Jump to content


The Republican Utopia


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Somewhat my feelings.

 

My issue is that everyone seems to ignore the fact that what we have been doing ever since 1980, has drastically reduced the number of abortions in the US.  And, that's while they are legal in all 50 states.

 

381.apc_august_2019_rate.png?itok=DarahE

 

 

I would much more be interested in studying what we are doing to cause that and keep doing it...or keep improving it.  I'm assuming it's basically education, available contraceptives and adoption options.  Those are all good things and shouldn't be controversial.  Another one that shouldn't be controversial that would help is improving healthcare...especially the cost of it.  But, for some reason, that one is a hot button that people fight against.

 

Think about all the money and energy that has been put into the political crap around R vs W and then think about if that was put towards the options that would actually just greatly reduce the need for abortions.

This chart is encouraging.

Link to comment

12 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I hear you. It's not an easy topic to discuss, but to dig just a little more, if we recognize that the baby is a human being, is it really the woman's body that this has to do with?

Personally I think yes, at least to some degree. The baby can't naturally survive without the mother up until a certain point so they form a symbiotic relationship. Additionally, in cases of rape/incest (particularly rape), the mother did not have a choice in becoming a mother. That's a circumstance I've generally always left room for because I can't imagine what it must feel like to not only know you've been raped but that you're also pregnant with a child that's from the attacker. Some women have killed themselves over that kind of stuff. And I think forcing them to give birth in those situations trivializes women into objects. But, that's just my two cents. Out of curiosity, where do you fall or how would you answer?

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The problem with that is, you will never convince everyone to believe that.  So, it becomes an extremely hot political battle, when we could be putting that effort towards things that actually matter.

 

I really don't see why everyone (at least a significant portion of people) couldn't acknowledge that the baby is a human being. Even a lot of pro-choicers-for-any-reason have begun acknowledging that it's a human but that they're okay with killing them anyways. 

 

I agree with your other post about doing other things to educate people so that abortion rates continue to plummet, but there's no reason we can't do both, and I think the education that the tiny bundle of cells inside the woman is a living human being with its own unique DNA is education that should be provided to women as well.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Somewhat my feelings.

 

My issue is that everyone seems to ignore the fact that what we have been doing ever since 1980, has drastically reduced the number of abortions in the US.  And, that's while they are legal in all 50 states.

 

381.apc_august_2019_rate.png?itok=DarahE

 

 

I would much more be interested in studying what we are doing to cause that and keep doing it...or keep improving it.  I'm assuming it's basically education, available contraceptives and adoption options.  Those are all good things and shouldn't be controversial.  Another one that shouldn't be controversial that would help is improving healthcare...especially the cost of it.  But, for some reason, that one is a hot button that people fight against.

 

Think about all the money and energy that has been put into the political crap around R vs W and then think about if that was put towards the options that would actually just greatly reduce the need for abortions.

Good chart and post - thanks for sharing.

 

I would also assume education, access to contraceptives and perhaps even destigmatization of adoptions/teen pregnancy has helped a ton. I too would support efforts to continue the abortion decline as opposed to just rampant abortion bans. The latter feels a bit like a reactionary move as opposed to a preventative one.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Personally I think yes, at least to some degree. The baby can't naturally survive without the mother up until a certain point so they form a symbiotic relationship. Additionally, in cases of rape/incest (particularly rape), the mother did not have a choice in becoming a mother. That's a circumstance I've generally always left room for because I can't imagine what it must feel like to not only know you've been raped but that you're also pregnant with a child that's from the attacker. Some women have killed themselves over that kind of stuff. And I think forcing them to give birth in those situations trivializes women into objects. But, that's just my two cents. Out of curiosity, where do you fall or how would you answer?

 

I understand what you're saying - however an 8-month-old is also completely dependent upon the mother for survival, but that burden does not justify the parent to be able to kill their child. 

 

In a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever, even in cases of rape or incest. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world though. I really don't have the answers, other than to say that in my opinion the closer we can get the abortion rate to 0 the better. How you get there is the tricky part that if you're not careful could get awfully authoritarian quickly.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Good chart and post - thanks for sharing.

 

I would also assume education, access to contraceptives and perhaps even destigmatization of adoptions/teen pregnancy has helped a ton. I too would support efforts to continue the abortion decline as opposed to just rampant abortion bans. The latter feels a bit like a reactionary move as opposed to a preventative one.

True.  The abortions that "everyone" would be okay with never having happen again are the preventable ones.  People don't like to talk about that.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I understand what you're saying - however an 8-month-old is also completely dependent upon the mother for survival, but that burden does not justify the parent to be able to kill their child. 

 

In a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever, even in cases of rape or incest. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world though. I really don't have the answers, other than to say that in my opinion the closer we can get the abortion rate to 0 the better. How you get there is the tricky part that if you're not careful could get awfully authoritarian quickly.

Not really.  It's dependent on a responsible caregiver.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I really don't see why everyone (at least a significant portion of people) couldn't acknowledge that the baby is a human being. Even a lot of pro-choicers-for-any-reason have begun acknowledging that it's a human but that they're okay with killing them anyways. 

 

I agree with your other post about doing other things to educate people so that abortion rates continue to plummet, but there's no reason we can't do both, and I think the education that the tiny bundle of cells inside the woman is a living human being with its own unique DNA is education that should be provided to women as well.

That's the problem with "beliefs".  Everyone thinks "why can't everyone agree with me".  Fact is, everyone comes from different lives and experiences.

 

I'll give you one that I'll admit, I can't necessarily explain.  Like I said, I'm pro-life...if I have to be cornered on the subject.  I think late term abortions are horrible and disgusting.  However, I don't have a problem with things like the Morning After Pill.  I don't have as big of problems with abortions very very early in a pregnancy when it's pretty much an embryo.  I guess I would say I believe life begins at conception because I can't give you a definitive answer as to when I really start having a problem with it. 

 

However, I REALLY wish we lived in a world where abortions weren't needed.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

4 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I understand what you're saying - however an 8-month-old is also completely dependent upon the mother for survival, but that burden does not justify the parent to be able to kill their child. 

 

In a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever, even in cases of rape or incest. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world though. I really don't have the answers, other than to say that in my opinion the closer we can get the abortion rate to 0 the better. How you get there is the tricky part that if you're not careful could get awfully authoritarian quickly.

Your last sentence is dead on.  And....it points back to something you said a few days ago that I agreed with about Government doing things with good intentions but not paying attention to the possible unintended consequences.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Question: If we acknowledge that a baby in the womb is a human being, how do we reconcile that with the idea of allowing any abortions at all? I'm just genuinely interested in the rationale here.

How do you reconcile the death penalty? War? Not funding SNAP or headstart programs? Tearing down public education? Cutting medicare and social security? Maintaining crippling student loan requirements but forgiving PPP?

 

Why do we only care about "people" when they're in the womb, but as soon as they're out they need to pull themselves up by their boot straps?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Just now, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Semantics, but the point stands.

Not really.  During the pregnancy, the baby relies on one body to keep it alive.  That body is also effected by the pregnancy.  There are potential issues in this relationship that can't be separated.

 

After the baby is born, anyone can take care of it.  Mothers can put up for adoption.  The state can take it away.  The dad can take care of  it.  Etc...

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I understand what you're saying - however an 8-month-old is also completely dependent upon the mother for survival, but that burden does not justify the parent to be able to kill their child. 

While true, by that point I would argue the symbiotic relationship is mostly over. A baby could be raised by a father or some other guardian. The baby would also have access to various social programs or adoption. And that is actually what I would prefer happen in the vast majority of cases (i.e. adoption or social program assistance vs. abortion).

 

I met my wife's 46-year-old sister four years ago. We had no idea she existed. Given up for adoption at 16. She's a tremendous person that has brought a lot of love and joy to the world.

 

So I've long felt at odds with Republicans on this issue. Naturally, they tend to be pro-life, but seem much more hesitant to provide for the child once it enters the world. It has always felt a tad hypocritical to me. Conversely, I've felt at odds with Democrats because their attitudes often seem to blasé towards the baby.

 

Quote

In a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever, even in cases of rape or incest. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world though.

I really don't have the answers, other than to say that in my opinion the closer we can get the abortion rate to 0 the better. How you get there is the tricky part that if you're not careful could get awfully authoritarian quickly.

Very much agree with this. I don't think there's a clean answer and we obviously will never be able to satisfy everyone. I generally lean the less abortions the better while leaving room for some nuance.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's the problem with "beliefs".  Everyone thinks "why can't everyone agree with me".  Fact is, everyone comes from different lives and experiences.

 

I'll give you one that I'll admit, I can't necessarily explain.  Like I said, I'm pro-life...if I have to be cornered on the subject.  I think late term abortions are horrible and disgusting.  However, I don't have a problem with things like the Morning After Pill.  I don't have as big of problems with abortions very very early in a pregnancy when it's pretty much an embryo.  I guess I would say I believe life begins at conception because I can't give you a definitive answer as to when I really start having a problem with it. 

 

However, I REALLY wish we lived in a world where abortions weren't needed.

 

But wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between belief, such as my belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and died to save those who believe in Him from their sin, and verifiable scientific fact? What's interesting is that the Christian community has been ahead of the "science" crowd on this one for a long time.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...