For those of you who support abortion...

[lucky4034]

I agree that they don't go hand in hand. The difference is that I think morality (not necessarily religious morality, but cultural morals) comes before cost-benefit. If something is morally wrong - like drowning a three year old in a bathtub, for instance - it doesn't matter if there is an ultimate cost savings.

Do you disagree with that?

Obviously I disagree or we wouldn't be here. I don't totally discount morality in all situations as you suggest. If morality outweighs the cost, then I'm all for it. If you can guarantee me that abolishing abortion across the board isn't going to affect me then I'll be happy to support your cause....

However, if you are asking me to weigh in on the cost/benefit of drowning a 3 year old that someone already agreed to take care of but is failing, then morality for me increases to the point where it outweighs the social benefit.

You are painting morality vs cost benefit as an "all or nothing" proposition when its not.

----------------------

Generally speaking, no. Why should I pay for it? When have I advocated that? Nor do I believe you should be required to pay for it via taxes or any other mechanism.

Ok... so you don't want to pay for any increased cost if abortion is outlawed....

Who is the one living in a Utopia now? Explain to me who is going to pay for this?

 

[lucky4034]

Maybe.

But that's the result of our welfare state. And that should not be a reason to help ensure the innocent the right to life.

Then again, some of those 1.umpteen million might do something extraordinary. Something that will offset the utilitarian drain on society by the remainder.

Ok... so how much are you willing to pay to take that chance? At what point does the cost outweigh the moral benefit to you? You are ok with paying 10% of your income... 20%? 50%? ... 0%?

Right now your solution... if I understand it correctly is to encourage the birth of unwanted children and then watch the newborns starve to death?

You've already spoke that you don't want to pay for it and that the government shouldn't tax you to pay for it. So... where does all of this money come from? Should we sell the extra babies to cover the costs?

(I'm being serious... you don't want abortion and don't want to incur any costs of outlawing it. So how do we pay for it? Keep in mind we are WAAAAYYYYY over budget as is)

 

[lucky4034]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

I'm going to quote this in case either of you guys ignored it.

This lady has 15 kids... she calls them "gifts from God" and she wants YOU to pay for them.

Happy Birthday tax payers.... Here are your gifts.

 

[UncleMike]

I'm going to quote this in case either of you guys ignored it.

This lady has 15 kids... she calls them "gifts from God" and she wants YOU to pay for them.

Happy Birthday tax payers.... Here are your gifts.

The solution seems to be to sterilize her and put her kids in Foster homes where they can learn how a proper family operates instead of leaving them in a baby mill operation like that welfare ***** is running.

 

[cordex]

I don't totally discount morality in all situations as you suggest.

Right. Only in the case of abortion.

If morality outweighs the cost, then I'm all for it. If you can guarantee me that abolishing abortion across the board isn't going to affect me then I'll be happy to support your cause....

However, if you are asking me to weigh in on the cost/benefit of drowning a 3 year old that someone already agreed to take care of but is failing, then morality for me increases to the point where it outweighs the social benefit.

That's an interesting perspective. Can you elaborate on this calculation? What makes the 3 year old so much more morally valuable in your equation than the unborn baby?

You are painting morality vs cost benefit as an "all or nothing" proposition when its not.

Actually, when it is a discussion of non-consensual termination of a human, it should come pretty close to "all or nothing." That's dangerous ground to tread.

Ok... so you don't want to pay for any increased cost if abortion is outlawed....

Who is the one living in a Utopia now? Explain to me who is going to pay for this?

You're looking at this from a simplistic point of view.
Cheerleading abortion isn't fixing our welfare state. Outlawing abortions won't either. That's a separate issue that has its own complexities (such as the existing financial incentive to turn out live babies).

You're right that if all that is done is to prohibit abortion there will be a marginal increase in welfare costs, but the increase is insignificant in the scheme of the existing government budget imbalances. Abortion or lack thereof is not a significant contributing factor to overspending, especially considering that not all abortions are performed for destitute mothers.

Realistically, abortion isn't going to be outlawed. Too many people believe as you do - that it is more fun if we pretend there aren't moral considerations worth mentioning. At the same time, your taxes aren't going to go down one iota (or increase less quickly) because of abortion. Since Roe V. Wade, welfare spending as a percent of GDP has essentially doubled. What a huge savings abortion has brought us. A few more and we can pay off our burgeoning debt.

I'm going to quote this in case either of you guys ignored it.

This lady has 15 kids... she calls them "gifts from God" and she wants YOU to pay for them.

Happy Birthday tax payers.... Here are your gifts.

In case you ignored it, she also already has access to abortion and presumably birth control options as well. As I said, the problem with the welfare state exists independently of the problem of abortion.

 

[sepe]

The solution seems to be to sterilize her and put her kids in Foster homes where they can learn how a proper family operates instead of leaving them in a baby mill operation like that welfare ***** is running.

Yeah, the foster care system if amazingly free of degenerates, freaks, and people that shouldn't be around kids. Nobody just fosters for the monthly checks. Nobody abuses the kids. The nearly 80% in the foster system that have severe emotional issues get proper help. No kids ever age out of the foster system and they all live wonderful lives. The rate of sexual abuse in the foster system is only a mere 28 times that of the general public. Yep, sounds like the majority of kids that go into the foster care system will be living a wonderful life and learning about how a proper family operates.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ok... so how much are you willing to pay to take that chance? At what point does the cost outweigh the moral benefit to you? You are ok with paying 10% of your income... 20%? 50%? ... 0%?

Right now your solution... if I understand it correctly is to encourage the birth of unwanted children and then watch the newborns starve to death?

You've already spoke that you don't want to pay for it and that the government shouldn't tax you to pay for it. So... where does all of this money come from? Should we sell the extra babies to cover the costs?

(I'm being serious... you don't want abortion and don't want to incur any costs of outlawing it. So how do we pay for it? Keep in mind we are WAAAAYYYYY over budget as is)

It's all a moot point anyway since we've long decided that we're not going to let people suffer the fates of their own devices. But in a philosophical light, which is all we can do: Right is right and murder is murder. I believe abortion is murder--at any stage after conception. I believe we should remove all forms of tax payer funded welfare. I believe much of the behavior that results in the "extra babies" are a product of our society that socializes the results of that behavior.

But I realize none of this is likely to happen. Until we start nominating justices that will decide cases based on constitutionality rather than precedent or the mood of the people or penumbras or whatever, we'll never overturn Roe; we'll never stop things like Obamacare. Likewise politicians have finally succumbed to the allure of perpetual power gotten by raiding the treasury to hand out freebies to those that haven't earned them while placating the masses with the opiates of supposed liberties like legalizing drugs, homosexual "marriage", "free" birth control, etc--without the incumbant responsibilities.

 

[Degtyaryov]

Support reproductive rights 100%. No amount of emotional crap will get me to support oppressing women.

 

[UncleMike]

Yeah, the foster care system if amazingly free of degenerates, freaks, and people that shouldn't be around kids. Nobody just fosters for the monthly checks. Nobody abuses the kids. The nearly 80% in the foster system that have severe emotional issues get proper help. No kids ever age out of the foster system and they all live wonderful lives. The rate of sexual abuse in the foster system is only a mere 28 times that of the general public. Yep, sounds like the majority of kids that go into the foster care system will be living a wonderful life and learning about how a proper family operates.

You certainly seem to know a Hell of a lot about the Foster Care System..
I'd like to compare notes with you some time since you apparently have been an abused Foster child, or have been an abuser of Foster Children..
My wife and I were Foster Parents for twins and apparently we didn't do it right.
BTW
I suggest that if you have proof of your allegations that you turn the evidence over to the Prosecutors Office having venue in the case.
Otherwise.....
If, as I suspect, you're just blowing hot air out of your fetid rear end I suggest that you shut your worthless pie hole until you have first hand knowledge of the matter.
Have a nice day....

 

[Tinner666]

After a certain point in gestation, no. Before that point, I don't worry about it.
It should be somehow worked out between doctors and religious leaders, not necessarily be such a legal battle. It's a moral issue.
Women have been doing it for eons, and will continue to do so. At least legal ones are probably safer.

 

[spectre327]

I believe that every abortionist should be gutted alive without anesthesia.
That is absolutely sick, what he did. I wonder what he'd think if someone slit his spinal cord with a pair of scissors!

 

[lucky4034]

You're looking at this from a simplistic point of view.
Cheerleading abortion isn't fixing our welfare state. Outlawing abortions won't either. That's a separate issue that has its own complexities (such as the existing financial incentive to turn out live babies).

I didn't say it was going to fix our welfare state... I simply point out that its going to ADD to it.

You're right that if all that is done is to prohibit abortion there will be a marginal increase in welfare costs, but the increase is insignificant in the scheme of the existing government budget imbalances. Abortion or lack thereof is not a significant contributing factor to overspending, especially considering that not all abortions are performed for destitute mothers.

Marginal? To properly raise a child... current estimations not including college are upwards of $200,000 for 18 years x 1.3 million US children = $260 BILLION for 2013 aborted children over the next 18 years.

Again... that is to pay for ONE YEAR (2013) of aborted babies over 18 years of life. But thats right... you don't want to pay for any of that. You'd rather we strip everyone of government services and then watch them all starve to death. (sounds a lot like what I've been preaching all along.)

*These numbers do not include un-aborted babies in 2014, 2015 etc.... just 1 year.*
**Note that this only includes these childrens dependency up until the age of 18... **

Realistically, abortion isn't going to be outlawed. Too many people believe as you do - that it is more fun if we pretend there aren't moral considerations worth mentioning.

Funny you say that... because I've asked you about a million times on how you plan to pay for this fiasco and your only reply is that morality is the answer and how much it cost is insignificant because you don't feel like anyone should pay for it... Who's pretending now?

At the same time, your taxes aren't going to go down one iota (or increase less quickly) because of abortion. Since Roe V. Wade, welfare spending as a percent of GDP has essentially doubled. What a huge savings abortion has brought us. A few more and we can pay off our burgeoning debt.

So now abortion is responsible for welfare spending?

In case you ignored it, she also already has access to abortion and presumably birth control options as well. As I said, the problem with the welfare state exists independently of the problem of abortion.

That is correct... the welfare state does exist independently of abortion. However, you've yet to explain how abolishing abortion is going to exist independently of the welfare state? That is the only question I've asked you to answer and all you've done is dance around it.

I've asked you (and the rest of this forum) about 10 times in this thread and no one has even attempted to give me an answer.... and I suspect, its because you know it CAN'T. (actually you've said as much in case you didn't notice)

.... So... quite dancing around the question. For the last time, you don't want to pay for it... I don't want to pay for it... If we do what you want done...

...HOW DO YOU SUGGEST WE PAY FOR IT?

 

[cordex]

I didn't say it was going to fix our welfare state... I simply point out that its going to ADD to it.

Granted, at least to a point. So fix the bloody broken system.

Marginal? To properly raise a child... current estimations not including college are upwards of $200,000 for 18 years x 1.3 million US children = $260 BILLION for 2013 aborted children over the next 18 years.

I'm not quite sure where to begin here.
1. Welfare != raising kids properly on a upper-middle-class budget.
2. The government assistance given is a supplement to other forms of income (work, private and religious charitable assistance, etc).
3. Not all unwanted US children would be going on the dole. Just because mommy doesn't want to take care of Junior doesn't mean she (or her extended family) can't.
4. There are 1.3 million aborted US children each year precisely because it is a relatively convenient, legal option. People don't make reproductive decisions in a vacuum. If abortion were outlawed, there will be an increase in unwanted children born, but not at a rate of 1.3 million a year.
5. Infants are readily adopted.

But thats right... you don't want to pay for any of that. You'd rather we strip everyone of government services and then watch them all starve to death. (sounds a lot like what I've been preaching all along.)

Again, people don't make decisions in a vacuum. If abortion isn't a cheap and readily available option, a lot more folks will buy condoms or remember to take their pill.

So now abortion is responsible for welfare spending?

At the very least, the welfare state has expanded wildly since the legalization of abortion. The rate of increase rose sharply around the same time, but I think that probably had more to do with a general increase in socialism. The attitude of "I shouldn't have to be responsible for my actions" absolutely contributes to both welfare dependence and abortions.

That is correct... the welfare state does exist independently of abortion. However, you've yet to explain how abolishing abortion is going to exist independently of the welfare state? That is the only question I've asked you to answer and all you've done is dance around it.

That isn't the only question you've asked, and for that matter it isn't even clearly a question.

.... So... quite dancing around the question.

... says the champion of ignoring tough questions.

Your questions, unclear as they are, consist almost entirely of a series of faulty assumptions, some of which I have addressed above.

 

[lucky4034]

Granted, at least to a point. So fix the bloody broken system. (I'll hold my breath if you hold yours)

I'm not quite sure where to begin here.
1. Welfare != raising kids properly on a upper-middle-class budget. (It takes a lot more than welfare to raise kids. Welfare may supply life-sustaining nutrition, raggedy clothes and a leaky roof... but you still have to educate those kids, transport those kids and provide them with healthcare. $200k over 18 years isn't a lot of money)
2. The government assistance given is a supplement to other forms of income (work, private and religious charitable assistance, etc). (Unemployment is high, charities are already underperforming and churches are struggling to keep the doors open. You don't want to pay for it... so your solution is to pass the bill off to someone else. Very nice...)
3. Not all unwanted US children would be going on the dole. Just because mommy doesn't want to take care of Junior doesn't mean she (or her extended family) can't. (How many women who would have gotten an abortion will have to end up on "the dole" as a result of taking care of an unwanted kid. How many 16 year old mothers turn to food stamps and welfare? How many of them will choose to become government reliant because they were thrust into motherhood and had to stall out their own lives? Don't forget, we get to take care of them too....)
4. There are 1.3 million aborted US children each year precisely because it is a relatively convenient, legal option. People don't make reproductive decisions in a vacuum. If abortion were outlawed, there will be an increase in unwanted children born, but not at a rate of 1.3 million a year. (Did you once again ignore the lady with 15 kids? You used that argument in your last post... how many of those do you want to create?)
5. Infants are readily adopted. (and the ones who aren't? How about the ones who aren't given up at birth... what about those kids. You said it yourself, we don't operate in a vacuum here)

Again, people don't make decisions in a vacuum. If abortion isn't a cheap and readily available option, a lot more folks will buy condoms or remember to take their pill. (Oh... so now this type of argument works for you now? You JUST TOLD ME that despite of abortion, people are still having kids they can't take care of even with access to pills and condoms. Now your telling me that pills and condoms will remedy the situation? Those options exist now and they aren't working...)

At the very least, the welfare state has expanded wildly since the legalization of abortion. The rate of increase rose sharply around the same time, but I think that probably had more to do with a general increase in socialism. The attitude of "I shouldn't have to be responsible for my actions" absolutely contributes to both welfare dependence and abortions. (Preaching to the choir now)

That isn't the only question you've asked, and for that matter it isn't even clearly a question. (The question is clear and yet you still avoid it)

... says the champion of ignoring tough questions. (Find a question I've ignored and I'll answer it)

Your questions, unclear as they are, consist almost entirely of a series of faulty assumptions, some of which I have addressed above. (How can a question be an assumption? )

The facts are these...

-You tried to shove morality down my throat, preaching to me that its more important than the cost of abolishing abortion.

-I point out that what you propose isn't going to be free and you still tell me that I'm wrong to weigh cost more than morality.

-I then ask you if you are willing to pay for the incurred costs and you reply emphatically "NO" that you were NOT interested in paying for those costs. "Someone else should do it" (ie.. charities)...​

I asked you very clearly who was going to pay for this. Regardless if it cost tax payers $260 billion a year or $260 thousand a year... its going to cost us something (which you agree) and you don't have an answer. You made it quite clear that you don't want to pay for it...

You tried to shove morality down my throat... you told me that utilitarian costs were not even worth mentioning, but when the rubber met the road... your morality fell apart, and had no choice but to agree with me. You weren't willing to accept any of the costs!!! You stated so multiple times which tells me, that LIKE ME... your morality did not outweigh the costs. Your morality was the center of the argument as long as it wasn't coming out of your pocket. Who was the pretender... You or Me?

No one likes abortion... the people who get abortions don't like abortion... but this is 2013 A.D. in the United States Empire and given the state of our society, abortions are becoming a necessary evil. If this was a Utopia, abortion wouldn't even exist. Abstinence would be all that was needed ... but its not. The welfare state is expanding and abolishing abortion would simply add to the problem. It takes a lot more than morality to build a society... and its going to take a lot more common sense to prop up one that is on the verge of collapsing.

Your morality has failed... Don't bother responding to this thread. I'm tired of the run around and the back peddling. You can keep your head high and dream about the wonders of a moral society... and I will go on to weigh the realistic costs and benefits of moralities failures.

Just remember that when the rubber met the road, you weren't even willing to sacrifice a dime to your morality. You were much more content diminishing the costs and then shoving them into the laps of everyone else but yourself.

Well done....

 

[zippy23]

Are you people arguing the COST of not aborting kids? Seriously? Thats even an argument? How bout this, we should NOT kill children and we should NOT pay for them either, their parents will pay for them, or be forced to pay for them, as to not allow them to be on the welfare system their entire lives. Men should be held responsible or pay the price. this would help to GROW THE ECONOMY and get more people off the gov't payroll and actually work out better. So no, we should NOT kill kids, we should NOT pay for them either, their parents should be held responsible, simple as that. If money and abortion are in the same argument then holy crap, its about THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, its not even a question, they deserve to have life, not be killed. "abortions are a necessary evil." is there such thing as an evil that we need??!?!?!?! WTF

 

[lucky4034]

Are you people arguing the COST of not aborting kids? Seriously? Thats even an argument? How bout this, we should NOT kill children and we should NOT pay for them either, their parents will pay for them, or be forced to pay for them, as to not allow them to be on the welfare system their entire lives. Men should be held responsible or pay the price. this would help to GROW THE ECONOMY and get more people off the gov't payroll and actually work out better. So no, we should NOT kill kids, we should NOT pay for them either, their parents should be held responsible, simple as that. If money and abortion are in the same argument then holy crap, its about THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, its not even a question, they deserve to have life, not be killed. "abortions are a necessary evil." is there such thing as an evil that we need??!?!?!?! WTF

Oh look... another idealist

 

[Baditude]

Are you people arguing the COST of not aborting kids? Seriously? Thats even an argument? How bout this, we should NOT kill children and we should NOT pay for them either, their parents will pay for them, or be forced to pay for them, as to not allow them to be on the welfare system their entire lives. Men should be held responsible or pay the price. this would help to GROW THE ECONOMY and get more people off the gov't payroll and actually work out better. So no, we should NOT kill kids, we should NOT pay for them either, their parents should be held responsible, simple as that. If money and abortion are in the same argument then holy crap, its about THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, its not even a question, they deserve to have life, not be killed. "abortions are a necessary evil." is there such thing as an evil that we need??!?!?!?! WTF

Based upon the login behind your argument about abortion which comes down to your own morality, then many arguments can be made.

Are you against fat people? Gluttony - so force them to be skinny?
What about tattoos? or anything that violates the body?

Is it right for you to dictate how others should live their lives or what they do to their own bodies?

 

[Airborne33]

Ok so if abortion needs to be illegal, guns should be too right? Murder is murder. Guns murder people, either it be self defense or a crazy guy with one, people die from them. Just as abortion, people die from them, either it be for whatever reason the person chooses to have it for.

Guns are not an act of murder. Anyone who makes that argument is an idiot. Guns don't murder people any more than latex gloves and clothes hanger performs abortion. In this case a pair of scissors. People murder people. In this case you have a doctor murdering children. Anyone who can look the other way in this situation, needs to have their moral compass realigned.

Let's not try to link support for the second amendment as support for murder or other crime, if you can somehow make a connection between these two I'm not sure I want to understand.

 

[indiucky]

Don't waste time arguing with me... here... pledge some money to your cause.

I'm fair... I'll take your argument a lot more serious when you put your money where your mouth is. Until then... don't bother trying to tell me that paying for all the worlds children should be my responsibility.

I hear you talking.... now lets get that wallet out and get to work!

Debate on the subject of life is never a waste of time...It's not "my cause", it's just human decency...Quit hating yourself and humanity....Everyone deserves a chance to catch a fish, get kissed, fall in love, see a sunrise, hear a wild turkey gobble, see a bald eagle in the wild, win a bet, lose a bet, cry over lost love, rejoice over found love, plant a garden, etc...etc...etc....

Don't kill yourself...Your life is precious no mattter how much you loath yourself and your fellow man. There is beauty all around you and more importantly inside you...

You keep mentioning Africa, Asia and other countries with a non European population as being part of the problem...Planned Parenthood puts their clinics in predominatley minority neighborhoods for a reason unknown to me but known by their founder Margaret Sanger...At it's core abortion, eugenics, and to a certain degree Darwinism are based on the premise that certain people don't deserve a shot at this roller coaster we call life. A segment of the population believes the herd needs to be thinned because there are too many of those people...You know...The burdens.....

As far as "putting my money where my mouth is", my wife and I are Blessed with a special needs child that many would consider a "burden" on society....I put my money where my mouth is every single day...If through the prism of her Autism she can see the Blessing that is life, ("and she does" to quote "The Talking Heads") then I am sure you can unchain the shackles of self loathing that bind you and embrace the gift of existence that is yours...

Peace be with you and within you always...Wipe off the cataracts and see the beauty....

Here are some happy tunes celebrating the beauty of life all over and another that reminds us that things get better..There is also an old book that teaches this as well...The new section is very uplifting...Was that vague enough Mods?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwe-pA6TaZk[/ame]

Here is Notre Dame's Marching Band and OK GO giving the message...Nice use of ghillie suits in this one...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKythlXAIY[/ame]


"This Too Shall Pass"


You can't stop these kids from dancin'.
Why would you want to?
Especially when yor already gettin' yours.
'Cause if your mind don't move and your knees don't bend,
well don't go blamin' the kids again

 

[cordex]

When I started this reply, I was going to go through and address each your points individually - not because they're particularly good or well-considered points, but for the sake of completeness. As I was doing so, I noticed a recurring theme that has been a component of every part of our exchange here that I think can clarify and summarize into a much briefer and easier to read post.

You and I agree on probably about 95% on the issues of morality, reducing public costs and government interference.
You and I agree that it absolutely isn't okay for us to kill without just cause people supported by our taxes to realize a cost savings. Whether or not we want to pay for these people (and we often don't), it isn't acceptable for us to terminate their lives. There are numerous other possible solutions including reducing the size and restrictions associated with government and reforming welfare and so forth, but the point is that murder isn't even on the table no matter how many billions or trillions it would save. Put another way, morality is more important the cost of not murdering. We're good so far, right?

Where we disagree is the issue you say is as unimportant as the color of your bathroom - the decision of when a baby becomes a person. However, if you can't even say with certainty when someone is a person, you can hardly say when it is okay to kill them. It's somewhat like going hunting and shooting at sounds or shadows without identifying them. You might kill an animal whose death will be a benefit to you, and you might kill a person. If you don't care which, then by all means keep spraying shots at every snapping twig. If you do care, then figure it out before you drop the hammer.

Your existing morality - not something I'm shoving down your throat - already handles this sort of situation. By your own admission, you haven't put any thought into how it should or should not apply to unborn babies.

This useless round and round is exactly why I stated early on that these kind of arguments (cost savings, choice, rape, etc) are merely a distraction - a red herring designed to re-frame the debate so as to avoid the difficult question.

Find a question I've ignored and I'll answer it

There are plenty, but lets start with these:

• What makes the 3 year old so much more morally valuable in your equation than the unborn baby?
• Who are "the experts" that should decide when someone is not a person? And how do they make that determination? You touched on this briefly in an "I don't care, whatever." sort of way, but it really is the most important point being discussed here. And, unfortunately, the hardest to answer.
• So because you're not willing to advocate the slaughter of the hungry in Africa, should we assume you're willing to step up and foot the bill for them?
• You don't think your standards and beliefs are a product of things you've read or social influences?