Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:50:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?  (Read 5573 times)
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 26, 2013, 03:48:21 AM »

As the ruler of communist Romania in the late 1960s, Nicolae Ceasescu reversed his country's previously liberal abortion laws. Abortion was made illegal, with exceptions only for rape, incest and cases where a woman's life was at risk.

In addition, access to contraception was made more difficult, and sex education did not discuss it.

Over time, Romanian orphanages were filled with unwanted children whose birth mothers had been unable to prevent pregnancy with contraception or end a pregnancy with an abortion. Limited resources often led to these children being malnourished, poorly educated and socially disaffected. Mortality rates for pregnant women also rose due to the proliferation of primitive back-alley abortions. In 1989, Ceausescu and his wife were chased out of their presidential palace at the hands of a mob of youth protestors, captured and executed after a brief show trial.

Ceausescu's abortion policy - no abortion with exceptions only for rape, incest and the life of the mother; a severely anti-family planning policy - is similar to that espoused by the mainstream pro-life movement in the United States.

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?
Logged
freefair
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 759
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2013, 11:01:19 AM »

Crucially, no Pro-Lifer (I'm aware of) seriously advocates legislating against the freedom to buy contraception for women with under 4 children.
Even Rush Limbaugh only objected to public and mandatory employer subsidies for them.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2013, 11:49:50 AM »

Crucially, no Pro-Lifer (I'm aware of) seriously advocates legislating against the freedom to buy contraception for women with under 4 children.

certain Catholics?
Logged
Darth Plagueis
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 277
Kazakhstan


Political Matrix
E: 5.65, S: 1.45

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2013, 01:38:04 PM »

Pro-choicers, how do you explain North Korea, PRC, and the Soviet Union which performed forced abortions and were /are ultra-pro-choice?.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2013, 01:43:03 PM »

Pro-choicers, how do you explain North Korea, PRC, and the Soviet Union which performed forced abortions and were /are ultra-pro-choice?.

I know you think this post is really clever, but it isn't.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2013, 01:53:46 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2013, 01:58:10 PM by barfbag »

As the ruler of communist Romania in the late 1960s, Nicolae Ceasescu reversed his country's previously liberal abortion laws. Abortion was made illegal, with exceptions only for rape, incest and cases where a woman's life was at risk.

In addition, access to contraception was made more difficult, and sex education did not discuss it.

Over time, Romanian orphanages were filled with unwanted children whose birth mothers had been unable to prevent pregnancy with contraception or end a pregnancy with an abortion. Limited resources often led to these children being malnourished, poorly educated and socially disaffected. Mortality rates for pregnant women also rose due to the proliferation of primitive back-alley abortions. In 1989, Ceausescu and his wife were chased out of their presidential palace at the hands of a mob of youth protestors, captured and executed after a brief show trial.

Ceausescu's abortion policy - no abortion with exceptions only for rape, incest and the life of the mother; a severely anti-family planning policy - is similar to that espoused by the mainstream pro-life movement in the United States.

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

You name an extreme situation and apply it to people who are pro-life in a different country 50 years later and are ok with rare exceptions such as rape, incest, dead fetuses, and hazards to the mother's life. Those are some acceptable exceptions for allowing abortions. Not many people are against the use and/or teaching of contraceptives at all. I think our health classes should discuss both abstinence and contraceptives. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. To think that being-prolife would lead to such things is absurd. Not many people could afford to have kids because they were a communist country and being poor is what happens in countries who aren't capitalistic and don't allow the free market to work. The free market including free trade, low taxes, low tariffs, low inflation, and balanced budgets would fix the lack of income necessary for having children.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,789
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2013, 01:56:18 PM »

Pro-choicers, how do you explain North Korea, PRC, and the Soviet Union which performed forced abortions and were /are ultra-pro-choice?.
I don't think you understand the definition of choice.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2013, 02:00:51 PM »

Pro-choicers, how do you explain North Korea, PRC, and the Soviet Union which performed forced abortions and were /are ultra-pro-choice?.
I don't think you understand the definition of choice.

You guys are missing the point that the free market would fix all of our abortion troubles. Even if people simply didn't want to have children, we'd have enough of a surplus to provide for childcare and adoptions. Allowing gay adoptions would help too.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2013, 02:09:21 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2013, 02:15:01 PM by shua »

A small percentage of pro-lifers want to ban birth control pills because they believe they can cause abortions.  I don't know of anyone who wants to ban condoms or books about human sexuality, even if they are not enthusiastic about them - that's not a mainstream pro-life position. 

I do think that pro-lifers need to consider the unintended consequences of their positions - and would be a lot more effective if they did.  Whether an outright complete abortion ban would be best or if there is another combination of policies that would be better for the protection of life is to my mind an open question.  In either case I don't expect things will be the same as under Ceausescu.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2013, 02:27:10 PM »

A small percentage of pro-lifers want to ban birth control pills because they believe they can cause abortions.  I don't know of anyone who wants to ban condoms or books about human sexuality, even if they are not enthusiastic about them - that's not a mainstream pro-life position. 

I do think that pro-lifers need to consider the unintended consequences of their positions - and would be a lot more effective if they did.  Whether an outright complete abortion ban would be best or if there is another combination of policies that would be better for the protection of life is to my mind an open question.  In either case I don't expect things will be the same as under Ceausescu.

There is a combination of policies better than just banning all abortions. Exceptions such as threats to the mother's life, damaged fetuses, incest, and rape should be made. Gay adoptions should be made legal at the federal level in order to increase the chances of adoptions. Job training programs for the unemployed, disabled, and those who lack skills or are underprivileged should be funded in the forms of summer camps for the youth. A strong economy is another way to promote financial stability. In a better economy daycares and adoptions are more likely too. Our schools should also be teaching about abstinence and contraceptives. I'd even support contraceptive subsidization for low income women over the age of 18.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2013, 03:04:07 PM »

Crucially, no Pro-Lifer (I'm aware of) seriously advocates legislating against the freedom to buy contraception for women with under 4 children.
Even Rush Limbaugh only objected to public and mandatory employer subsidies for them.

Um?  Never heard of the Personhood movement?  Not that it's ever going to win any of them, but it has put a ban of abortion and the pill (not condoms though) on the ballot in a bunch of states.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2013, 04:23:32 PM »

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2013, 04:40:25 PM »

For pro-lifers that support bans including exceptions for rape, I posted about this issue recently, so I figured I would copy my argument here:

I'd like to point out that making exceptions for rape doesn't actually protect most rape victims.  Rape and sexual assault is by far the most under-reported violent crime.  There are literally dozens of reasons why women (and men) rape victims don't report it.  It's an extremely sensitive and personal issue with the potential for deep psychological wounds.  There's a general consensus that over 50% of rape crimes aren't actually reported and it could be as high as 75 or maybe even worse depending on the society.

In order to make an exception for rape victims, the authorities have to actually know that she's been raped for one thing, so that excludes the majority of rape victims that never actually report being raped.  The exception may also require proof that the woman was actually raped which is even harder to obtain in a short time frame.  Not to mention legal procedures, but if the woman waits too long to report the rape, that means even less evidence to prove she was actually raped.  Meanwhile, all this has to happen in a period of a couple months (the biological clock is ticking ya know?)  The longer she has to wait, the more traumatic the abortion becomes for all parties involved.

All in all, it sounds fine and dandy from the pro-life stand point to make exceptions for rape and incest, but it's really hard to actually protect those victims - because most of the time nobody knows what happened except the woman and her assailant.

With a ban with exceptions for rape, literally thousands of rape victims will still fall through the cracks because they are too traumatized to tell anyone what happened.

The only way to protect these silent, traumatized rape victims is to make abortion available to everyone, even if it's limited to the first or second trimesters.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2013, 07:08:15 PM »

For pro-lifers that support bans including exceptions for rape, I posted about this issue recently, so I figured I would copy my argument here:

I'd like to point out that making exceptions for rape doesn't actually protect most rape victims.  Rape and sexual assault is by far the most under-reported violent crime.  There are literally dozens of reasons why women (and men) rape victims don't report it.  It's an extremely sensitive and personal issue with the potential for deep psychological wounds.  There's a general consensus that over 50% of rape crimes aren't actually reported and it could be as high as 75 or maybe even worse depending on the society.

In order to make an exception for rape victims, the authorities have to actually know that she's been raped for one thing, so that excludes the majority of rape victims that never actually report being raped.  The exception may also require proof that the woman was actually raped which is even harder to obtain in a short time frame.  Not to mention legal procedures, but if the woman waits too long to report the rape, that means even less evidence to prove she was actually raped.  Meanwhile, all this has to happen in a period of a couple months (the biological clock is ticking ya know?)  The longer she has to wait, the more traumatic the abortion becomes for all parties involved.

All in all, it sounds fine and dandy from the pro-life stand point to make exceptions for rape and incest, but it's really hard to actually protect those victims - because most of the time nobody knows what happened except the woman and her assailant.

With a ban with exceptions for rape, literally thousands of rape victims will still fall through the cracks because they are too traumatized to tell anyone what happened.

The only way to protect these silent, traumatized rape victims is to make abortion available to everyone, even if it's limited to the first or second trimesters.

You guys are all missing the big picture. The free market could really help the situation.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2013, 07:16:59 PM »

For pro-lifers that support bans including exceptions for rape, I posted about this issue recently, so I figured I would copy my argument here:

I'd like to point out that making exceptions for rape doesn't actually protect most rape victims.  Rape and sexual assault is by far the most under-reported violent crime.  There are literally dozens of reasons why women (and men) rape victims don't report it.  It's an extremely sensitive and personal issue with the potential for deep psychological wounds.  There's a general consensus that over 50% of rape crimes aren't actually reported and it could be as high as 75 or maybe even worse depending on the society.

