Let’s have an abortion thread. Anybody game?
I’m not surprised to see abortion coverage slipped into the health care bill under current consideration in Congress. It only makes sense to proponents of the public option to cover a woman’s decision to suck the life out of her womb at her neighbor’s expense. And why not? We’re expected to collectively house, feed, clothe, educate and possibly imprison her ill-conceived git at public expense if she’s irresponsible.
I had a discussion many years ago with a man I still respect and love, one who is solidly conservative, a republican stalwart, a fierce Rush acolyte, a true red meat, ideological right winger.
We were discussing abortion and he told me that he would rather pay, through his tax dollars, for a woman’s early abortion than raise her child for life. Declared it was less expensive in the end. It all came down to money and the eventual degradation of wider society being populated by a raft of dysfunctional, unwanted, poorly raised, low I.Q., uneducated individuals voting, corrupting and altering the fundamental basis of our republic. Figuring that he and the country would be better served overall by publicly funding abortion, he chose spending a cheap $300 to drain a lax womb over the tens of thousands it would take to support a wider pool of neglected welfare babies who would ultimately undermine his tax paying vote and alter the state of our nation with their warped, subsidized, ignorant mindsets.
This man doesn’t like abortion, believes it to be murder, but when it comes to public policy, society at large and his money, he finds abortion to be the cheaper alternative, financially and socially. We had this talk over twenty years ago. Amazing how well his rationale has stood up.
Maybe Margaret Sanger’s harsh brutality had it right. A field of weeds should be plucked before they spoil the entire crop.
An interesting take on the subject. Certainly never crossed my mind. I suppose it would be one vehicle to keep the gene pool a little cleaner, while at the same time reducing the number of welfare recipients.
While no fan of the act, I support it from the standpoint of a woman’s right to choose. The government regulates far to many aspects of our lives, and if this line gets crossed, then where will it end?
I am like Buckskins, I hadn’t thought of it that way before.
That said, in the event that my tax money is used to pay for abortions, which I would not approve of, then at least I can console myself with the utilitarian side-effects.
Unfortunately, the Democrats will increase their pool of tax sucking voters by allowing and encouraging illegal immigration.
It is a terrible argument, the twisted result of a malignant ideology. First force the unwilling to violate all their experience and principles in paying into a degrading system of welfare for the living, then use the inevitable result to force them to consider violating their principles of life and death. But this is what we have been reduced to in every important public issue of the day, singing their songs in a different arrangement.
I favor legalized abortion, always did, but not making strangers pay for it. Every registered democrat should have an abortion.
Abortion it is not a woman’s choice, it is the result of not making choices. Funny that a woman should have a choice but a taxpayer should not. What the malignancy seeks is not your money but your submission. In your friend, they got it.
Why stop with abortion? There is a passel of ripe fruit ready for picking in nursing homes, convalescent centers, and hospitals…all full of “people” who contribute nothing, each of whom drains our public coffers with every wasted breath.
As a taxpayer and as a productive citizen, I cannot understand why I should pay to keep alive these public parasites, who stink up their housing and our environment with the smell of their urine, feces and vomit.
For most, all that is needed is a pillow and some will.
I say we should get started tomorrow!
Sanger was a progressive, much loved by the progs fellow travelers, the fascists of Spain, Italy and Germany. A eugenicist of the first order. And she loved the fascists, too.
I once worked as a volunteer guard at an abortion clinic in Fargo, ND. Not because I like abortion, but because the protesters pissed me off with their tactics.
The congressional Democrats piss me off more.
Gedaliya’s ironic (?) suggestion is actually a serious proposal by Peter Singer, the so-called bioethicist at Princeton. He’s at Princeton because he couldn’t get a job in his native Germany. His views were regarded to be paleoNazi by people who should know.
Speaking of irony, about 30 to 40% of all abortions are performed on black mothers, and it is likely that nearly all the mothers undergoing the procedure vote Democrat. All the abortionists and their aides are liberal, too. It’s a kind of suicide cult. Where is Jim Jones (also a progressive/communist)?
I find myself still in the reluctantly pro choice camp although I am increasingly aware that such a position cannot be defended logically, ethically, or morally if life indeed has inherent value. It is a lazy pragmatism that states that women will get abortions whether they are legal or not so why criminalize that which is such an intensely personal matter. To be associated with any kind of pro life sentiment in our Orwellian era is to wear the scarlet T of a true troglodite so why make waves. Better to just go along.
Will that pass muster when someday I must answer for my life in this world? That I was against abortion in my own house but took a weak pass on judging those who would mete out the ultimate judgement of life or death on another? I am increasingly skeptical.
[...] Jaded Heaven, an exceptionally talented writers and my favorite new blogger (who also happens to live here in Austin) has an interesting take in defense of publicly funded abortions: Let’s have an abortion thread. Anybody game? [...]
Here’s where I stand. I am pro life. Other than in rare cases of a pregnancy occurring by rape or if the mother’s life is in danger if she continues with a pregnancy, I see no reason, with all of the available birth control methods and the morning after pill, for there to be any abortions period.
Abortions after 16 weeks shouldn’t be legal at all, except to save the mother’s life.
I do not want to fund abortions with my tax dollars. I also don’t want to fund another’s housing, food, medical care, etc. with my tax dollars.
Women need to take responsibility for their sex lives.
I am roughly about where you are Daphne. There are instances when abortion can be viewed as the “right” thing to do but not when used as a “get out of jail free” card of last resort.
The usual arguments employed of when a human life becomes human are used to rationalize this “choice” but in a purely conceptual sense, does choice trump life or is it the other way around when one necessarily comes at the expense of the other? There can be only one answer.
Daphne,
The problem with your arguments is that it makes far too much sense and is far too logical.
Therefore, from a liberal point of view, you are obviously wrong and should be burned at a stake for thinking so.
This is one of the fundamental divides in the US today, “Should I be responsible for my own actions, or should I hold someone else accountable for what I have done?”
Obviously a no brainer – everyone else should be held accountable for the consequences of what they have done.
Once you understand this, everything else becomes clearer.
PS: never write comments while inebriated, it takes far too long to make sure your spelling is correct.
PPS: I agree with you completely. I will be sure to raise my daughters with this in mind.
Daphne…
Your problem is that you see “no reason.” Others doe see it as an issue of “reason.”
The fact is, “reason” is the killer here. The mass murderer of children in the womb.
Concede “reason” and you concede the argument.
Rimco’s L’il Bastard Disposal Kit.
Ladies, why spend hours at the doctor’s office wating to have that brat sucked out, when you COULD be out shoe shopping?
Or getting stoned with a shit heel named Ned.
Consider this…. Do you really want a strange man named “Doctor” (Yeah, right. Who names their kid “Doctor”?) sticking his hands in your naughty zone?
Of course you don’t. Well, okay, maybe for a half hour or so.
Why pay 300 bucks for dilation and suckage when you could spend that cash on a frost job and a pube shine?
[I have no idea, myself.]
We at Rimco have JUST what you need.
Our new L’il Bastard Disposal Kit.
Now YOU can be rid of that pesky lifeform in [wait for it!....] a jiffy!
[Hey, just because it looks human is no concern of yours! Did YOU give it an umbilcal cord and attach it to your blood stream? Nnnnooooo. Not YOUR fault the little shit is in there eating YOUR food and cramping YOUR style, disco queen.]
You can rid yourself of that asshat of a fetus in the comfort of your own livingroom.
Relaxing on your tatty sofa. The one covered with a schmata from Ned’s House of the Hideous.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schmata
Perhaps while watching Oprah, or that new soap opera, “As the world goes straight to hell.”
Or maybe an old soap opera such as “I had one life to live, and I wasted it on you, you bastard.”
Comes with hose, nozzle (we call it “The Vagilator.”), and vacuum pump that you operate with your foot.
Just insert The Vagilator up to the red line marked “Far enough, you skanky ho.”
Then “pump away.” [pretty funny, those quotation marks.]
Keep your eyes on the pressure meter. When it reads “This’ll kill the li’l fucker for sure,” stop pumping and simply release the clamp on the hose.
YOUR work is all done!
You will hear a pleasant whoooshing sound.
Not unlike the sound you make when you have a pneumothorax.
That means the li’l punk has been turned into liquid and is being sucked into the container, that we call the “Ha Ha I’m Free Can.”
Detach container [the Ha Ha I'm Free Can for those with a short attention span] and dump in the nearest toilet, where you dispose of your other li’l bastards’ dead turtles and stinky gold fish.
$29.95
Call now and throw in a second one for free.
Then you can “suck fetus” with a friend!!
Or maybe an acquaintance if you have no friends.
But wait!
Call now and we’ll throw in a Korean War era entrenching tool for those clingy third trimester bastards.
I’m of the same mind as other commenters who are “pro choice” yet wouldn’t be a party to abortion in their own lives. Abortion is ultimately a moral choice and the gub’mint has no business legislating morality. That said… I’m in complete agreement on the banning of federal-funded abortions.
Anyone who has read “Freakonomics” is aware that the national crime rate went down substantially after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, so your friend had a fairly good point, Daphne.
Buckskins Rule says:
“I support it from the standpoint of a woman’s right to choose.” So there.
I’m a male and have no interest in experiencing what a woman goes through. So let her choose.
Buck says:
“Abortion is ultimately a moral choice and the gub’mint has no business legislating morality. That said… I’m in complete agreement on the banning of federal-funded abortions.” Now normally I’ve found Buck to a mine of intelligent and thoughtful commentary. But I’ve gotta remark that we will supply that child(s) life with federally-funded life money.
Isn’t that a conundrum? Or something?
Gedaliya,
I take exception to your comment.
My ability to apply the reasonable ties of medical technology that prevent unwanted pregnancy to my belief that abortion is fundamentally wrong makes a world of sense.
I would suggest that you concede the argument to your opponents who promote abortion, if all that you’re willing to bring to the table is your emotions and belief.
You aren’t dealing with people who believe a fetus is a human being worthy of rights. I dare say many of them don’t believe in God, souls or any of the other religious tenets the rest of us hold in faith.
If you’re going to argue for the rights of the unborn, I would heartily suggest that you use all of the tools, including the medical technology, at your disposal to wage the fight.
Buck didn’t pull a double, Catmoves, he’s following his ethos that don’t allow for a free citizen to impose is will on another. He would rather you didn’t, but he won’t insist that you do. He would truly prefer that you don’t make him pay for your bad choices and resents when the government legislates that he must.
Buck’s pretty clear and consistent on his ideological position.
I let this go,
“I’m a male and have no interest in experiencing what a woman goes through. So let her choose.”
No, that doesn’t work for me on any level of interpretation. I happen to know this man offline, he considers his wife and daughters to be the paramount center of his life. He would die to protect these women. The man very much cares about what women experience, he’s surrounded by women. He’s created women.
Buckskin is a good man in my book.
Proceed with caution.
I will be very surprised if you have not mistaken Gedaliyla’s meaning, but I will await his reply.
Maybe so, James. We will see.
Edsgerd Dijkstra said computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
By the same token, gun control arguments, pro-and-for, are not about guns. And this argument is not about abortion, or how it keeps undesirables from being born, growing up, sponging off the system and voting for pinko commies for President.
Those last two are about the fundamental relationship between a government and its governed. That is what it is ALL about. And to even consider such a “solution” to be on the table, devalues human beings into cattle. If it’s legit to think of us as cattle, it must be just as legit to think of us as…weeds.
I like that other model of government better. The one where the government fears us rather than the other way ’round.
Daphne,
“This man doesn’t like abortion, believes it to be murder”
But he’s willing to stand aside and permit what he claims is mass-murder (of infants) to save his tax dollars. But if a woman has an abortion to save her health or career, and life for all I know – well that’s murder.
Yes that sounds like the kind of crazy, morally bankrupt argument the pro-life would put forward alright.
“Other than in rare cases of a pregnancy occurring by rape or if the mother’s life is in danger if she continues with a pregnancy, I see no reason, with all of the available birth control methods and the morning after pill, for there to be any abortions period.”
Contraceptive failure more than accounts for the number of abortions seen, and then some. The mystery is not why there is so many abortions but so few.
Conception due to rape isn’t that rare, either. Nor is rape.
“Abortions after 16 weeks shouldn’t be legal at all, except to save the mother’s life.”
Why 16 weeks? What’s special about that?
And why only to save your life? Why not your health or property?
I think Frank has proved my point.
Frank would cross the Himalayas and make his way into a local bar in a tiny village in the midst of the Tibetan plains if he heard that was an abortion debate taking place there :)
That’s the solid truth, Colm. ;-)
[...] year, the extraordinarily gifted writer Jaded Heaven wrote a thoughtful piece in defense of publicly funded abortions. Her argument boiled down to the [...]