the problem is. The idiots bringing them up.
-
Sure. Kill ALL those who are viable, and let the little buggers
fend for themselves. Seems a little crueler than my solution,
but whatever gets the job done. A little bit of suffering in
order to reduce the potentiality for more.
-
Sure. Kill ALL those who are viable, and let the little buggers
fend for themselves. Seems a little crueler than my solution,
but whatever gets the job done. A little bit of suffering in
order to reduce the potentiality for more.
in essence:
you fear competition for the limited resources that you desire.
-
Sure. Kill ALL those who are viable, and let the little buggers
fend for themselves. Seems a little crueler than my solution,
but whatever gets the job done. A little bit of suffering in
order to reduce the potentiality for more.
in essence:
you fear competition for the limited resources that you desire.
I counted myself (perhaps foolishly) amongst the viable.
Pretty much anything that is mobile.
-
If the religious right had its way, all abortions would be declared unlawful, and those who performed them and those who had them would be subject to prosecution for murder, and there would be no statute of limitations.
Rhonda
-
If the religious right had its way, all abortions would be declared unlawful, and those who performed them and those who had them would be subject to prosecution for murder, and there would be no statute of limitations.
Rhonda
no.
but there is a law that you cannot be tried for something that you did and it wasn't made into a law later.
is it expostfacto?
-
If the religious right had its way, all abortions would be declared unlawful, and those who performed them and those who had them would be subject to prosecution for murder, and there would be no statute of limitations.
Rhonda
no.
but there is a law that you cannot be tried for something that you did and it wasn't made into a law later.
is it expostfacto?
Something like that. That only goes for western contries, though. There surely are some gangster countries where you can get prosecuted after the law was changed.
You actually don't need seat belts in cars in Sweden, if the cars were made before the seat belt law and seat belts weren't standard in that car at that time. Alas, that doesn't go for guns, if they aren't muzzle loaders from before 1890.
-
You actually don't need seat belts in cars in Sweden, if the cars were made before the seat belt law and seat belts weren't standard in that car at that time. Alas, that doesn't go for guns, if they aren't muzzle loaders from before 1890.
The US had that temporarily, but AFAIK
most states require belts on anything
without a collector permit now.