I wanted to congratulate Dan on his firm and courageous stand on abortion. He is quite clear in saying "We want this philosophical and medical matter to be left to the woman with the fetus. Not a Supreme Court. Not a Congress of predominantly men. And not even a Congress of predominantly women, if we had one.". This clear and straightforward statement affirming that no one should place any restrictions on this decision except the "woman" and "her doctor". That's right, Dan is clear that there should not be "any restrictions" on a woman who wants to abort her child at certain phases of normal development.
For those of you that have moral, ethical, or religious concerns, too bad. We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".
For those of you who have concerns about the potential emotional damage, risk of serious health problems, or possible sterilization. We don"t know anything, we don't have any answers, we must default to abortion without any restrictions.
For those of you that have religious concerns, perhaps you believe that "The least of these.", might include vulnerable human children at the early stages of life. We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions". Clearly there are absolutely no principles that can be gleaned from scripture, or from the actions of the Early Church that would inform our positions. Clearly, "The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to life.". Dan has spoken "Ex Cathedra" and there is no possible way to disagree with this fact.
For those of you with public policy concerns. Concerns that actual licensed/trained MD's with hospital admitting privileges be the ones to perform this "medical procedure", or concerns that the places where this benign "medical procedure" are performed adhere to at least some minimal standards, too bad. We know for a "fact" that we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".
For those of you who might agree that while some rights are age dependent, that maybe all rights are not age dependent. That if science tells us that conception starts the development process of a living human being, unique from any other human being, that we might presume a right to not have one's life shortened arbitrarily.
We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".
Finally for those who are concerned with the growing movement for post birth abortions, well we're sorry. Since those babies are still dependent on their mothers, all of the rationales for pre birth abortions still apply. Unfortunately We don't know anything, we don't have any answers, therefore we must default to abortion without "any restrictions".
It's sad that the views of the left wing of American politics have gone from abortion being "safe, legal, and rare", to "no one should place any restrictions" on abortion in such a short time.
Again Dan, thank you ever so much for your candid exposition of the "facts" and your honesty in unwavering support of abortion with no "restrictions".
In closing. This is the "philosophical and medical" decision that Dan says should be free from "any restrictions", described by an MD in testimony to congress. This is what you are advocating, how about being honest about that as well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE
32 comments:
I noticed that you don't dispute any of my facts. Good. You can't. They are facts. They are reality..
Now, you are entirely welcome to have all the concerns you want. You and your whole church. And the church next to you. But you don't get to decide for everyone What is and isn't moral. Especially when you can't prove your hunches and they're just your own opinions and nothing more.
And, just to correct another of the endlessly stupidly false claims that you all make, I don't have unwavering support for abortion. I have unwavering support for each individual to make these sort of moral decisions for themselves. You all, on the other hand, appear to be entirely willing to decide for others what they should do. And this is the problem with the modern GOP. You all truly have a canceled culture.
Would you criminalize abortion and put women in jail for having abortion? You know that many in the GOP are talking about doing just that... will you stand against that? Or will you support imprisoning women for having an abortion against the will of a bunch of conservatives?
Would you criminalize abortion in the case of rape and incest, that is, make the decision for women and place them in prison if they don't agree with your hunches?
I don't "dispute" your "facts" for several reason.
1. They are irrelevant to this post.
2. I've previously disputed them with you and still have questions.
3. In your latest post, you are quite clear that none of the questions I might have are valid or worth answering.
4. Your "facts" are simply a mishmash of common pro abortion "arguments", with the "magic birth canal" argument being the foundation of many of your "facts".
5. You were quite clear that there are no answers to any of the questions one might have about your "facts". Given that, it seems pointless to waste time asking questions for which you believe no answers exist.
"Now, you are entirely welcome to have all the concerns you want. You and your whole church. And the church next to you."
I was unaware that you had the power to make these kinds of decisions, that's pretty impressive.
"But you don't get to decide for everyone What is and isn't moral. Especially when you can't prove your hunches and they're just your own opinions and nothing more."
Where have I ever claimed that I have any desire to "decide for everyone What is and isn't moral"? If you can't provide a direct, verbatim quote along with a link for context, then just say that you can't and move on. Don't waste your time trying to come up with what you "think" I might have said.
"don't have unwavering support for abortion. I have unwavering support for each individual to make these sort of moral decisions for themselves."
Yes, you have unwavering support for those who choose abortion for any reason and unwavering support for eliminating "any restrictions" on abortion.
"You all, on the other hand, appear to be entirely willing to decide for others what they should do. And this is the problem with the modern GOP. You all truly have a canceled culture."
Actually that's kind of how government works. Some percentage of the people, sometimes through representatives, sometimes through less representative forms of government, make decisions about what actions should be legal in that society. You are perfectly willing to impose your version of what should be legal on others through judicial fiat, legislative maneuvering, or whatever works.
"Would you criminalize abortion and put women in jail for having abortion?"
I just answered this question in another thread, I see no reason to answer it again here because you're too impatient to wait for the answer, or unaware that you'd already asked the question.
"You know that many in the GOP are talking about doing just that... will you stand against that?"
I don't usually make those kinds of blanket statements. I can say that I'll support laws that I agree with, and I won't support those I don't agree with. In either case, I won't follow your lead and hurl invective publicly at those I disagree with, nor will I uncritically support those on "my side".
"Or will you support imprisoning women for having an abortion against the will of a bunch of conservatives?"
Already answered the last time you asked. Your either terminally impatient, an idiot, or have the short term memory of a goldfish.
"Would you criminalize abortion in the case of rape and incest, that is, make the decision for women and place them in prison if they don't agree with your hunches?"
Already answered the last time you asked. Your either terminally impatient, an idiot, or have the short term memory of a goldfish.
1. I support full and detailed disclosure of all of the risks involved in abortion. Including the number of serious complications and deaths at the facility.
2. I support requiring abortion clinics to meet the highest standards in their jurisdiction for any medical facilities.
3. I support requiring having abortion clinics only employ doctors with admitting privileges in a hospital on close proximity to the clinic.
4. I support detailed record keeping of any and all serious complications, hospitalizations, and fatalities related to abortion procedures.
5. I support the majority of the US and pretty much every country except North Korea and China, in acknowledging that there should be some point in the child's development where abortions will not be performed.
I have my own opinions about what those limits should be, but I realize that any discussion of limits is political and would likely involve compromise. Unfortunately when negotiating with people who advocate not having "any restrictions", compromise becomes complicated.
Finally, I'm not sure how you managed to turn me complimenting you for finally making a clear concise, direct, statement in favor of abortion without "any restrictions", into something confrontational, but you did.
6. I support moving the hundreds of millions of tax dollars used to support abortion providers into support for adoption. There are millions of couples who desperately want to adopt children but the financial burden is simply too great.
https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/10-things-you-should-know-about-abortion.html
What's confrontational? I merely noted the reality that you were unable to dispute any of my facts. And yet, in spite of being unable to do so, you still want to make laws telling women they can't choose to get the medical treatment they may think they need if it is an abortion. That seems rather invasive and confrontational.
For my part, I fully support you making YOUR medical decisions for yourself. That's rational and non-confrontational. You all are the ones seeking confrontation by trying to tell others what their medical options are in cases of pregnancy.
Do you see how invasive and confrontational that is on your part?
Wow, Craig! I've never seen that Klusendorf piece. Great stuff only a contemptible moral monster could reject.
"You all, on the other hand, appear to be entirely willing to decide for others what they should do."
We, on the other hand, are not Klansmen or nazis or islamists and don't believe it's OK to murder someone because they're different. We don't believe that's a decision for which anyone has authority.
"Would you criminalize abortion and put women in jail for having abortion?"
They were complicit in the murder of an innocent person, weren't they? And yes, we DO know it's a person being unjustly killed by order of its mother. So I support any party which will be honest about what's happening with abortion and act accordingly.
"Or will you support imprisoning women for having an abortion against the will of a bunch of conservatives?"
I support imprisoning women for having an abortion against the will of their children who are the only victims who are being unjustly killed in the scenario.
"I noticed that you don't dispute any of my facts."
What few facts appeared among your laughable list of logical fallacies and self-serving crap were totally irrelevant to the only question which matters: On what basis do you have the unalienable right to life and not a living child in utero? You have no facts, no science, no nothing which grants that right to one person and not another. Talk about a basket of deplorables! There is none so deplorable, so contemptible, so unworthy, of the right to life than those who would regard the lives of the most innocent, defenseless and vulnerable as beneath their concern.
"I merely noted the reality that you were unable to dispute any of my facts."
Impressive use of the big lie, right out of the gate.
As I noted, your list of "philosophical facts" (do philosophical facts really exist objectively?) is all the same crap you've been spewing for years. It boils down to a variation on the "magic birth canal" argument, buttressed by your "we don't know, therefore we abort" argument. Neither of these is particularly compelling, and I've addressed the shortcomings of both elsewhere.
Because I've already invested time in "dispute", I choose not to engage with that tar baby again. Instead I chose to congratulate you for your clear and uncompromising demand for the absolute lack of "any restrictions" on abortion.
"you still want to make laws telling women they can't choose to get the medical treatment they may think they need if it is an abortion."
Again with the false claims. If you can't prove this crap, don't write it.
I do agree with the majority of people in the world (with the major exceptions of North Korea and China) that to argue against "any restrictions" on abortion is not the position I'd agree with.
"I fully support you making YOUR medical decisions for yourself."
1. Are you saying that you support me making all of my medical decisions without "any restrictions"?
2. Are you saying that my medical decisions should be free from consequences?
3. Are you saying that minor children should be making all of their medical decisions for themselves, and without "any restrictions"?
"You all are the ones seeking confrontation by trying to tell others what their medical options are in cases of pregnancy."
Again with trying to avoid dealing with people as individuals.
"Do you see how invasive and confrontational that is on your part?"
Not necessarily.
Are you suggesting that all medical decisions should be 100% free of ANY "invasive" conversations or 100% non"confrontational"?
Are you suggesting that confrontation is always bad?
Is advocating for "any restriction" on abortion automatically "invasive and confrontational"?
Are you suggesting that you've never advocated for any medical procedure that was "invasive and confrontational"?
Craig...
"Again with trying to avoid dealing with people as individuals."
1. You don't want to create laws that make abortion illegal and not allowed?? If so, I've misunderstood you. It sounds like that's what you want.
2. The reason people like you get conflated with people like Marshal who want to put women in prison for abortions is because you don't speak out against your political allies, denouncing their extremist views.
It's one thing if such people are outliers, but you all on your side have men in power already legislating such actions.
Those who don't speak out against atrocities hold some level of blame when those atrocities happen. Can you at least agree with that principle?
We are our siblings' keepers.
1. No. If it does then you're not listening to what I've said and are listening to what others have said and trying to pretend as if I've said it. What I want (in a perfect world) would be to have no abortions. The reality is that we don't live in a perfect world and I realize that I don't get to impose my wants on others. So, in the real world, compromise.
2. That's just a bullshit excuse because you don't seem interested in dealing with me as an individual. It's why you so rarely actually quote me, but instead use terms like "you and other Trump loving republicans" or words to that effect. FYI, I clearly disagree with Art, and I've been pretty vocal about it. Likewise with Glenn, although I'm less vocal.
Really, the legislature is not controlled by "men like me", and is hastily legislating the completely opposite action.
No. No.
It'd be harder to believe your last if there actually were "atrocities", and if you'd speak out against those on your side of the aisle with the same vitriol as you do about those you don't agree with. Me living up to your arbitrary standards doesn't mean one, single, thing. It's just one more thing for you to bitch about.
Craig... "That's just a bullshit excuse because you don't seem interested in dealing with me as an individual."
Of course I am trying to deal with you as an individual. THAT is why I keep asking reasonable, respectful questions to try to clarify your actual position.
So, you DON'T want abortion to be made illegal, but you wish that there were no abortions. So, you are OPPOSED to it being made illegal, then?
Does that mean you oppose GOP efforts to make it illegal?
It doesn't sound like you do. So, it sounds like
1. You WISH there were no abortions (me too)
2. You are don't want to create laws that make abortion illegal.
3. But you aren't necessarily opposed to the GOP making it illegal.
4. And it doesn't really sound like you're opposed (or willing to stand against) GOP types who want to criminalize it and jail women or abortion providers.
5. But, you don't think that approach is right... you're just not willing to oppose it.
Is all of that right?
And I think you're "no. no." response is trying to say that you DON'T think it's right that those who don't speak out against atrocities bear some blame for those atrocities.
That saddens me, if so.
Then, you don't think typical German citizens who didn't speak out against Nazis were wrong to do so? That they bear no moral culpability for what happened?
If so, I disagree.
All it takes for evil to succeed, etc, etc.
As to the suggestion that forcing women to have babies if they wanted abortions and putting them in jail if they do is NOT an atrocity, well, I guess atrocities are in the eye of the beholder.
Since I'm a believer in free will and human rights and self-determination and forcing women to have babies and putting women in jail for trying to be self-determination interferes with self-determination in the extreme, I can't see how all of these modern GOP pushes are not atrocities.
Answering some of your questions...
"1. Are you saying that you support me making all of my medical decisions without "any restrictions"?"
I support you having no restrictions beyond medical advice. That is, I don't think you should pull your eye out of your socket to stop your lusting problem (if you have one) because that would be counter to medical advice. On the other hand, if your doctor advised you to get a heart transplant, I support you trying to do that without medical restrictions. Not sure what's complicated about that.
"2. Are you saying that my medical decisions should be free from consequences?"
? No.
"3. Are you saying that minor children should be making all of their medical decisions for themselves, and without "any restrictions"?"
No.
Dan: "You all are the ones seeking confrontation by trying to tell others what their medical options are in cases of pregnancy."
Craig: "Again with trying to avoid dealing with people as individuals."
You all, being the GOP, the party with which you align. The GOP is seeking to limit medical advice for women and transgender people, as a point of fact. Were you not aware of this?
Dan: "Do you see how invasive and confrontational that is on your part?"
Craig: "Not necessarily."
Well, it is. Ask LGBTQ people. Ask most women.
"Are you suggesting that all medical decisions should be 100% free of ANY "invasive" conversations or 100% non"confrontational"?"
I'm saying that lawmakers or people not involved in the life of the person in question should not be invading the conversations between medical experts and their patients. I'm saying if it's not YOUR body, you should not be confronting people about their expert prescribed medical decisions. Period. Full stop.
I'm not interfering with decisions you and your doctor are making. I don't think lawmakers should be interfering with decisions women (or transgender people) are making with medical/expert advice. Period. Full stop.
"Are you suggesting that confrontation is always bad?"
Nope. But confrontation about MEDICAL decisions when you are not the person involved or related to them in any way at all, YES. People should not be lined up outside of abortion clinics hollering at and intimidating patients entering such places. THAT kind of confrontation has no place in a free republic.
"Is advocating for "any restriction" on abortion automatically "invasive and confrontational"?"
No.
"Are you suggesting that you've never advocated for any medical procedure that was "invasive and confrontational"?"
I've never advocated for any medical procedure. Period. Full stop. I've not done that except for MYSELF and my direct family. Much less "invasive and confrontational" medical procedures. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but I haven't done that.
You?
And that's how answering questions works.
"2. The reason people like you get conflated with people like Marshal who want to put women in prison for abortions is because you don't speak out against your political allies, denouncing their extremist views."
There's nothing at all "extreme" about wishing to see murderers punished. We in America, and all actual Christians, refer to that as "justice". A term with which you have a perverse (not surprising) understanding.
"It's one thing if such people are outliers, but you all on your side have men in power already legislating such actions."
First, the sex of the legislator is neither here nor there if they seek justice for murder victims. Second, it would be really sad for mankind if such people were truly "outliers".
"Those who don't speak out against atrocities hold some level of blame when those atrocities happen. Can you at least agree with that principle?"
Oh, absolutely I do! I speak out against the atrocity of tearing a defenseless child limb from limb and crushing its skull just so its parents can abdicate their responsibility to that child. You, on the other hand, are absolutely complicit in that atrocity. You're a scumbag. Actually, you're much worse than that, but this isn't my blog, so I'll restrain my choice of words.
"We are our siblings' keepers."
Yet you do nothing to inhibit the ability of some of your siblings to murder their own children. Because you're a scumbag and I disown reprobate siblings and cast them out so as not to stain my house with their vile sin.
"1. You don't want to create laws that make abortion illegal and not allowed?? If so, I've misunderstood you. It sounds like that's what you want."
It's more like you've chosen to ignore the entirety of my position. If you're going to selectively paraphrase me in order to convey a false impression of my position, why would I dignify your false or incomplete, representation with a serious response?
"2. The reason people like you get conflated with people like Marshal who want to put women in prison for abortions is because you don't speak out against your political allies, denouncing their extremist views."
If you say so. It certainly couldn't be that you're to lazy to deal with Art and I as individuals who don't always agree exactly on everything, when it's easier to just lump us together.
"It's one thing if such people are outliers, but you all on your side have men in power already legislating such actions."
Really, where? What decision has made abortion illegal?
"Those who don't speak out against atrocities hold some level of blame when those atrocities happen. Can you at least agree with that principle?"
No. Especially in this case, as you are taking a small fraction of my "speech" on this issue and drawing conclusions from that filtered through your prejudices. You're further prejudiced because I don't rant, rave, and fling expletive filled vitriol at people. Maybe treating your assumptions as Truth is a problem.
"We are our siblings' keepers."
Except before they're born apparently, then it's perfectly fine to end their lives for the convenience of others.
"You all, being the GOP, the party with which you align. The GOP is seeking to limit medical advice for women and transgender people, as a point of fact. Were you not aware of this?"
Because being specific and saying "the GOP" would have been too accurate, right? What specific law is the GOP trying to pass that would "limit medical advice" for "women and transgender people"? I personally have advocated for making sure both women and those with gender dysphoria are given MORE information, not less. For example, how is a law the requires a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, and be given information of the mental and physical health ramifications of an abortion qualify as a "limit" on medical advise? How is requiring that abortion Drs/clinics have an admitting relationship with a hospital in close proximity a way to "limit" medical advice? How is requiring abortion facilities to meet the same standards as every other facility where outpatient surgery is performed on humans a way to "limit" medical advice? How is overturning a SCOTUS case (now a law passed by the legislature), and passing the issue back to the legislative process a "limit" on medical advice.
In general I would not generally oppose any legislative action that would limit, reduce, or eliminate the majority of elective abortions. Further if/when medical technology advances to the point that the pre natal child can be "transplanted" into another media and be allowed to reach full term and be delivered I would gladly support that. Further, I wholeheartedly support funding adoption at the same levels as we currently fund abortion providers.
"It doesn't sound like you do. So, it sounds like"
Your first mistake. Substituting your hunches about what I "sound like" for what I actually said.
"1. You WISH there were no abortions (me too)"
Correct. What are you doing to promote your alleged "wish"?
"2. You are don't want to create laws that make abortion illegal."
I'm not sure why you think that my wants are so important. But I just asnered this.
"3. But you aren't necessarily opposed to the GOP making it illegal."
Not necessarily. Especially abortions for convenience.
