• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Planigale said:
Eugenicism is now assumed to be a 'Nazi' phenomenon, but pre WW2 it was a widely held belief both amongst those on the left (e.g. HG Wells) and the right. Many conditions were thought of as being inherited we would no longer consider as such. Even progressive liberal people used language that would be regarded as uncomfortably racist now.
Click to expand...

By this measure, slavery was ok, too. Which for the time, it was. Nobody should criticize it, right? :thumbsup:

I don't like viewing history through a modern lens, but if someone promotes or defends such ideals as being acceptable in a modern sense, that is different.

No liberal is generally giving a pass to slavery, or being an apologist for those who supported it. When it comes to abortion activists, no matter how misguided, on the other hand...
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Then in future, don't bring figures to the table if you are not prepared for them to be analysed and challenged!
Click to expand...
It's terribly unfair to conservatives to expect them to be realistic or consistent; after all if they're not allowed to distort, lie and misquote what have they got?
 
catsmate said:
It's terribly unfair to conservatives to expect them to be realistic or consistent; after all if they're not allowed to distort, lie and misquote what have they got?
Click to expand...

Another bad argument from someone who didn't read the source material.
 
cosmicaug said:
Comparing maternal deaths to number of abortions is not in any way putting it in perspective. In fact, it's barely relevant to catsmate's comment. When we have tried to address the issue, maternal mortality has been reduced. Catsmate's point is that it will not be addressed with Republicans controlling government.
Click to expand...
Also that, as I have stated:
1. The USAian right doesn't like the idea of women having rights, especially not bodily autonomy. Hence the crappy sex-ed, lack of easy access to contraception et cetera,
2. If abortion is restricted more women will die. Not that the conservatives like Warpie will be bothered by that given they oft demonstrated contempt for women.
 
catsmate said:
It's terribly unfair to conservatives to expect them to be realistic or consistent; after all if they're not allowed to distort, lie and misquote what have they got?
Click to expand...

In this case it may not be purposeful. Remember Kevin Kline's character in "A Fish Called Wanda"?
 
Susheel said:
Nope...it was the verbal equivalent of the "finger in ear...la..la...la...la"
Click to expand...
Of course, what else did you expect? Warpie is utterly uninterested in real debate, hence his repeated parroting of long debunked lies.
 
Warp12 said:
By this measure, slavery was ok, too. Which for the time, it was. Nobody should criticize it, right? :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

No. This was certainly post emancipation in the US and long after abolitionist movement had developed.

Eugenics has a range of views. In an era when medical resources and knowledge were very limited then a rational argument could be made for a Eugenics approach. This is equivalent to what happens in the Jewish community with screening for Tay-Sachs, or Cystic Fibrosis in Europeans with a family history or a number of fatal autosomal dominant conditions such as Huntington's (or even Trisomy in Iceland in the present day). The difference is we now have the genetic tests, then the only option was birth control. Eugenics does not mean advocating for the deaths of the disabled. Nor does it mean forced / unconsented sterilisation of the mentally infirm (although it often did). Eugenics continued even in liberal west european countries until fairly late e.g. compulsory sterilisation of trans persons only stopped in Sweden in 2013.
 
Planigale said:
No. This was certainly post emancipation in the US and long after abolitionist movement had developed.

Eugenics has a range of views. In an era when medical resources and knowledge were very limited then a rational argument could be made for a Eugenics approach. This is equivalent to what happens in the Jewish community with screening for Tay-Sachs, or Cystic Fibrosis in Europeans with a family history or a number of fatal autosomal dominant conditions such as Huntington's (or even Trisomy in Iceland in the present day). The difference is we now have the genetic tests, then the only option was birth control. Eugenics does not mean advocating for the deaths of the disabled. Nor does it mean forced / unconsented sterilisation of the mentally infirm (although it often did). Eugenics continued even in liberal west european countries until fairly late e.g. compulsory sterilisation of trans persons only stopped in Sweden in 2013.
Click to expand...

The ultimate in apologism. Thanks.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Pro-choice is exactly that, we're fighting to keep a woman's right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy or not. It's not encouraging women to do so.
Click to expand...

“Pro Choice” is obviously designed to be vague and to paint opponents as against some sort of vague “right to choose” something which is never named.

More honest would be “Pro Abortion Rights” or at least “Pro Abortion Choice”.

Stipulated: “Pro Life” is just as bad, for much the same reason.
 
Last edited:
And Apple Jacks don't taste like apples.

I hate the terms for the same reasons, but they are so widely used that everyone knows that they mean.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus Christ why the **** are we talking about Eugenics?
Click to expand...
Because Warpie was unable to produce any actual arguments and c&p'd a set of anti-abortion lies about Sanger in a pathetic attempt to smear PP. After this was debunked he decided to embark on lying about eugenics.
Puerile table thumping.
 
Better social support for struggling parents and children would likely reduce abortions by a very significant degree. But no, let's go with the stick instead of the carrot, because we care so much about human lives.
 
Olmstead said:
Better social support for struggling parents and children would likely reduce abortions by a very significant degree.
Click to expand...

Again I need to state for the record that this is the reason all of this is one massive lying dishonest red herring.

As Olmstead said restrictive abortion laws make abortions go up. This is one of those "facts" that you just don't get to be on the other side of a discussion from and still be honest.

So every argument about the "poor widdle babies" is a trolling, dishonest, lie.
 
In fact, the main reason for an abortion are usually financial concerns. A quick search confirms that this is usually responsible for 25 to 40% of abortions, depending on the survey.

Example: https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

Of course, we know the usual responses to this:

"Why should I pay for someone else's child?"

"I would be ashamed, if I needed government support to raise my child."

"If a women can't afford a child, she shouldn't sin against God."


Well, even ignoring the ethical implications of forcing someone to bear a child:

Reducing the hoops and "shame" that come along with asking for social services could reduce abortions by more than 25%, and all those children would have a chance at a good life.

The best outcome of punishing people for abortions is that parents get to raise a child that they either didn't want or weren't ready for financially or emotionally. A few decades later we get to listen to an uplifting story about the 1% of such children who've managed to rise above their circumstances. I don't even want to think about the worst outcomes.
 
Olmstead said:
I don't even want to think about the worst outcomes.
Click to expand...

Getting to see it on a regular basis will sometimes cause a person to move a little out of the mainstream towards stronger abortion rights and social resources for the parents who do have children.

Forcing some of the people I deal with to have children is destructive and cruel.

Not only to the parent and the child, but to their families who often find themselves raising mistreated children of an incompetent parent because they feel a moral obligation to keep the kids out of the foster care system. Usually these kids have behavioral problems which lead to some involvement with the juvenile justice system which often blames the guardian for not controlling the children.

Then the kids themselves in a world where they are starting out from a massive hole, and since a non-zero but close number of them crawl out of that hole they get perceived as not trying hard enough and thus deserving what happens to them. Which is a cycle.

As to the parent, people who struggle with substance abuse and/or their own emotional baggage making just living as a responsible autonomous adult life are just never going to handle this extra responsibility and make the odds against them so much worse, so we made those bad outcomes far more likely as well.


It's just mad that the people whose policies lead to these outcomes are not seen as monsters.
 
Olmstead said:
The best outcome of punishing people for abortions is that parents get to raise a child that they either didn't want or weren't ready for financially or emotionally. A few decades later we get to listen to an uplifting story about the 1% of such children who've managed to rise above their circumstances. I don't even want to think about the worst outcomes.
Click to expand...

This is why I haven't bothered to ask the anti-abortion side what the net benefit of forcing children to be born into families that don't want them is supposed to be. I know we'd just get cherry picked example of "over coming."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom