Subsidized abortions
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:33:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Subsidized abortions
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Subsidized abortions  (Read 3773 times)
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 12, 2007, 06:59:15 PM »

Bad idea?  Good idea?

I'm starting to think I need to recognize this right of women to choose.  I furthermore think that if you are poor and can't afford an abortion, the state will pay for it.

Who agrees?  Who disagrees?  Tax money to fund abortions of those that need it, but can't afford it.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2007, 07:07:44 PM »

No, but I'll allow the gov't to pay for someone to have a vasectomy/thatotherthingthatladiesdotonothavebabies in order to prevent pregnancy.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2007, 07:38:59 PM »

Social Darwinism is disgusting
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2007, 07:43:34 PM »


And ummmm.... Stalin was a bad guy.....
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2007, 09:51:34 AM »

abortions should be covered by medicare or medicaid.  I can't remember which is which.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2007, 10:17:33 AM »


concise.

Social (and, indeed, physical) Darwinism is the first thing I thought of as well, but why are you so disgusted with it?  The survival of the fittest is natural, and has selected your kind for success.  If the society is willing to help alleviate the social burden of nurturing an unwanted human, and the benefits outweigh the costs, and the impregnated human female, being of age and of sound mind agrees to the procedure, then why not?  But then you obviously don't think the benefits outweigh the cost.  The cost being our humanity.  I think I feel you.  And I think it's an important policy consideration.  Sure, it's cheaper to spend a one-time 300 dollars than a hundred grand over 18 years, so the immediate economic burden of subsidizing abortion is more attractive than the alternative (long-term welfare cases), but at what cost?  Such a soulless society has greater problems than its economic outlays, I guess you're saying.  Food for thought.  You're the forum's schoolmarm.  The one who looks on disapprovingly when we curse, drink, smoke, or say things like "hell, she doesn't want it anyway, and it's cheaper than welfare."  And on some level I admire that.  An amoral society may not be everything we'd hoped it would be, so we'd better be careful if it's what we're wishing for. 

Was this a poll?  I forget.  Well, you have convinced me that I may have to think more before I vote.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2007, 11:26:21 AM »

Christ you fellows don't understand economics at all do you?  If you 'save money' by aborting poors, then someone else will just have to fill that role instead - perhaps you.  Society is a heirarchy and our positions are relative.. it is this relative position that is important, not the absolute condition.   

Your proposition would not do anything to reduce poverty, Richious - only transferring power would do that.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2007, 11:30:45 AM »


concise.

Social (and, indeed, physical) Darwinism is the first thing I thought of as well, but why are you so disgusted with it?  The survival of the fittest is natural, and has selected your kind for success. 
"The survival of the fittest"? Then how do you explain the continued existence of the hippopotamus, who can only feed on dry land but cannot even survive on dry land during the sunshine? Tongue

I understand what is meant, but "survival of the fittest" - and "success" in Darwinist terms as well - is a badly phrased and easily misunderstood and abused term, and should perhaps be retired. We're actually talking the survival of anything sufficiently fit to meet a certain minimum standard, and not under massive pressure from fitter competition. Anything that can find itself a niche.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Alleviate the social burden of nurturing an unwanted human? That's what free childcare, welfare, and family tax credits are for Tongue You're talking of alleviating the social burden of not nurturing an unwanted human. Which also exists.
(And no, I do think the cost should be covered for the economically destitute. Basically, it makes no sense to deny access to abortions to those who subjectively need it the most. If we want the procedure to remain safe and legal (as in "safe legal & rare", that is). What would be the point of offering legal abortions to the middle class while very poor (and very young - one of the two reasons for my opposition to parental notification laws) still recourse to coathangers?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2007, 03:32:35 PM »


concise.

Social (and, indeed, physical) Darwinism is the first thing I thought of as well, but why are you so disgusted with it?  The survival of the fittest is natural, and has selected your kind for success.
"The survival of the fittest"? Then how do you explain the continued existence of the hippopotamus, who can only feed on dry land but cannot even survive on dry land during the sunshine? Tongue


pretty much the same way I explain the survival of the human, who has no long sharp teeth, no claws, doesn't hear very well, doesn't run very fast, and doesn't see very well at night:  I don't.  I leave that to biologists.

But I will answer your second question.  The point would be that no one is paying for anyone else's health care, which is a very satisfying thought to rightists and libertarians. 

Being a centrist, I'm a bit torn.  While I'm generally offended at the thought of socialized medicine, there is one set of procedures that I'm more likely to vote to publicly underwrite:  fetal abortion.  And it's for exactly the reasons I state.  But still, I say "more likely" and not "absolutely ready" to support, since much of Al's position captures what I think in the dark recesses of my mind that I don't admit to very often:  amorality isn't necessarily the best we can hope to achieve as a society.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2007, 03:36:44 PM »


concise.

Social (and, indeed, physical) Darwinism is the first thing I thought of as well, but why are you so disgusted with it?  The survival of the fittest is natural, and has selected your kind for success.
"The survival of the fittest"? Then how do you explain the continued existence of the hippopotamus, who can only feed on dry land but cannot even survive on dry land during the sunshine? Tongue


pretty much the same way I explain the survival of the human, who has no long sharp teeth, no claws, doesn't hear very well, doesn't run very fast, and doesn't see very well at night:  I don't.  I leave that to biologists.
Humans actually see pretty well at night, especially for a species overwhelmingly active during the day. Huh
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That wasn't the question though.
The question was: if we refuse to do that, why keep abortion legal at all?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2007, 03:59:39 PM »

Well, from an ideological standpoint, I'd say, "For exactly the same reason that we ought not to have socialized medicine:  it's none of my business and it's not my problem."  There are those who really don't feel like we need the Nanny State.  To me, this means we don't shouldn't need prescriptions for drugs, we don't need to make things like prostitution and marijuana illegal, it's none of my business whether my neighbor gets an abortion, and I should not be expected to pay for any of your medical problems, whether it's a nose job, an abortion, a vasectomy or whatever.  And I think my views are largely consistent on this.  In fact--except for a very few important issues such as my strong support of public schools, my desire to see more basic research funded including research on embryonic stem cells, and my strongly held belief in the benefit of a strong, standing Army and Navy--I'm pretty much with the Libertarians on these types of issues.  That is, we keep abortion legal for the same reasons we don't want socialized medicine.  Moreover, I'd say that on this issue, the ideologically inconsistent ones are the ones who ostensibly support keeping abortion legal because they claim to want less government intrusion, yet who want the government involvement when it comes to paying the bills.

Then again, I"m really not such a rightist/purist like my Libertarian friends, and as I said, this is probably the one procedure which I'd be most comfortable letting the public finance.  And really it isn't for ideological reasons, but for pragmatic ones.  After all, we're going to end up underwriting the existence of certain individuals in our society, and since underwriting the procedures that curtail their existence is cheaper, it's an option to consider.

But then again--and I'll flip once again--to see humanity in such starkly economic terms, as though we have no spirits or souls, is probably exactly the sort of thing we Westerners do that makes it easy for radical islamic clerics to rouse up hatred against us.  Well, that and we like to park our airplanes in the Saudi Arabian desert, which is a little too close to Mecca for some folks.  And we supply Israel with money and advisors.  And we invaded Iraq.  And...

Really, I could go either way on this Lewis, and am not given to passionate debate over issues when I'm a mugwump.  I can see why some would want to publicly fund it, and I can also see why some would be opposed.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2007, 10:46:03 AM »

abortions should be covered by medicare or medicaid.  I can't remember which is which.

Probably medicaid as medicare would imply 65+ people having abortions
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2007, 11:52:56 AM »

Promote it for the poor/low IQ/followers of islam(mandate for THEM) but discourage it for the rich/people who have high IQs.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2007, 11:55:56 AM »

I'm confused why the liberals of the forum do NOT want to provide free abortions to those in need.  Are you all fundamentally opposed to helping the poor out in such a away?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2007, 12:11:29 PM »

I'm confused why the liberals of the forum do NOT want to provide free abortions to those in need.  Are you all fundamentally opposed to helping the poor out in such a away?
Where did you get that? I don't see any comment by any liberal on this thread who doesn't want to do that. Angus is for it, padfoot is for it. Opebo has gone off on a (not entirely irrelevant) tangent and not answered the question. No other liberals have spoken up.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2007, 12:44:33 PM »

Christ you fellows don't understand economics at all do you?  If you 'save money' by aborting poors, then someone else will just have to fill that role instead - perhaps you.  Society is a heirarchy and our positions are relative.. it is this relative position that is important, not the absolute condition.   

Your proposition would not do anything to reduce poverty, Richious - only transferring power would do that.

That is of course offered completely proof free. Nevermind that the average working class family has a better quality of life now than kings did couple of centuries ago (maybe less). Tell me, why does relative position matter at all? Why should I care that there are people more powerful than me, if I myself am living within my ambitions? Only because of some dickwaving contest? To quote Hayek:
 "The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work."

That is whom we should really be worried about.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2007, 02:52:39 PM »

I'm going to guess that offering to apply some affirmative action for minorities here (aka free abortions for non whites) would be frowned upon.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2007, 10:23:52 PM »

I'm going to guess that offering to apply some affirmative action for minorities here (aka free abortions for non whites) would be frowned upon.
I frown on it because you want to do it for nonwhites but free abortons for the poor? Yes.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2007, 02:55:43 AM »

I'm going to guess that offering to apply some affirmative action for minorities here (aka free abortions for non whites) would be frowned upon.
Of course. Why wouldn't it?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2007, 02:57:23 AM »

I'm going to guess that offering to apply some affirmative action for minorities here (aka free abortions for non whites) would be frowned upon.

That's not affirmative action.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2007, 12:16:13 AM »

Only if it was medically necessary to prevent very significant harm or death to the mother.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.047 seconds with 11 queries.