In order to make an exception for rape victims, the authorities have to actually know that she's been raped for one thing, so that excludes the majority of rape victims that never actually report being raped.  The exception may also require proof that the woman was actually raped which is even harder to obtain in a short time frame.  Not to mention legal procedures, but if the woman waits too long to report the rape, that means even less evidence to prove she was actually raped.  Meanwhile, all this has to happen in a period of a couple months (the biological clock is ticking ya know?)  The longer she has to wait, the more traumatic the abortion becomes for all parties involved.

All in all, it sounds fine and dandy from the pro-life stand point to make exceptions for rape and incest, but it's really hard to actually protect those victims - because most of the time nobody knows what happened except the woman and her assailant.

With a ban with exceptions for rape, literally thousands of rape victims will still fall through the cracks because they are too traumatized to tell anyone what happened.

The only way to protect these silent, traumatized rape victims is to make abortion available to everyone, even if it's limited to the first or second trimesters.

You guys are all missing the big picture. The free market could really help the situation.

But barfbag, haven't you forgotten that an economic entity will only get an abortion if it is in its best interests?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2013, 07:37:18 PM »

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.

Except that we already know 5 year olds are persons. There's nothing disputable about that. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that personhood begins when one is born. That's why we have birth certificates and start counting our age from the day we were born. We don't celebrate our "conception day" or issue a certificate of conception to a pregnant woman.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2013, 08:08:41 PM »

For pro-lifers that support bans including exceptions for rape, I posted about this issue recently, so I figured I would copy my argument here:

I'd like to point out that making exceptions for rape doesn't actually protect most rape victims.  Rape and sexual assault is by far the most under-reported violent crime.  There are literally dozens of reasons why women (and men) rape victims don't report it.  It's an extremely sensitive and personal issue with the potential for deep psychological wounds.  There's a general consensus that over 50% of rape crimes aren't actually reported and it could be as high as 75 or maybe even worse depending on the society.

In order to make an exception for rape victims, the authorities have to actually know that she's been raped for one thing, so that excludes the majority of rape victims that never actually report being raped.  The exception may also require proof that the woman was actually raped which is even harder to obtain in a short time frame.  Not to mention legal procedures, but if the woman waits too long to report the rape, that means even less evidence to prove she was actually raped.  Meanwhile, all this has to happen in a period of a couple months (the biological clock is ticking ya know?)  The longer she has to wait, the more traumatic the abortion becomes for all parties involved.

All in all, it sounds fine and dandy from the pro-life stand point to make exceptions for rape and incest, but it's really hard to actually protect those victims - because most of the time nobody knows what happened except the woman and her assailant.

With a ban with exceptions for rape, literally thousands of rape victims will still fall through the cracks because they are too traumatized to tell anyone what happened.

The only way to protect these silent, traumatized rape victims is to make abortion available to everyone, even if it's limited to the first or second trimesters.

You guys are all missing the big picture. The free market could really help the situation.

But barfbag, haven't you forgotten that an economic entity will only get an abortion if it is in its best interests?

You're referring to those who will still want abortions because they just don't want children?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2013, 08:09:32 PM »

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.

Except that we already know 5 year olds are persons. There's nothing disputable about that. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that personhood begins when one is born. That's why we have birth certificates and start counting our age from the day we were born. We don't celebrate our "conception day" or issue a certificate of conception to a pregnant woman.

My family celebrates those things.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2013, 08:13:23 PM »

Pro-choicers, how do you explain North Korea, PRC, and the Soviet Union which performed forced abortions and were /are ultra-pro-choice?.

Forced abortion =/= pro-choice
Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2013, 08:14:02 PM »

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.

Except that we already know 5 year olds are persons. There's nothing disputable about that. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that personhood begins when one is born. That's why we have birth certificates and start counting our age from the day we were born. We don't celebrate our "conception day" or issue a certificate of conception to a pregnant woman.

We start counting our age from the day we are born because we know when it is.  I guess we could celebrate our conception week give or take a few days, but that might get confusing.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2013, 08:18:39 PM »

Again this thread makes it sound as if all pro-lifers have a goal of achieving the same situation as stated above when the exact opposite is the truth.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2013, 08:49:32 PM »

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2013, 08:56:17 PM »

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.


I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2013, 09:04:07 PM »

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.


I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?
No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2013, 09:23:00 PM »

What I've never understood is how anyone who is truly pro-life could ever support an exception for rape. If an abortion is truly equivalent to a murder, I don't see how it would be justified in a rape situation.


I don't think that's fair to say, but I do understand where you're coming from. I've heard arguments opposing abortion in cases of incest and rape. You're pro-life as well?
No, I'm pro-choice. I just think it's ideologically inconsistent to claim that abortion is murder but then try to say that there should be situations (other than self-defense, or in the case of abortion, a threat to the the life of the mother) where said murder would be acceptable.

Ideology should be non-existent in all issues. It's about doing what's right based on the issue at hand.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 11 queries.