Obama's Abortion Stance

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

If that support isn't there, she almost has to abort for the wellbeing of future reproductive activities.

Like getting drilled on the dance floor at the club next week?

That argument is so pathetic I'm not even going to engage it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Like getting drilled on the dance floor at the club next week?

That argument is so pathetic I'm not even going to engage it.

Come on, that position is so incredibly lacking in nuance, I don't know where to start. On the whole, we would probably find ourselves agreeing philosophically on many points on this issue, yet you attack me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact that you minimize what peter12 rightly points to as kinship barriers indicates to me that your view is very much in keeping with abortion opponents on the right, who a) oppose abortion and b) oppose government funding to give children born into poverty or difficult circumstances that may disadvantage them in life. I think opposing all abortions is a very legitimate point of view, though a private one and not one that the government should be involved in. But I think it goes hand in hand with the very pressing question of "what do you do with these children"? In North America there is no state-funded day care, which means that having a baby pushes a working mother into either unemployment (and thus welfare) or into a situation where she must spend in some cities upward of 1500 dollars a month to place her infant in full time care so she can work. To make matters worse, the only workplace protection she receives in the U.S. (Canada is slightly better in this regard) is that she can't be fired for having a baby and taking time off. She receives no compensation for that time off, no paid leave, and only the cold comfort of a tax break which if you are in the lower income brackets doesn't mean a whole lot.

So how about this: I'll agree that abortions should be limited by the government if you agree to the obvious caveat: that raising children is a collective responsibility that we all share and that the state thus make having a child an easier financial burden to bear for working mothers by paying for day care, giving women subsidized maternity leave and requiring employers to offer the remainder as a mandatory benefit. Also, some winter jackets for the poorest families wouldn't hurt.

This isn't just an "individual responsibility" issue. There's a duty to the collective here as well. To believe the first point and not the second is a morally empty position in my view.

I agree in part, but what is the collective? Do we look to the state or to communities made up of individuals?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Like getting drilled on the dance floor at the club next week?

That argument is so pathetic I'm not even going to engage it.

Actually, I think your complete distortion of his argument is worse. peter12 has a pretty balanced view of this issue--but I note that you've instead substituted an argument that you'd rather counter (about "getting drilled on the dance floor") instead of the one for which you have no answer.

Let me explain: You imply that he supports the "abortion as contraception" chimera--which was never what he said at all. What he said was effectively "a woman needs help to raise a child. She can't do it by herself without support from her family and community." If you don't believe that to be true, then you clearly don't have children of your own.

But fundamentally, his argument is evolutionary/biological: that preserving resources for future progeny makes sense if you can't provide for current progeny--which is why animals in nature do that all the time. That's not a moral argument, and unless I'm reading him wrong, peter wasn't implying that it was. But it does pretty much destroy the whole "humans are the only animals that kill the unborn" argument--since there are plenty of animals who eat their own young if they can't provide for them. Again, that's not to say that it's a valid moral choice--just that references to what animals do "in nature" probably won't help the pro-life cause here since I think we all agree that abortion is preferable to infanticide.

Besides, I thought you were a libertarian. A libertarian should respect liberty in moral issues above all, no? Why is this the one area where big government is suddenly the answer? Or are you one of those LINOs?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact that you minimize what peter12 rightly points to as kinship barriers indicates to me that your view is very much in keeping with abortion opponents on the right, who a) oppose abortion and b) oppose government funding to give children born into poverty or difficult circumstances that may disadvantage them in life. I think opposing all abortions is a very legitimate point of view, though a private one and not one that the government should be involved in. But I think it goes hand in hand with the very pressing question of "what do you do with these children"? In North America there is no state-funded day care, which means that having a baby pushes a working mother into either unemployment (and thus welfare) or into a situation where she must spend in some cities upward of 1500 dollars a month to place her infant in full time care so she can work. To make matters worse, the only workplace protection she receives in the U.S. (Canada is slightly better in this regard) is that she can't be fired for having a baby and taking time off. She receives no compensation for that time off, no paid leave, and only the cold comfort of a tax break which if you are in the lower income brackets doesn't mean a whole lot.

So how about this: I'll agree that abortions should be limited by the government if you agree to the obvious caveat: that raising children is a collective responsibility that we all share and that the state thus make having a child an easier financial burden to bear for working mothers by paying for day care, giving women subsidized maternity leave and requiring employers to offer the remainder as a mandatory benefit. Also, some winter jackets for the poorest families wouldn't hurt.

This isn't just an "individual responsibility" issue. There's a duty to the collective here as well. To believe the first point and not the second is a morally empty position in my view.

I agree in part, but what is the collective? Do we look to the state or to communities made up of individuals? I would say that it's psychologically very difficult to care for a child outside of your own kin.

Also , I am extremely uncomfortable with the position stated, "But I think it goes hand in hand with the very pressing question of "what do you do with these children"?" This has to be clarified as people favouring a pro-choice perspective often talk into very cloaked but real eugenics speak. For example, Morgentaler recently saying that he was very glad abortion had lowered crime rates in Canada.

[Gozer]

double post

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I agree in part, but what is the collective? Do we look to the state or to communities made up of individuals?

Well, my preference is for a community-based approach--and all that takes is changing the culture a little--but in the end the state has to play a role in it as well.

Here's an example to illustrate what I mean: there's been some hand-wringing in developed countries like Canada about a dropping birth rate among Canadians. But there's a simple explanation for it: many people would love to have more children, but they know that they just don't have the resources to support them. Day care is too expensive, it's too hard to balance work and parenting, families depend on two incomes, and they don't receive enough help with child-rearing from families and communities.

In Iceland, birth rates are very high. Many couples have three, four, five children. There, pretty much every factor is opposite to what I described above. There's state sponsored day care, state mandated maternity leave, programs to support families with children, the list goes on. But what's most different is that there's a much more collective sense of "who is responsible for child-rearing"? Child rearing is thought of as something that everyone has a stake in--and it should be. If you can create a community of caregivers, people will be more apt to have children, for reasons that you explained above much better than I can.

I don't know the figures offhand, but I'd guess rates of abortion in Iceland are pretty low. That's just a guess, though.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact that you minimize what peter12 rightly points to as kinship barriers indicates to me that your view is very much in keeping with abortion opponents on the right, who a) oppose abortion and b) oppose government funding to give children born into poverty or difficult circumstances that may disadvantage them in life.

You're right.

It sounds brutal and callous to say that I oppose helping babies, but in actuality what you're suggesting is that society has a collective responsibility to support an individuals inalienable right to reproduce.
If you are in a situation where you can support having children, and/or are not in a stable relationship that will foster a healthy atmosphere for that child then effort to remedy your situation, don't have a kid and then consider if you can handle it.

If you are not able to properly raise the child then conceiving one is irresponsible - not everyone else's responsibility.

I also edited this to more accurately reflect my stance.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think opposing all abortions is a very legitimate point of view, though a private one and not one that the government should be involved in.

And I don't think the gov't should have loopholes for executions. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But I think it goes hand in hand with the very pressing question of "what do you do with these children"? In North America there is no state-funded day care, which means that having a baby pushes a working mother into either unemployment (and thus welfare) or into a situation where she must spend in some cities upward of 1500 dollars a month to place her infant in full time care so she can work. To make matters worse, the only workplace protection she receives in the U.S. (Canada is slightly better in this regard) is that she can't be fired for having a baby and taking time off. She receives no compensation for that time off, no paid leave, and only the cold comfort of a tax break which if you are in the lower income brackets doesn't mean a whole lot.

The collective has NO right to control the individual's right about what she can or cannot do in this regard.

The individual has no right to compel the collective to aid them in their choice.

edit of a previous typo that confused everyone. Sorry!

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So how about this: I'll agree that abortions should be limited by the government if you agree to the obvious caveat: that raising children is a collective responsibility that we all share and that the state thus make having a child an easier financial burden to bear for working mothers by paying for day care, giving women subsidized maternity leave and requiring employers to offer the remainder as a mandatory benefit.

I do not agree.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Also, some winter jackets for the poorest families wouldn't hurt.

An irritating addition. If I'm opposing you're stance, I'm clearly some sort of heartless monster.

I believe in compassion, not compulsion.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Come on, that position is so incredibly lacking in nuance, I don't know where to start. On the whole, we would probably find ourselves agreeing philosophically on many points on this issue, yet you attack me.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you. I like you - or at least, I remember liking your posts.

But you're comment of "she pretty much has to abort the baby" is brutal.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You're right.

It sounds brutal and callous to say that I oppose helping babies, but in actuality what you're suggesting is that society has a collective responsibility to support an individuals inalienable right to reproduce.
If you are not in a situation where you can support having children, and/or are not in a stable relationship that will foster a healthy atmosphere for that child - you do not have the privilege to have a child.



And I don't think the gov't should have loopholes for executions. We'll have to agree to disagree.



The collective has the right to control the individual's right about what she can or cannot do in this regard.

The individual has no right to compel the collective to aid them in their choice.



I do not agree.



An irritating addition. If I'm opposing you're stance, I'm clearly some sort of heartless monster.

I believe in compassion, not compulsion.

Well, I'm sorry if you're irritated by my pointing out that some families can't afford basic resources that they need for child-rearing. That doesn't make you a heartless monster--but it does mean that you hew to what I consider a morally empty position--whereby you say that:
1. Abortion is morally reprehensible.
2. People do not have a right to reproductive freedom.
3. Having children is not a right.
4. The collective has the right to control the individual's right (a VERY weird thing for a libertarian to say btw. Have you ever considered that you might prefer a more paternalistic ideology?)
5. You oppose entitlement programs for children because although the collective's rights in the case of an unborn child supersede the rights of the mother (I don't think we agree here on what the collective interest is...)

This view (did I miss anything?) creates numerous unresolvable contradictions, the most pressing of which is that you both say "you do not have the right to have a child" and "if you get pregnant by accident you must have a child." Can you see how from a practical standpoint that doesn't make a whole lot of sense?

But let me put this question to you: how can it be in the collective interest to prevent abortions if it's not in the collective interest to take care of babies?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you. I like you - or at least, I remember liking your posts.

But you're comment of "she pretty much has to abort the baby" is brutal.

I think there are circumstances, both emotional and physical, where it is almost a psychological necessity. Like you, I prefer for there to be a complete lack of outside coercion on an individual's decision. Instead of the state, I would hope that human individuals would be will to pursue self-interested means to the end of producing altruistic communities that support pregnant women and their eventual offspring.

I don't think it's utopian and I don't think the state needs to be involved. There is also a lot of hypocrisy involving state intervention in the the abortion debate. Such as, why are they funding abortions but not subsidising condoms, birth control, and better sexual education programs in schools? At this point, it's clearly an issue of identity politics fueled by the ideology of radical feminism. We are so far from reaching good discussion on this issue because if the poison injected into it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not even the most primative mammal alive purposefully chooses to kill its preborn youth.

But what mammal actually has a choice to kill its own preborn youth? It may be true that they don't make a choice to kill preborn youth, but they also don't make a choice to preserve preborn youth. They simply continue to live as instinct dictates, with only a vague awareness of the greater implications to the changes in the body. However, instinct also causes them to occasionally commit filial infanticide; and quite commonly, a mother will simply abandon a newborn to die, or allow it to be killed by a rival. Sometimes, another animal in the community might adopt the abandoned child, but far more often, this doesn't happen and the offspring dies in its first few hours. These acts are all the closest a mother can come in nature to consciously aborting her child. And it happens in many species of mammals, sometimes for reasons as selfish as that the offspring seems inferior, and there's no gain in struggling to raise an inferior offspring.

All of which is to say that the entire metaphor of what happens in other mammals doesn't apply. We have knowledge about our bodies and their health; we have technology; we have the consciousness to make choices that are clearly seperate from and often opposed to instinct; and most importantly, we have a concept of ethics and morality, even if we often disagree wildly on the details of it, which acts as one of the cores of the decisions we make as a society.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Actually, I think your complete distortion of his argument is worse. peter12 has a pretty balanced view of this issue--but I note that you've instead substituted an argument that you'd rather counter (about "getting drilled on the dance floor") instead of the one for which you have no answer.

Guilty.
(except the part about having no answer)

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Let me explain: You imply that he supports the "abortion as contraception" chimera--which was never what he said at all. What he said was effectively "a woman needs help to raise a child. She can't do it by herself without support from her family and community." If you don't believe that to be true, then you clearly don't have children of your own.

True.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But fundamentally, his argument is evolutionary/biological:

The lets look at the evolutionary element of this. I'm happy to confront this on all fronts.

Evolutionary speaking, women are evolved to desire a committed and loyal relationship for this exact reason. Having a supportive and stable family structure for the benefit of the mother and child.
Men are evolutionarily predisposed to spread their seed as much as possible in a Darwinian progression.

Only in the last fifty years or so of western culture have these values eroded into a consequence-free freak-fest that features liberals looking down their noses at traditionalists that believe the erosion of the family unit is the decay of society.
Sadly, gay marriage has found its way to the tip of the sword of these two movements, when I believe there is no reason for that - but that's a debate for another thread.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But it does pretty much destroy the whole "humans are the only animals that kill the unborn" argument--since there are plenty of animals who eat their own young if they can't provide for them.

For the record, that was not an argument of mine.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Besides, I thought you were a libertarian. A libertarian should respect liberty in moral issues above all, no? Why is this the one area where big government is suddenly the answer? Or are you one of those LINOs?

I don't know what I lino is.
My answer is based on liberty in moral issues. The key moral issue here is the right of life. An extension of your projection of my stance is that I would be I would forgive murderers of their crime as "a choice."

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

1. Abortion is morally reprehensible.
2. People do not have a right to reproductive freedom.
3. Having children is not a right.
4. The collective has the right to control the individual's right (a VERY weird thing for a libertarian to say btw. Have you ever considered that you might prefer a more paternalistic ideology?)

My INTENDED WORDS:

The collective has NO right to control the individual's right about what she can or cannot do in this regard.

The individual has no right to compel the collective to aid them in their choice.

2, 3, and 4 are total bullocks. That is the opposite of my stance

EDIT: WHOOPS! I had typed it wrong!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This view (did I miss anything?) creates numerous unresolvable contradictions, the most pressing of which is that you both say "you do not have the right to have a child" and "if you get pregnant by accident you must have a child." Can you see how from a practical standpoint that doesn't make a whole lot of sense?

I'm sorry IFF, I failed to proof-read my post (or I'm a freudian Nazi).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm sorry IFF, I failed to proof-read my post (or I'm a freudian Nazi).

No worries--it happens to the best of us.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No worries--it happens to the best of us.

On the bright side, I've learned that you have the patience of the saint for thinking that through yet pulled no punches on your views.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Lost in all of this....

I'm pretty sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of legal abortions performed in the US has declined dramatically over the last several years.

What does that tell us?

People are becoming more responsible about the whole issue.
Alternatives are becoming more popular? Maybe.

I think that a declining rate can only be looked upon as excellent news and as a sign that education about sexual health and pregnancy has been working. Let's hope we continue to see that trend and that one day abortion is nothing more than an emergency medical procedure.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Let's hope we continue to see that trend and that one day abortion is nothing more than an emergency medical procedure.

I think we can all agree on that.

[Textcritic]

Apologies for just jumping in, but I found a few interesting things in this thread that warranted a response:

Originally Posted by Gozer

...It sounds brutal and callous to say that I oppose helping babies, but in actuality what you're suggesting is that society has a collective responsibility to support an individuals inalienable right to reproduce.

I don't think that is what is being advocated at all. I think that what is being argued is that in the society and culture that we have created, unwanted pregnancies will occur for many reasons, most of which are not the result of one exercising his/her right to reproduce. Practically speaking, abortion is more about addressing issues of emotional and societal health, family well-being and strength, and economic sustenance upon which our species has become dependent. There is alot more to the issue than merely an individual's rights.

Originally Posted by Gozer

...If you are not in a situation where you can support having children, and/or are not in a stable relationship that will foster a healthy atmosphere for that child - you do not have the privilege to have a child...

This sounds elitist. A person's "rights" to reproduce, then are a matter of class? Furthermore, since when is having children always a "privilege"? I would argue that for most of history, reproduction has been a matter of painful but necessary survival, and that more often than not progeny has been more of a nuisance than a blessing. We live in a world that has retained an emotional attachment to it's offspring that is a product of our species' need to preserve itself through its offspring. But the fact of the matter is that in today's day and age, most people's ability to survive has extended beyond their ability to reproduce—most certainly, and at least in the industrialized world. While I feel privileged to be a father, I am able to recognize that my lot in life is not the same as many others, who have unwanted children for a huge variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with their "right" to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Gozer

...The lets look at the evolutionary element of this. I'm happy to confront this on all fronts.

Evolutionary speaking, women are evolved to desire a committed and loyal relationship for this exact reason. Having a supportive and stable family structure for the benefit of the mother and child.
Men are evolutionarily predisposed to spread their seed as much as possible in a Darwinian progression.

Are these "pre-disposals" a matter of scientific record? I think that what you have described is sociological and anthropological development, and not biological evolution at all. Women for the past several-hundred-thousand years have been predisposed to seek monogamous relationships because they are physically smaller and weaker; men are perhaps biologically more promiscuous because of the instinct to reproduce, but with the commercialization of power over the past several hundred years, are the tables not starting to turn? In industrialized nations, I would expect that a woman's "desire" for a "supportive and stable family structure for the benefit of the mother and child" has probably diminished. Women are by and large shedding their dependency upon men, and I would think that attitudes towards sexuality and family have followed suit.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Only in the last fifty years or so of western culture have these values eroded into a consequence-free freak-fest that features liberals looking down their noses at traditionalists that believe the erosion of the family unit is the decay of society.

Because only in the last fifty years or so of western culture have men and women achieved a sense of independence that has essentially eliminated the fundamental need for a two-parent, "traditional" nuclear family. It is perhaps not the ideal, but single-parenthood is not the disaster it once was. Whether you choose to believe it or not, statistics show that society is not "decaying" and that the "erosion of the family unit" is not a great contributor towards the myth of self-destructive decadence. I believe that what you are calling erosion is more aptly described as rapid CHANGE in social structure: Neither good nor evil, only a necessary result in addressing the survival of the species.

Originally Posted by Gozer

...The key moral issue here is the right of life...

I haven't taken the time to read the whole thread, but I expect that it has been brought up. Before we can even consider the implications of the "right" to live, "life" must first be adequately defined. Rather than getting bogged down by the issue of when life begins, I'm more interested at the moment in the quantity v. quality element of what constitutes "living", and what deems an individual "life" worth the cost to protect. A part of what has been touched on in all of this is how humankind is slowly killing itself because of its inability to come to grips with the inconsistency of discerning between whether individuals or communities take precedence. By way of example, monumental advances in medicine and health care have made for huge increases in life expectancy, but at the same time have stretched our planet's ability to sustain massive population increases nearly to the breaking point. Natural, individual "survival" is often considered virtuous, but the cost to maintain it is truly escalating to the point that our species is badly upsetting the natural balance by its ability to defy nature. Abortion plays into that: the survival of aborted babies would tax the system even more than it already is; it would mean an even greater explosion in population, and because there are limits to how much life this planet can sustain, the survival of these aborted potential lives would mean huge sacrifices to other beings, the economy, our own artificially determined "quality of life" and other elements of the biosphere.