Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TreasureKY -> Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 10:12:13 AM)

The premise is put forth that a fetus does not have the same rights and protections under the constitution because it is not a self-sustaining entity.  A woman should have the right to decide whether she wishes to continue to support a fetus until it is capable of supporting its own life.  The Government shouldn't force a woman to continue to support a parasitic being.

Now mind you... this thread isn't about abortion in the sense of the above.  It's about extending that premise, if it is one that you believe to be true, to situations beyond reproduction.

An example of what I am talking about?  Simple.  Just change out a few of the nouns in the first paragraph.

The premise is put forth that an individual who relies on Government support does not have the same rights and protections under the constitution because they are not a self-sustaining entity.  A taxpaying citizen should have the right to decide whether he or she wishes to continue to support an individual who relies on Government support until they are capable of supporting their own life.  The Government shouldn't force a taxpaying citizen to continue to support a parasitic being.

I find it amusing that there are persons of all political persuasions who are incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy.  Liberals who insist the above premise holds true with regard to the abortion of fetuses, but insist that the Government should force all taxpayers to support individuals who are not self-sustaining... and Conservatives who believe that they should have the right to decide who to support, but cannot extend that same courtesy to pregnant women.

I'm sure much debate could be made with regard to whether this basic premise can be applied equally to all situations.  At this point, I'm mulling through the concept myself and so far cannot see where there is a fundamental difference that would invalidate it.  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.



pogo4pres -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 10:53:31 AM)

FR

[SARCASM]
Said this before and I'll reiterate it here, "Abortion should be legal. until the critter starts paying room and board.
[/SARCASM]


On a more serious note I think a standard of viability should be established and abortion be legal ANYTIME prior to oh say a 50% viability rate.  After that life threatening to mother, or in more rare cases birth defect. 


Gynocologically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ



TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:01:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

FR

[SARCASM]
Said this before and I'll reiterate it here, "Abortion should be legal. until the critter starts paying room and board.
[/SARCASM]


On a more serious note I think a standard of viability should be established and abortion be legal ANYTIME prior to oh say a 50% viability rate.  After that life threatening to mother, or in more rare cases birth defect. 


Gynocologically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ



Okay.  Now do you think that adults who are not capable of paying their own room and board be aborted from the taxpayer's support?



NorthernGent -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:10:04 AM)

Treasure....

Is there anyone out there who isn't hypocritcal from time to time.....what's that about reduced government intrusion in people's lives while advocating a strong and expensive defence?

I take your point..

But there's a fairly simple (suggested) answer...we all have things we care about....and we'll fight for that cause...and sometimes appeal to government to promote that cause....no matter the political persuasion....

It boils down to where you feel government's responsibility lies.....I'm sure you're happy to pay your tax on defence.....and have other people pay those taxes too.....while arguing for the government stepping back into the shadows.....it's a matter of personal taste....



Louve00 -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:12:23 AM)

And what do we do with the people once we oust them from the system because they can't pay room and board?  Granted, its not a thought I like (the thought of my taxes supporting them), but the alternative is what?  Homelessness?  Putting them out of their misery? 

I'm afraid you're right.  This subject is bound for many debates and opinions here.



TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:21:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Treasure....

Is there anyone out there who isn't hypocritcal from time to time.....what's that about reduced government intrusion in people's lives while advocating a strong and expensive defence?

I take your point..

But there's a fairly simple (suggested) answer...we all have things we care about....and we'll fight for that cause...and sometimes appeal to government to promote that cause....no matter the political persuasion....

It boils down to where you feel government's responsibility lies.....I'm sure you're happy to pay your tax on defence.....and have other people pay those taxes too.....while arguing for the government stepping back into the shadows.....it's a matter of personal taste....


I agree that we are all subject to a bit of hypocrisy from time to time, as well as being a bit blind where our own prejudices are concerned.

We're all going to have our opinion on what issues should take priority... and you are right, it is a matter of personal taste.  Unfortunately, where it seems humankind was once a bit closer in ideals and more amenable to compromise, I see a much greater divide now.  There could be any number of sociological reasons for this change... or it could be just my imagination.  [;)]



pogo4pres -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:22:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Okay.  Now do you think that adults who are not capable of paying their own room and board be aborted from the taxpayer's support?



A) What part of sarcasm did you not understand?  

B) You're asking the wrong guy that question, being as I am the father of an SSI collecting autistic 18 year old son.  Any answer I give will be filtered through that perspective, and skewed to it.

Autistically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ



LaTigresse -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:23:03 AM)

Can we nominate people for adult abortions?

I've always struggled with fetus abortions. To ME, they are morally wrong but, until there are more realistic options to avoid unwanted pregnancies, keeping it legal and safe versus women having dangerous and illegal procedures is best.

The topic of adult 'abortions' makes me think of one thing I would like to see made legal, assisted suicide.



tazzygirl -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:25:44 AM)

quote:

At this point, I'm mulling through the concept myself and so far cannot see where there is a fundamental difference that would invalidate it.


The fundamental difference could be that while a fetus cannot be sustained without the womb, those who cannot support themselves through legal measures can sustain themselves through illegal ones. Just because someone has been cut out of the governments womb doesnt mean the life support ends... just means it will be tranferred to a different means of support.



TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:45:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

And what do we do with the people once we oust them from the system because they can't pay room and board?  Granted, its not a thought I like (the thought of my taxes supporting them), but the alternative is what?  Homelessness?  Putting them out of their misery? 

I'm afraid you're right.  This subject is bound for many debates and opinions here.



And here we pass from political ideology into the realm of moral obligation...

Should we "do" anything with people like that, at all?  Is not the basic premise of a free life that we are all open to live our lives as we choose?  We make our way into the world from the "sanctuary" of our parents care, to establish our lives in the manner of our own choosing... to succeed or fail on our own merits?

The question becomes, is it a political obligation to ensure the survival of our "fellow man", or is it a moral obligation?



TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Okay.  Now do you think that adults who are not capable of paying their own room and board be aborted from the taxpayer's support?



A) What part of sarcasm did you not understand?  

B) You're asking the wrong guy that question, being as I am the father of an SSI collecting autistic 18 year old son.  Any answer I give will be filtered through that perspective, and skewed to it.

Autistically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ


A)  I understood your sarcasm perfectly well and chose to ignore it.

B)  I find it admirable that you admit your own biases.



TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 11:53:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Can we nominate people for adult abortions?

I've always struggled with fetus abortions. To ME, they are morally wrong but, until there are more realistic options to avoid unwanted pregnancies, keeping it legal and safe versus women having dangerous and illegal procedures is best.

The topic of adult 'abortions' makes me think of one thing I would like to see made legal, assisted suicide.


I don't disagree with either premise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The fundamental difference could be that while a fetus cannot be sustained without the womb, those who cannot support themselves through legal measures can sustain themselves through illegal ones. Just because someone has been cut out of the governments womb doesnt mean the life support ends... just means it will be tranferred to a different means of support.


That is true, but at what percentage?  Is it not just as possible that other legal means (beside government subsistence) would eventually fill in the gap?  And is it not just as likely that a portion of those people would find a way to survive on their own?



MistressRosalyn -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 12:19:01 PM)

In 1976, at an all-boys Catholic High School in Southern California, Father B was walking along the pathways and he encountered three young men who were huddled together planning their next bit of mischief. He stopped for a moment, shook his head, and said, "You three are the best argument for retroactive abortion I've even seen." and walked on.

There are many for whom retroactive abortion would be a wonderful solution...now who is the judge and jury?

However, and more to the point that is being thrown out here, all humans, at one point or another in their life may temporarily fall into the category of needing assistance. Do we close ranks on the weak and turn our backs on them, and allow the wolves to tear them to shreds, or is it a sign of our innate humanity to assist them until they can stand on their own again?

