Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by generalissimo
the state shouldn't fund abortions, it should provide people with education and contraception.

why should the state fund abortions? it is not their fault that there are stupid and/or unlucky people out there, this would be a waste of public money.

the state shouldn't fund abortions, it should provide people with education and contraception.

False dilemma.

why should the state fund abortions? it is not their fault that there are stupid and/or unlucky people out there, this would be a waste of public money.

Because, as I said, this is not an issue money should decide.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]the state shouldn't fund abortions, it should provide people with education and contraception.

False dilemma.

why should the state fund abortions? it is not their fault that there are stupid and/or unlucky people out there, this would be a waste of public money.

Because, as I said, this is not an issue money should decide.[/b]

If you say that the state should fund abortions, then how do you get people to internalize the cost of their behavior on the state? Do you subsidize it so that they still have to pay something?

Originally posted by telerion
If you say that the state should fund abortions, then how do you get people to internalize the cost of their behavior on the state? Do you subsidize it so that they still have to pay something?

I assume that the amount of people who think "well, I can have unprotected sex, the abortion is free anyway" is negligible.

Here, abortions are covered through the mandatory private insurance system. Abortion rates are seven times lower than in the US.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I assume that the amount of people who think "well, I can have unprotected sex, the abortion is free anyway" is negligible.

Here, abortions are covered through the mandatory private insurance system. Abortion rates are seven times lower than in the US.

While it cannot causally link state paid abortions with lower abortion rates, the evidence you present does suggest that it may help.

Originally posted by telerion
While it cannot causally link state paid abortions with lower abortion rates, the evidence you present does suggest that it may help.

I don't think having free abortions reduces the abortion rate. It does reduce the illegal abortion rate.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're taking "suffering" too literally here. Take some time and read a bit about utilitarianism.

Why not answer the question?

Originally posted by whodey
Why not answer the question?

Because your understanding of "pro-choice" will be greatly enhanced if you do study the elementary basics of utilitarianism.

Originally posted by generalissimo
the state shouldn't fund abortions, it should provide people with education and contraception.

why should the state fund abortions? it is not their fault that there are stupid and/or unlucky people out there, this would be a waste of public money.

Careful now, you are starting to sound like a right winger.

In the left wing world in which we live, there is no right and wrong. No accountabiliy. All we know for sure is that the world we live in is relative and that Big Brother should endevour to see to it that we have all that we want or need....unless that means having large bank accounts, large houses, SUV's, private insurance, or guns. After all, why do we need such things when Big Brother is out there looking after us?

Originally posted by telerion
I'm having a hard time seeing how your objections address what I wrote. I gave both parties a chance to 'opt out.' If you don't at least make the father responsible for half the cost of an abortion, then you are back to saddling the problem on the woman.

I think that you are in severe denial if you do not think that carrying an unplanned pregnancy do ...[text shortened]... woman. I won't repeat the examples I gave, but I think that they are all very reasonable.

My apologies if I did not follow your argument or misunderstood it. I have not read the thread in its entirety.
However you were responding a post stating:
Originally posted by sh76
It does seem quite hypocritical to say:
1) The father gets no say in whether the child is aborted; but
2) If the baby is born, the father must pay child support.
Now clearly the father in 1) does not get a chance to opt out, and that was central to the claim that it was hypocritical.
Your response only seemed to address the costs to the woman should there be no abortion, whereas the costs to the man were ignored. You stated "The male cannot force her to endure a pregnancy and delivery.", but why cant we equally say "The female cannot force him to endure fatherhood with its associated child support payments and more."?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies if I did not follow your argument or misunderstood it. I have not read the thread in its entirety.
However you were responding a post stating:
[b]Originally posted by sh76
It does seem quite hypocritical to say:
1) The father gets no say in whether the child is aborted; but
2) If the baby is born, the father must pay child supp ...[text shortened]... annot force him to endure fatherhood with its associated child support payments and more."?[/b]

Let me point out that I expressly do not support the position that the father should be forced to pay long-term childcare.

Okay. That said.

Both of my attempts to harmonize the argument you reposted failed. I see that now. They instead respond to a different argument which was not made. I'm not sure now why I screwed that up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
One possible solution would be if the woman wishes to have the child and the man does not, then he should be absolved of all responsibility beyond that point. Should he wish to have any parental rights however he should then be forced to pay the child support etc.

I think that's an excellent idea.

I also thought that's basically what Telerion was proposing initially; even if didn't quite know it. 😉

Originally posted by sh76
I think that's an excellent idea.

I also thought that's basically what Telerion was proposing initially; even if didn't quite know it. 😉

Increasingly this will lead to a near future science faction when the state will say enough"s enough of having to absorb the social cost of unwanted offspring from casual sexual encounters, because of the social dysfunction and socio economic dis-empowerment it tends to breed.

The consequence of the state saying enough will be that the universally insured person wanting to engage in an act of sexual intercourse, will have to sign off that they are either prepared to use contraception where appropriate or will wear the financial consequences of whatever the results of their porking around will bring. As to who will decide/the mother/the couple/the father, will have to be decided before any hanky panky can occur. Any couple willing to ignore these dictates will be summarily arrested, and unless they pay an appropriate fine and file a late sexual progeny contigency plan, the state will exercise its rights and claim all the biogenic material housed in the female.

With all the consequences well posted and understood and with all the education programs in place, those who wish to be pro-life will have the protection of their wishes signed and sealed before being delivered.

You know it makes sense.

Originally posted by sh76
I had an epiphany the other night while trying to fall asleep.

First, some background. For almost 2 months now, I've been fighting a mild but annoying upper respiratory infection. It's nothing too severe and it comes and goes, but I've been bothered by some post-nasal drip here, a little bronchitis there, etc. I haven't missed much work time and basically I' making the case that states should be allowed to simply outlaw abortions.

You actually bring up one of the seldom discussed issues when it comes to pregnancy and abortion.

First let me set a record straight. People who are for banning abortion "except in cases of rape" DON'T really consider it murder. They may say they consider it murder, but then how can they justify "murdering" a child just because a woman was raped?

Carrying a pregnancy to term is always a medical risk to the woman, and this especially true in certain cases. My wife almost died giving birth to my step daughter. So should a rape victim be forced from day one to put herself at risk by carrying it to term? Nevermind the severe emotional trama this can cause, it can also case severe physical trama and even death in some cases. And best case scenario 9 months of pregnancy and giving birth is always very hard on a woman's body.

Originally posted by sh76
I think that's an excellent idea.

I also thought that's basically what Telerion was proposing initially; even if didn't quite know it. 😉

This is something I have discussed with friends before, and it's a really tricky issue (and probably more interesting than the issue we were originally discussing, abortion, which has reverted to type and will now presumably continue essentially from the point we left it at last time it was raised...)

Problems with the proposed solution include disincentivising responsibility on the part of men (they can impregnate as many women as they wish and, if they so choose, absolve themselves of any responsibility and leave the entire burden of raising the child to the woman, simply in return for no access, etc.) Linked to that is the possibility of an increased burden on the rest of society: more children born to single mothers without paternal support will inevitably lead to a greater burden on the state. Finally, such a policy could well lead to an increase in abortion rates (which will bother some more than others, and should bother everyone at least a little): women who find themselves impregnated and abandoned will, I think, be more inclined to abort a child they may feel they will struggle to raise alone.

As I say, though, it's a tricky issue. Agreeing that women ought to have control over their own fertility is easy for me to do, and likewise with the notion that feckless fathers should be made to be responsible for their actions. In a sense, though, we are making those feckless fathers beholden to an important moral choice in to which their input is, at best, advisory, but which will massively affect them and their lives.

I am without reservation pro-choice: but the hypothetical of the father who says 'no' to abortion and the woman says 'yes' is troubling, because the result will be 'yes'. Similarly, if the man says 'yes' and the woman says 'no', the result will be 'no'.

I think, though, and not without reservations, that for me giving women control of their own fertility trumps those other moral considerations in the end. But it is tricky.

Originally posted by sh76
I had an epiphany the other night while trying to fall asleep.

First, some background. For almost 2 months now, I've been fighting a mild but annoying upper respiratory infection. It's nothing too severe and it comes and goes, but I've been bothered by some post-nasal drip here, a little bronchitis there, etc. I haven't missed much work time and basically I' ...[text shortened]... making the case that states should be allowed to simply outlaw abortions.

Get well real soon!

Yes, it's an issue if women or adolescent girls who are poorly suited to look after children are forced to carry the fetus to term. Naturally, people who are poorly suited to having children are more likely to consider aborting a fetus.

I agree that third-term abortions are, generally speaking, wrong. A woman who has the ability to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy (as one usually does, in Western countries at least) should be expected to make her decision at that point. If subsequent issues come up unexpectedly, e.g. concerning the life or health or the mother, then that's another matter.