• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

acbytesla

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
36,575
Continued from here
Posted By: Agatha





I support abortion rights, but also like rhetoric. What you say is like predigested protein from a tub.

Is a person against murder horrible because poor people saved from murder are still poor? Should people who halt murders support poor post-not-murdered support funds?

I too like rhetoric. As a sales rep, it is the bread and butter of my industry. It is also the bread and butter of the GOP. They are good at oversimplifying issues. It might sell well to those who agree with them. But for everyone else it is transparent deception. The label is meaningless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I support abortion rights, but also like rhetoric. What you say is like predigested protein from a tub.

Is a person against murder horrible because poor people saved from murder are still poor? Should people who halt murders support poor post-not-murdered support funds?

Huh? What?
 
Oh, good. I thought it was just me.

I'd go with that just being a crappy attempt at rhetoric. A fine example of obfuscation, on the other hand...

In the context of this thread, the first question is - Is a forced birther horrible because poor people who are forced to give birth remain poor?

My answer to that is that whatever spawned that is fairly certain to be a caricature of what's actually being argued.

For the second - Should forced birthers support care for the babies that they forced poor people to carry to term once they have been born?

My answer to that is that it would be the moral and responsible thing to do. It would be in line with actually being pro-life, too. It's also been pretty well shown to be a pointless question, because there is a strong inverse correlation between being "pro-life" and actually acting to keep those who have been born alive and healthy. Alternately said, so called pro-lifers have quite the history of acting to increase death rates for those of all ages. That includes acting to increase abortion rates in practice. Pushing policy that's well known to be ineffective to replace known effective policy and firmly opposing effective policies very much is acting to increase abortion rates after all, regardless of lip service.
 
I would suggest that the big flaw in the analogy above is that the poor people who remain poor after not having been murdered are poor for reasons not directly connected with the law that prevents them from being murdered. It would indeed be ridiculous to expect a law that simply prevents one crime to solve a host of social problems, and that is true even if the social problems are real, and ought to be solved.

But however you might perceive the morality of forced birth, it is entirely different. The existence of a baby who might not have been born, as a living, separate entity sharing in the set of definable human rights, is a direct product of anti-abortion laws, and the need for ongoing support of child and mother is the direct consequence.

The analogy works only if it amounts to a stealth anti-abortion message, ignoring the mother's part and conflating abortion with the murder of a person who already exists as an enfranchised person in the world.
 
Continued from here
Posted By: Agatha







I too like rhetoric. As a sales rep, it is the bread and butter of my industry. It is also the bread and butter of the GOP. They are good at oversimplifying issues. It might sell well to those who agree with them. But for everyone else it is transparent deception. The label is meaningless.

Russians have a word for this. It's the same way the Russian government operates. It's vranyo. A culture of lies, where everyone knows the lies but pretend they don't and operate as if they aren't lies.
 
That they might not want to pay support after denying abortion is a perfectly fine dig, but from many people's point of view, the opposite is not true, that costly is a fine reason for abortion.

I don't agree with that, but it was my point. If you save someone's life, that they might struggle financially is a terrible reason not to save it.
 
Last edited:
That they might not want to pay support after denying abortion is a perfectly fine dig, but from many people's point of view, the opposite is not true, that costly is a fine reason for abortion.

I don't agree with that, but it was my point. If you save someone's life, that they might struggle financially is a terrible reason not to save it.

You or they aren't saving anyone's life. You/they are forcing another to save that life. Worse than that, you are demanding that they risk their health, lives and livelihood for that life. You are dooming many of them as well those lives you forced them to save, to lives of poverty and misery.

And then washing your hands of the whole affair.
 
That they might not want to pay support after denying abortion is a perfectly fine dig, but from many people's point of view, the opposite is not true, that costly is a fine reason for abortion.

I don't agree with that, but it was my point. If you save someone's life, that they might struggle financially is a terrible reason not to save it.

If the actual goal is the reduction of abortion rates, there are a number of ways that have been well-established to be effective and a number of ways that have been pretty well established to not be particularly effective. Increased child support has a strong connection with decreased abortion rates. The general opposition to the realistic, obvious, and effective means of reducing abortion rate and support of deeply harmful and ineffective or counterproductive means that we actually see in reality pretty clearly shows that those pretending have different actual goals from reducing abortion rates, saving lives, and anything else of the sort.

Frankly, I deplore attempted moralizing about how the heavy, long-lasting, and multi-faceted burden (money cost is just a dramatic oversimplification to make it easier to work with for some purposes) on the potential mother shouldn't matter as a general matter. It's unrealistic and outright dehumanizes. It gets even worse when doing so only leads to deeply harmful policy in practice.
 
Last edited:
That they might not want to pay support after denying abortion is a perfectly fine dig, but from many people's point of view, the opposite is not true, that costly is a fine reason for abortion.

I don't agree with that, but it was my point. If you save someone's life, that they might struggle financially is a terrible reason not to save it.

No matter the reason, someone willing to abort does not want that child.

Forcing someone to have a child she does not want to then care for it for at least 18 years, when at the time of the abortion the fetus is not viable nor sentient in any way IMO is far crueler.
Especially as the US stops caring about these children the moment they are born, leaving the parent(s) with the heavy financial burden.
 
No matter the reason, someone willing to abort does not want that child.



Forcing someone to have a child she does not want to then care for it for at least 18 years, when at the time of the abortion the fetus is not viable nor sentient in any way IMO is far crueler.

Especially as the US stops caring about these children the moment they are born, leaving the parent(s) with the heavy financial burden.
It goes beyond that. "Welfare queens" (note the emphasis is always on women) is the common insult for the poor who have many children, as if having more kids somehow makes you less poor.
 
It goes beyond that. "Welfare queens" (note the emphasis is always on women) is the common insult for the poor who have many children, as if having more kids somehow makes you less poor.

Side note - That's not quite it, at last check. To borrow wording from wikipedia, a "welfare queen" is a derogatory term used in the United States to refer to women who misuse or collect excessive welfare payments through fraud, child endangerment, or manipulation. More recently it's been stuck especially on single black mothers, with limited concern for how many kids they have. In practice, even higher income married black mothers who aren't getting relevant government assistance are at risk of being labeled as such, though, given how bias and prejudice works.

The stereotypes of "lazy," "entitled," "irresponsible," and "promiscuous" are invoked with welfare queen. Seriously, do we want to be paying people to enable them be the dregs of society? Of course not! For those that actually buy into the stereotypes, that can be rather emotion provoking. Devaluing a mother's work as they care for the kids and house is a long tradition, either way.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone mentioned that the Texas GOP is now claiming that the unborn is a fetus and not a child?

"Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth. The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn't allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn't clearly have rights"

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/#:~:text=Texas%20is%20fighting%20compensation%20for,didn't%20clearly%20have%20rights.
 
Has anyone mentioned that the Texas GOP is now claiming that the unborn is a fetus and not a child?

"Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth. The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn't allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn't clearly have rights"

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/#:~:text=Texas%20is%20fighting%20compensation%20for,didn't%20clearly%20have%20rights.
Yes, that particular but of inane hypocrisy was mentioned.
 
Has anyone mentioned that the Texas GOP is now claiming that the unborn is a fetus and not a child?

"Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth. The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn't allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn't clearly have rights"

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/#:~:text=Texas%20is%20fighting%20compensation%20for,didn't%20clearly%20have%20rights.


Wow. Interesting article and one that points out the overwhelming hypocrisy of these TX so-called "Pro-baby" advocates.
 
No matter the reason, someone willing to abort does not want that child.

Just because this still bothers me a bit, I'm going to directly state that this is false.

To point at an obvious example of why, there are many cases where serious medical issues and concerns are in play. Third-trimester abortions are generally of wanted potential children who are only then determined to have very serious health issues or are seriously jeopardizing the health of the potential mother. To present a more specific example that's been politicized in recent years - it's a horrible thing to deal with, but there definitely are a number of cases where a baby might live only for a couple hours after birth and be suffering horribly the whole time. Aborting that potential child isn't actually an indication that that potential child isn't wanted.

To delve into slightly less clear territory, though -

What we found is that decisions about abortion and pregnancy are often driven by the desire to be a good parent. Among people seeking abortion, 60 percent already had children and 40 percent said they want to have a child in the future. Far from being irresponsible, the women we interviewed knew full well what is involved in having children and wanted to wait to do so under the right circumstances. Most commonly, those seeking abortion said they were not financially prepared to take care of a child. Others said it wasn’t the right time for a baby or that they wanted to focus on the children they already had. In other words, many people, like my grandmother, choose to wait to have children until they are better able to support a family.

It's very frequently not that the potential child is truly unwanted so much as that the woman doesn't feel like it would be responsible to have them.

Forcing someone to have a child she does not want to then care for it for at least 18 years, when at the time of the abortion the fetus is not viable nor sentient in any way IMO is far crueler.

This, on the other hand, really is a pretty horrifying prospect, honestly.
 
Last edited:
On Meet the Press, Trump continued to lie:

"New York and other places have passed legislation where you're allowed to kill the baby after birth."

Truth: No state allows this.
 
Last edited:
Texas is not interested in the well-being of embryos, fetuses, babies, or the women and raped female children carrying them. Once the baby is out of the female womb, that baby is discarded in the minds of the Texas government and sometimes literally as babies are being found in dumpsters, usually dead.
 
On Meet the Press, Trump continued to lie:

"New York and other places have passed legislation where you're allowed to kill the baby after birth."

Truth: No state allows this.

*cough*cough* qualified immunity for cops *cough*cough*
 
Cops with qualified immunity can kill innocent bystanders, even babies, without facing consequences, if they do it as part of their jobs.
 
Trump has actually been vocal about the fact that the Republicans are going too far with the anti-abortion legislation, particularly Florida's 6-week ban.

Donald Trump is facing new blowback from anti-abortion activists for refusing to commit to national abortion restrictions and for calling Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ signing of a six-week ban on the procedure a “terrible mistake.”

Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump repeatedly declined to say whether he would support a federal ban on abortion. He said he could “live with” the procedure being banned by individual states or nationwide through federal action, though he said “from a legal standpoint, I think it’s probably better” to be handled at the state level.

Regarding the bill signed by DeSantis, which bans abortions before many women know they are pregnant, Trump said, “I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

I mean, stopped clock and all, (and the slam at DeSantis is at least partly about the Republican primary) but I do wonder if he's trying to nudge the party away from the strict anti-abortion position.
 
Trump has actually been vocal about the fact that the Republicans are going too far with the anti-abortion legislation, particularly Florida's 6-week ban.



I mean, stopped clock and all, (and the slam at DeSantis is at least partly about the Republican primary) but I do wonder if he's trying to nudge the party away from the strict anti-abortion position.

Nah. Trump doesn't give a damn about the abortion issue.
 
Nah. Trump doesn't give a damn about the abortion issue.

I'm inclined to treat that thing as much like a prior case. In the lead up to his Presidency, Republicans were making noise about how the very first thing on their agenda was... enabling corruption and their lack of ethics. Trump took the super hard stance of "Don't make that the first thing on your agenda." And then Republicans did indeed change their plans to have something else be first on their agenda, and Trump received much praise for how amazing he was to make that happen and something for the propagandists to work with to pretend he was anti-corruption.

Seriously, this is rather similar. We're dealing with Republicans pushing something really clearly unpopular, with excellent reason for why it's so unpopular, and Trump is offering something very different from actual opposition. He's swiping at his main challenger and basically saying, "Don't make a huge deal out of these super unpopular things. I'll support (or not oppose) them, just don't prevent me from getting elected so I can support them."
 
Last edited:
Trump has actually been vocal about the fact that the Republicans are going too far with the anti-abortion legislation, particularly Florida's 6-week ban.

I mean, stopped clock and all, (and the slam at DeSantis is at least partly about the Republican primary) but I do wonder if he's trying to nudge the party away from the strict anti-abortion position.

And yet he picked the three judges for the Supreme Court that lied during the Senate confirmation hearings and enabled the present insanity.
 
Trump has actually been vocal about the fact that the Republicans are going too far with the anti-abortion legislation, particularly Florida's 6-week ban.



I mean, stopped clock and all, (and the slam at DeSantis is at least partly about the Republican primary) but I do wonder if he's trying to nudge the party away from the strict anti-abortion position.

Trump 101: just say everything once, and see what gets traction.
 
Trump has actually been vocal about the fact that the Republicans are going too far with the anti-abortion legislation, particularly Florida's 6-week ban.







I mean, stopped clock and all, (and the slam at DeSantis is at least partly about the Republican primary) but I do wonder if he's trying to nudge the party away from the strict anti-abortion position.
Hasn't he paid for an abortion in the past? It may simply be that he still wants to be able to pay for an abortion, presumably it's cheaper than child support payments?
 
And yet he picked the three judges for the Supreme Court that lied during the Senate confirmation hearings and enabled the present insanity.

This is purely my own speculation, but I think judicial nominations in particular he was giving McConnell whatever he asked for. I'm betting it was part of a deal made to gain support from Republican congresspeople as he approached victory in the 2016 primaries--why Lindsay Graham flip-flopped so blatantly, for example.
 
Hasn't he paid gotten others to pay for an abortion in the past?
FIFY.

I rather suspect that if someone looks in the books for the Trump foundation, or one of his super PACs, you will find a line for "unspecified medical services for women".
 
This is purely my own speculation, but I think judicial nominations in particular he was giving McConnell whatever he asked for. I'm betting it was part of a deal made to gain support from Republican congresspeople as he approached victory in the 2016 primaries--why Lindsay Graham flip-flopped so blatantly, for example.

Trump's all over the place on abortion. He bragged about getting Roe vs Wade overturned and promised to do so. He talks about being opposed to abortion legislation one minute and then takes measures to ban abortion the next. His position depends on who he thinks is listening.
 
Trump's all over the place on abortion. He bragged about getting Roe vs Wade overturned and promised to do so. He talks about being opposed to abortion legislation one minute and then takes measures to ban abortion the next. His position depends on who he thinks is listening.

He's the 'tough guy' that is, in fact, just a leaf in the breeze when it comes to making a stand on positions.
 
Back
Top Bottom