And now let's bring up the even more fun thought...if the weak cannot survive on their own, must we then allow them to breed?

OK, enough of playing Devil's Advocate...



Louve00 -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 12:33:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

And what do we do with the people once we oust them from the system because they can't pay room and board?  Granted, its not a thought I like (the thought of my taxes supporting them), but the alternative is what?  Homelessness?  Putting them out of their misery? 

I'm afraid you're right.  This subject is bound for many debates and opinions here.



And here we pass from political ideology into the realm of moral obligation...

Should we "do" anything with people like that, at all?  Is not the basic premise of a free life that we are all open to live our lives as we choose?  We make our way into the world from the "sanctuary" of our parents care, to establish our lives in the manner of our own choosing... to succeed or fail on our own merits?

The question becomes, is it a political obligation to ensure the survival of our "fellow man", or is it a moral obligation?



Well, I haven't really mulled it over.  In instances concerning humanity, I always tend to veer to the moral side more than the political one.  Yet on the other hand, as Tazzy pointed out, tossing desperate people in the streets leads them to illegal acts...like stealing to survive, which can and would include robbery and injury to innocent people.  They'll also be ornaments for the city and suburbs to endure.  Looking at it from a not so humanitarian point of view...hobo's in the neighborhood could bring down property value as easily as foreclosed homes, but there is an element of danger and unsightliness involved, too.  There are many different reasons to keep those programs in place, not to mention the reason they were started to begin with.  And not to mention that the circumstance could happen to anyone, for any reason, I suppose.  So yea, humanity...or being for it...isn't a bad thing.



TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 12:46:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressRosalyn

However, and more to the point that is being thrown out here, all humans, at one point or another in their life may temporarily fall into the category of needing assistance. Do we close ranks on the weak and turn our backs on them, and allow the wolves to tear them to shreds, or is it a sign of our innate humanity to assist them until they can stand on their own again?


I don't disagree that people often need assistance at one point in their lives, or another.  I suppose my response to that would be to ask what did people do before Government charity?  How did people get by when they had financial difficulty?  Who did they turn to when the cupboards were bare or they lost the roof over their heads?

Again, is this not a matter of moral obligation and not political influence?

It seems that many people are vehemently opposed to the Government legislating morality in some areas (ie, gay marriage), but have no problem adamantly insisting that the Government legislate morality when it comes to charity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressRosalyn

And now let's bring up the even more fun thought...if the weak cannot survive on their own, must we then allow them to breed?


I see this as a huge difference.  You're talking about taking away freedom instead of respecting freedom.



Moonhead -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 1:00:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I don't disagree that people often need assistance at one point in their lives, or another.  I suppose my response to that would be to ask what did people do before Government charity?  How did people get by when they had financial difficulty?  Who did they turn to when the cupboards were bare or they lost the roof over their heads?

Workhouses or debtors prisons, mostly, along with the always popular starving to death thing that was even more widespread before the rise of aid programmes.

quote:

Again, is this not a matter of moral obligation and not political influence?

Either that or you're keen to recast this as a purely moral issue and strip away any political issues bound up with it.



Louve00 -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 1:06:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


I don't disagree that people often need assistance at one point in their lives, or another.  I suppose my response to that would be to ask what did people do before Government charity?  How did people get by when they had financial difficulty?  Who did they turn to when the cupboards were bare or they lost the roof over their heads?

Again, is this not a matter of moral obligation and not political influence?

It seems that many people are vehemently opposed to the Government legislating morality in some areas (ie, gay marriage), but have no problem adamantly insisting that the Government legislate morality when it comes to charity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressRosalyn

And now let's bring up the even more fun thought...if the weak cannot survive on their own, must we then allow them to breed?


I see this as a huge difference.  You're talking about taking away freedom instead of respecting freedom.



Your questions made me curious, so I went to google and googled your question lol.  But, I found out this....

Why did welfare start in the U.S?
The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.
Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.
Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_welfare_start_in_the_U.S#ixzz17SiOKiPU

So, apparently help for the poor has been around for a long, long time. 


**edited to italicize what I didn't say.  [:)]



DomKen -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 1:34:29 PM)

Warning for the faint of heart, this is close to home for me so I'm going to say it like it is. If that hurts your feelings I recommend you go and find some other place to post nonsense like this
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

The premise is put forth that a fetus does not have the same rights and protections under the constitution because it is not a self-sustaining entity.  A woman should have the right to decide whether she wishes to continue to support a fetus until it is capable of supporting its own life.  The Government shouldn't force a woman to continue to support a parasitic being.

A reasonable, although simplistic statement. Covers the high point. note that it covers the point that this is an individual choice and the fetus is literally parasitical in the biological sense.

quote:

The premise is put forth that an individual who relies on Government support does not have the same rights and protections under the constitution because they are not a self-sustaining entity.  A taxpaying citizen should have the right to decide whether he or she wishes to continue to support an individual who relies on Government support until they are capable of supporting their own life.  The Government shouldn't force a taxpaying citizen to continue to support a parasitic being.

This of course is the usual nonsense we get from this delightful couple. Part of what taxes do is pay for the things society needs that individuals cannot pay for directly. That includes support of widows, orphans, the elderly and the disabled. None of which are parasites in the biological sense as the term as used in the first statement.

A more correct way to view the argument is that "someone who does not wish to pay taxes to suuport society should lose the benefits of being in society, includingthe protection of all laws.

I assume Treasure will not be volunteering to find out how she would fair under that premise.



hertz -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 1:48:55 PM)

quote:

an individual who relies on Government support does not have the same rights and protections under the constitution because they are not a self-sustaining entity.


For this to be true, you would be assuming that the state does not in some way contribute to the inability of an individual to sustain his/herself. It wouldn't be reasonable to remove someone's rights and protections for their inability to self-sustain if the state was responsible in any way for that inability. So this raises the question:

'To what extent has the state contributed to the inability of some individuals to sustain themselves without support?'

The sub-question (I guess) is:

'Why are some people unable to sustain themselves?'

Personally, I think the reason some people are able to sustain themselves and others are not, is rooted in advantage. I believe the state creates the conditions where two individuals might put in exactly the same effort to self-sustainment with the result that one fails and the other succeeds purely because of the advantage the state gives one party over the other. This being the case, it would be unreasonable to take the action you suggest.

Unless one wants to outlaw 'advantage'. I'd love to see that in the USA.



joether -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 1:50:53 PM)

I just dont see the OP's arguement holding enough solid matter to make a case. If the person doesnt like their fellow citizens, to the point of causing suffering, onto those citizens; should we not question that person's loyalty and sanity? Is it 'to much' of a burdern on Americans, that they help their fellow citizens out of a rough spot (one they did or did not create)?

Its one thing to have a difference of opinion. Its quite another to argue, killing someone's sole means of survival, because the first is a miser.

But the OP's post seems to imply, that if the person is accepting financial help from the goverment, then they should not have a say in that goverment. Would this mean, that college students, who get student loans, should not have a say in their goverment, until their loans are paid of? How about those in the military, whom EVERTHING they have, owned, and used, was given to them, by the goverment? Should either group, not have a say in their goverment? According to the OP's arguement: YES!

The OP's theory, on the surface sounds like an arguement that a conservative would give. Below the surface, is sounds like an arguement to change the goverment from a Democratic Republic to Monarchy Feudalism. That those who 'work', are consider the 'nobility', and those who dont, are the 'slaves/peons'.

After all, can any one of us absolutely and completely, define, 'work'? Such to, that it can be applied to every adult member of society, fairly, and without bias? I highly doubt it. Not without creating intensively HUGE goverment. And the creation of this agency, would cost considerably more money, then simply keeping the system 'as is'. Hence, why I dont see this arguement, even in theory or 'on the drawing board', working if put in to practice.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02