"4. And it doesn't really sound like you're opposed (or willing to stand against) GOP types who want to criminalize it and jail women or abortion providers."
If that's your assumption, and you're going to treat it as fact, nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
"5. But, you don't think that approach is right... you're just not willing to oppose it."
"Is all of that right?"
No.
"And I think you're "no. no." response is trying to say that you DON'T think it's right that those who don't speak out against atrocities bear some blame for those atrocities."
I don't care what you "think". Especially when what you "think" contradicts what I've said or when what you "think" is based on your selectively taking my words out of context. But mostly, what you "think" is usually wrong.
"That saddens me, if so."
Again, I don't care. The fact that someone who supports the ending of human life, and pre pubescent children undergoing irreversible medical procedures when they are legally unable to have informed consent, saddens me.
"Then, you don't think typical German citizens who didn't speak out against Nazis were wrong to do so? That they bear no moral culpability for what happened?"
I don't think that the "individual Germans" all spoke out or opposed the NAZI's in the same way. I think it's absurd to assume that anyone who doesn't speak out in the way you prefer, isn't speaking out in other ways. Would you agree that only an idiot would draw a conclusion about the entirety of something after only seeing 10% of that thing? Especially if one's limited view was through a flawed and imperfect medium?
"As to the suggestion that forcing women to have babies if they wanted abortions and putting them in jail if they do is NOT an atrocity, well, I guess atrocities are in the eye of the beholder."
I guess they are. It's strange that it's an atrocity for a woman to engage in the perfectly natural (either designed or evolved), unique function of bearing and giving birth to a human child. It's even stranger that virtually every other mammal in the world is "forced" to give birth and that "forced" birth is celebrated. The notion that humans are only one more mammal is applied selectively. I guess I'd say that the destruction of people's homes and businesses is an atrocity. I'd say that doing nothing while millions of born children's parents can't find enough formula could be an atrocity. I'd say that printing money to further a war could be considered an atrocity.
"Since I'm a believer in free will and human rights and self-determination and forcing women to have babies and putting women in jail for trying to be self-determination interferes with self-determination in the extreme, I can't see how all of these modern GOP pushes are not atrocities."
How smug and self-congratulatory you are. I guess the importance of "choice" doesn't kick in until after the positive pregnancy test.
"Answering some of your questions..."
Maybe someday, you'll move up to answering most of my questions, or even all of them.
"I support you having no restrictions beyond medical advice."
Interesting, you seem to be saying that you support me (presumably everyone) having "no restrictions" on their choices in medical care, correct? Are you suggesting that "medical advice" should always be followed? Or that "no restrictions" includes choosing not to follow "medical advice"? Are there restrictions on what constitutes "medical advice" and who is qualified to dispense "medical advice"? Is all "medical advice" equal?
"'m saying that lawmakers or people not involved in the life of the person in question should not be invading the conversations between medical experts and their patients. I'm saying if it's not YOUR body, you should not be confronting people about their expert prescribed medical decisions. Period. Full stop."
What if the "lawmaker" is an MD? You seem to be saying that there should be absolutely zero restrictions on any medical procedure that come from the legislative or judicial branches of government on any level, am I correct in that?
"I've never advocated for any medical procedure. Period. Full stop."
Really? "Never"?
While the actual act of aborting a living human being from it's mother's womb by violently dismembering it while it writhes in pain, is a "medical procedure", based on the hard data the reason for this brutal procedure is virtually never actually medical. That is, in about 8% of all abortions the reason is "medical" (defining "medical" as broadly as possible to include mental heath as well). So, how does a "medical expert" advise a woman on a non medical problem? How is choosing to abort because the mother doesn't want her body to undergo the (natural, normal, God designed or Evolved) body changes that occur during pregnancy helped by "medical advice"? What "medical advice" would encourage aborting for reasons of "selection" (race, gender, sexual orientation)? If a "gay gene" actually existed, would you have the same attitude toward a woman choosing to abort because the "gay gene" showed up in pre natal tests? Isn't "medical advice" regarding the links between abortion and cancer, or abortion and depression/mental health, important "medical advice"? In the mental health state of the mother a factor?
It seems as though these are questions that are, at least, worthy of discussion.
"Are you suggesting that "medical advice" should always be followed?"
I'm saying that it's rational that it should always be carefully considered. Ultimately, I think the individual needs to make their own decisions, but they should be making it from a place of having good information.
With a patient who has been suffering for a long time from cancer where a doctor says here are some procedures that you could take that may extend your life, and if you don't do them your life may be shorter, then I think the person should take that into consideration and make their own decision. For instance.
Craig...
"Or that "no restrictions" includes choosing not to follow "medical advice"?"
I believe in freedom of choice for adults to make those sort of decisions for themselves.
Craig...
"Are there restrictions on what constitutes "medical advice" and who is qualified to dispense "medical advice"?"
Certified medical and mental health experts can give certified expert advice. If someone also wants to consult with an astrologer about their medical decisions, that's up to them, but it's not really expert advice, is it?
" Is all "medical advice" equal?"
No.
I fully support you thinking about those questions and having those discussions. And I support women making their own decisions regardless of what you or I may want.
Craig... "What are you doing to promote your alleged "wish"?"
Now, HERE, you finally ask a pretty good question.
I'm doing a great deal, along with the modern progressive movement:
1. We're promoting health insurance coverage for everyone
2. We're promoting policies that would help make sure there's sufficient good, accessible and affordable housing for the least of these
3. We're promoting reasonable, helpful sex education and pregnancy prevention methods
4. We're promoting living wage policies
5. We're promoting family leave access
etc, etc.
Many (most?) poorer women who have abortions that aren't for health, life, rape, incest reasons do so because they don't believe (and may not be wrong) that they have the financial, community support and health wherewithal to handle taking on a child or to afford to take time off to have the child (even if they were to place it for adoption). Progressive measures help create conditions that make it more likely that more pregnant women will eventually have their children.
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
As someone rightly noted, we want conditions to be such that abortions would be safer, legal and rare.
"Certified medical and mental health experts can give certified expert advice."
Certified? What a vague term that can mean pretty much anything. Certified in what? Certified by whom? Regulated by whom? Unregulated? Who sets standards for "certified"?
Again, I don;t really care what you think.
No, you misunderstand. I didn't ask what others who you support are doing, I asked what you are doing.
As if legalizing abortion for any reason until birth will make them "rare".
I guess promoting funding adoption at the same level as abortion providers isn't on your radar. What hard data is there that proves that giving those free things to women will actually decrease abortions? Or are you just guessing that enacting the usual left wing talking points will magically stop women from becoming pregnant and not seeking abortion.
Maybe a good place to start would not involve rampant inflation, empty shelves in stores, not having a shortage of baby formula, not printing and spending money by the billions, and not funding the war in Ukraine.
Instead of legislation to do all the things you claim will work, y'all give us legislation to expand abortion beyond Roe.
I guess you really do mean "no restrictions" on abortions.
"I guess promoting funding adoption at the same level as abortion providers isn't on your radar."
I fully support helping fund adoption services. About the government shouldn't be supporting faith based adoption services that prevent LGBTQ people from adopting or otherwise express bigotry in their adoption policies.
"What hard data is there that proves that giving those free things to women will actually decrease abortions?"
All the data that shows that the better off poor people are the better place they are to make better decisions. Isn't that obvious? Are you not aware of this?
Also, the data that shows that some of the main reasons people give for give for wanting an abortion is not being able to afford it in a wide range of ways.
I wonder...among those many things Dan and his "we" are doing to lessen the number of abortions, how strongly to they encourage people to refrain from sexual intercourse if they're not able or willing to fulfill the obligation they have for the care of the child which may well result from engaging in that act designed to bring about new people. I'd wager there's scant little attention paid to such things, especially given how "housing" is somehow going to make a difference as to whether or not the people aborting their kids will continue getting laid.
But then, it's pretty common for lefties to propose nonsense to resolve an issue.
Craig...
"Maybe a good place to start would not involve rampant inflation..."
How did Biden or Democrats cause this? Was their a vote in favor of inflation that I missed?
The Democrats literally inherited the conditions for inflation from the prior administration and Covid and circumstances beyond Biden's control, by and large...
"empty shelves in stores,"
How did Biden or Democrats cause this?
"not having a shortage of baby formula"
How did Biden or Democrats cause this?
"not printing and spending money by the billions"
It's what government does. I'm all in favor of cutbacks where we can reasonably cut back, but as things stand right now, the gov't needs to be doing more, not less. Our infrastructure of all sorts is crumbling and who's going to pave those roads? Walmart?
"...and not funding the war in Ukraine."
You oppose supporting the fight against Russian war crimes??
Wow.
As you know, I'm generally lean pacifist, but I'm not opposed to actual self-defense against actual actively invading forces (along with diplomacy and sanctions). That the GOP (some in the GOP, anyway) choose NOW to want to limit military expenditures seems... odd. IF we're going to spend military dollars, this is precisely the sort of way to spend them.
Wow.
At any rate, I don't guess you'll be providing any support for the suggestion that the Democrats are to blame for all of the things you listed.
"All the data that shows that the better off poor people are the better place they are to make better decisions. Isn't that obvious? Are you not aware of this?"
In the absence of "all the data", I'll pass on blindly accepting that you are correct. I seem to remember millions of dollars spent on housing complexes in the 60' that pretty much universally turned into hell holes that had to be destroyed. Again, I'm aware that you haven't provided any "data" let alone "all the data". Are you suggesting that abortion is not a "better" decision?
"Also, the data that shows that some of the main reasons people give for give for wanting an abortion is not being able to afford it in a wide range of ways."
Interesting. I've seen data that shows lower income women have few abortions than women with higher incomes, might seem to contradict that.
"How did Biden or Democrats cause this? Was their a vote in favor of inflation that I missed?"
Have you not watched the news since Joe was elected? What have Biden/the DFL done to stop inflation?
1. Increased government spending.
2. Printing of billions of additional dollars.
3. Biden hasn't (as previous presidents have done) encouraged Fed action.
4. Biden's energy policies.
5. Food shortages/Food plant destruction.
Seriously, Biden's said little and done less (other then blame Putin) regarding inflation.
"It's what government does. I'm all in favor of cutbacks where we can reasonably cut back, but as things stand right now, the gov't needs to be doing more, not less. Our infrastructure of all sorts is crumbling and who's going to pave those roads? Walmart?"
Increasing the money supply is literally a cause inflation. It's interesting that you try to give Biden a pass for his inaction by blaming the "previous administration" and "COVID", yet you don't give the previous administration a free pass because of the unprecedented nature of COVID. Further, Biden promised to improve the COVID situation, yet we've now had millions of deaths, are looking at another "wave", and somehow none of this is Biden's responsibility. What'd Joe say about the suitability of anyone who'd presided over 220,000 deaths from COVID and their fitness to be POTUS? I guess presiding over another what, 800K, doesn't count.
"You oppose supporting the fight against Russian war crimes??"
No, I support balancing that support with the damage it's causing to the weakest economy in decades.
Of course the point being that the DFL can rouse itself from lethargy to rush through a bill that expands abortion, while doing nothing about any of the above problems.
I'm guessing that, come November, it's likely that parents will be more concerned about feeding their babies than they are about killing them.
"How did Biden or Democrats cause this? Was their a vote in favor of inflation that I missed?"
All who refused to give Trump another four years voted for this. And that's not to say Trump didn't his part to contribute. Some say this has been trending for some 14 years. Some say even longer. But there's absolutely no doubt Biden's policies...if they're really his policies...massively exacerbated it, as comparisons to prior to his election clearly show.
Post a Comment