• 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.
psionl0 said:
Creating new laws and not considering if there are any undesirable consequences until it is too late is bad governance and we should be getting rid of politicians who do such knee jerk legislation.
Click to expand...

Any law is susceptible to misuse. What you are indulging in is a slippery slope argument. If the benefits of a policy outweighs the small number of people who might misuse it, I see it as a non-issue. We all remember the "welfare moms driving Cadillacs" myth ... if I remember, while Reagan may have begun it, Joe Biden was also responsible for giving weight to that bit of fantasy.

Anyhow, this is not a discussion about social support policies for unwanted babies...it is about the utter idiocy of the current Texas Abortion Laws.
 
psionl0 said:
You are not supposed to say this after you have had your say. If you don't have an answer then just admit it and don't pretend it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I did give you the answer and my response was to your unfounded What if... slippery slope. I chose not to let that piece of twaddle go without a response and leave you with the illusion of having scored some sort of a point.
 
Susheel said:
Maybe you can cross that bridge when it turns up on your path.
Click to expand...

Warp12 said:
That sort of thinking has probably led to a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and subsequent abortions.
Click to expand...

Susheel said:
No, it didn't.
Click to expand...

That's a hard case to make. In fact I would say it has no merit. The primary cause for abortion is non-use, inconsistent use, or improper use of birth control. There is no doubt that "crossing the bridge when they came to it" is exactly what has happened in many, many cases. That's why a well-thought-out proactive approach is always preferred to a reactive one.

Naturally this applies to legislation, as well.
 
psionl0 said:
I am more pro-choice than pro-life but this appears reasonable at first glance.

The problem comes if the woman decides to keep the baby once it is born rather than give it up for adoption after all.
- Should the state force the mother to carry through with the adoption?
- If not, does the state still have an extra responsibility for the baby? (It still denied her the abortion option initially).
- What's to stop a woman from declaring she doesn't want the child just so that she can get extra state aid when she "changes" her mind?
Click to expand...

That's the price that would have to be paid for forbidding abortions. After all, they would be saving children's lives and the life of a single child is priceless according to the anti-choice camp.
 
You don't need silly requirements. Any state restricting abortion rights should be funding the food, shelter, education, and healthcare of EVERY child born in the state for at least 18 years.
 
Easy. If you oppose abortion you should be issued a minimum of 3 unwanted children to raise, feed, cloth until they turn 18.
 
Susheel said:
I did give you the answer and my response was to your unfounded What if... slippery slope. I chose not to let that piece of twaddle go without a response and leave you with the illusion of having scored some sort of a point.
Click to expand...
Eating your cake and having it too?

"unfounded What if... slippery slope" is at best a mere assertion you have made without foundation and at worst just some random words.
 
Olmstead said:
You don't need silly requirements. Any state restricting abortion rights should be funding the food, shelter, education, and healthcare of EVERY child born in the state for at least 18 years.
Click to expand...
We should be doing that anyway. Sell it to the left as compassion, to the right as investment, both are correct.
 
Movements that were mostly faith based, abolitionists in the 1850s and Civil Rights in the 1950s, those that were motivated by religion outnumber those that weren't.

And lots of anti-abortion folks to also support charities meant to help those unwanted children including adoptions.
 
ahhell said:
Movements that were mostly faith based, abolitionists in the 1850s and Civil Rights in the 1950s, those that were motivated by religion outnumber those that weren't.

And lots of anti-abortion folks to also support charities meant to help those unwanted children including adoptions.
Click to expand...

Baloney. There are currently about 2 million families seeking to adopt in the US.

Meanwhile, they can wait and the children remain in state care.

Because you simply do not care about the child once it is born.
 
abaddon said:
Because you simply do not care about the child once it is born.
Click to expand...

Unfair accusation, incidentally. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, there are many individual pro-lifers that do care even after the child is born. That the anti-abortion politicians overwhelmingly show that they really don't and that the bulk of the anti-abortionists don't hold them accountable for that doesn't change that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom