Morality of abortion

[Aexodus]

What complete crap, the misogynistic attitudes to women in this thread border on the obscene.

If you somehow see that statement as mysoginistic, then it’s clear the two sides of this debate probably won’t be able to move past our fundamental disconnect. I’ve seen people seem to get worked up over the fact that women get pregnant and not boys, that biology is unfair and therefore women without the right to kill, are somehow not equal.

The simple fact is, despite what the Mail would have you believe, the benefit system does not provide the same income as two people in (say 30 hours a week) employment. This idea that girls are being paid by the state to have babies is just bs.

What about the Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...le-mother.html

Now this is before the benefits cap was introduced in fairness, but it doesn’t mean that stories like this wasn’t going on for many single mothers at the taxpayers expense.

[Himster]

Actualy no,.............. Yes she has a council house

Honestly, I understand: But an incentive is an incentive.

I have a cousin who is a single mum, not because she is of low morale character but because her partner chose to be a boy rather than a man and run from his responsibilities.

Congratulations, you and your cousin are not of that social class that would find the incentive appealing. That does not, however, eliminate the fact that there exist those who find the incentive appealing.

Luckily my uncle and aunt are able to help with childcare, the costs of which are crippling in this country. Yes she has a council house, however the benefits she recieves are not enough for her to "leech off the state" she works and the benefits just about allow her to pay the bills and give her daughter a decent quality of life.

Fantastic, the system works: most of the time. But it still works as an incentive also. It's a reality that cannot be ignored.

Why not? Why is no one pro-abortion?

The same reason why nobody is chemo-therapy: It's unpleasant but often it's preferable to the alternatives.

While we debate and divide ourselves discussing abortion, they, from behind, sink the blow by acting on women through the Welfare State, is the typical strategy of the stateless globalis financial elites, whose sole objective is to destroy our identity as citizens and men and women who know who they are and where they come from, these values, in the European tradition, were conveyed by the traditional family model based on a father, a mother and children.

We tend to remain divided along the same lines regardless of the topic of discussion. It's hard to imagine this being the result of some international conspiracy from the gay-mafia using blacks for muscle or lizard people or whatever the details of your particular conspiracy theory are.

If you somehow see that statement as mysoginistic, then it’s clear the two sides of this debate probably won’t be able to move past our fundamental disconnect. I’ve seen people seem to get worked up over the fact that women get pregnant and not boys, that biology is unfair and therefore women without the right to kill, are somehow not equal.

I'll agree that his response was more than a bit hysterical in that instance. But there has been a degree of misogyny in this thread.
To overcome the disconnect we could look at our shared values: Most of us can agree that abortions are permissible in certain circumstance (if it's unviable and is a threat to the mother etc.). We can work from there and find specific divides rather than assume it's this amorphous tribal-like divide
Also: Why was the "No Campaign" filled with so many posh culchies telling me what to do? Maybe they're those protestants I've read about, cos-playing as Irish. I've never met a posh culchie, so they're probably rare and based on the referendum results they seem to be the only ones who voted no. You've got plenty of those in the north so your backwards laws still have a chance of enduring at least for 3 more years.

[Aexodus]

I'll agree that his response was more than a bit hysterical in that instance. But there has been a degree of misogyny in this thread.
To overcome the disconnect we could look at our shared values: Most of us can agree that abortions are permissible in certain circumstance (if it's unviable and is a threat to the mother etc.). We can work from there and find specific divides rather than assume it's this amorphous tribal-like divide

I just think the baby shouldnt be punished for mistakes they didn’t make.

Also: Why was the "No Campaign" filled with so many posh culchies telling me what to do? Maybe they're those protestants I've read about, cos-playing as Irish. I've never met a posh culchie, so they're probably rare and based on the referendum results they seem to be the only ones who voted no. You've got plenty of those in the north so your backwards laws still have a chance of enduring at least for 3 more years.

So do you, up North.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seems Ulster says no whether it’s inside or out of the Republic

[Genghis Skahn]

I am for pro-lifers being able to express their opinions in public and what have you, and respect their beliefs to a certain degree. However, this woman is simply 100% wrong when she said the abortion debate is a "simple" issue. If it were a simple problem, people wouldn't spend literal lifetimes debating this crap; it's not simple at all, it's complex for all sorts of reasons, just like laws on abortion should be complex. Only a pro-life or pro-choice ideologue thinks this is a "simple" issue.

[Himster]

I just think the baby shouldnt be punished for mistakes they didn’t make.

I don't think you can call it punishment and still have that word mean anything. You can't punish the pre-born any more than you can punish the post-dead.
Now we can both agree that there is something viscerally disturbing with the concept of both interfering with an embryo or a corpse: so at least that level of mutual understanding can be shared.

So do you, up North.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seems Ulster says no whether it’s inside or out of the Republic

Republican Ulster is Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. Two out of three ain't too bad, I'm pretty proud of the results overall.
Surely abortion would probably benefit you Brits in the North, what with the shifting demographics and the inevitable results that will bring about (there's a phrase that rhymes with Chucky our paw). Keeping those Catholic wombs empty ensures continued British dominance in the North for at least another generation.

[Phier]

Given the age range you've hinted, you lived in a period which was a blender of liberalism and conservatism. Which allowed you to pick a best of both worlds, or a double-flavoured icecream.

Nowadays people want the same but live in a mostly liberal period, so push is for one-flavoured icecream. Well there's still traditional route if you know where to search, but it comes at a social cost.

I don't know if we are seeing the reality out there as much as seeing the purple haired freaks and assuming reality. People are still getting married and having families. Social media I think may be pushing the left side of the equation, but pair bonding is pretty natural and people still seem to be into it, at least in my part of the country.

Atitudes of Romans towards sex differ on period. On early period there's the Pater Familias, where Parental power is at peak, on pre-colapse period there's plenty of orgies as the banalized atitude.

Higher economic inequalities mixed with more liberalized sex: the direction West is aproaching is very well pictured by Brazil.
Not sure if you find that a satisfactory outcome, depends on perspective.

My feeling is the upper classes have always been more blasé about sex and sexual mores than the common folk and perhaps that is part of it now. What we consider middle class in the West, and inequities is still very wealthy compared to ages past. I recall reading many years ago that the average western lifestyle would have required 375 slaves to achieve in Roman times. Now this was long ago and I don't know the methodology but I think there is something to the fact that a great many people have a lot of benefits, state or earned which historically would be considered "rich". Leisure time, paid time off, cheap transportation, plentiful food. We lack purpose often and to fill it we get hedonistic with things like sex.

Maybe we are just too well off.

[sumskilz]

Single mothers are more of a issue with the nanny state where the government takes the place of the father, IMO.

Benefits the free riders - Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data.

[fkizz]

I don't know if we are seeing the reality out there as much as seeing the purple haired freaks and assuming reality. People are still getting married and having families. Social media I think may be pushing the left side of the equation, but pair bonding is pretty natural and people still seem to be into it, at least in my part of the country.

People getting married and dating is extremely normal, close to biological determinism.
But getting married is like entering university: Not a guarantee you'll get the degree, not a guarantee you'll end up creating a family that is not a net loss on society, or that won't get stuck with divorce payments.
See the divorce statistics, things are not as the same.

Realistically or not, for the female such fears are reduced by the perceived social status and wealth of the male, for the male it's perceived by the female atitude towards loyalty and sex.

My feeling is the upper classes have always been more blasé about sex and sexual mores than the common folk and perhaps that is part of it now. What we consider middle class in the West, and inequities is still very wealthy compared to ages past. I recall reading many years ago that the average western lifestyle would have required 375 slaves to achieve in Roman times. Now this was long ago and I don't know the methodology but I think there is something to the fact that a great many people have a lot of benefits, state or earned which historically would be considered "rich". Leisure time, paid time off, cheap transportation, plentiful food. We lack purpose often and to fill it we get hedonistic with things like sex.

Maybe we are just too well off.

Well the modernity vs ancient times is kinda non-practical, because we'll never know how it felt to live in ancient periods and vice versa, and they had problems we only theorically imagine (and sometimes miss) and vice versa;

but point is that modern societies are ever increasing in wealth inequalities and sexual liberation, which are the 2 big distinguishing brands of Brazil wealth and social dynamics, as compared to other modern countries, which is what we're aproaching.

From a more ancap point of view, this might not be bad, it's easier to get very rich in brazil than in europe for example,, but then there's the rest.

Benefits the free riders -

Criminal offending as part of an alternative reproductive strategy: investigating evolutionary hypotheses using Swedish total population data.

This more or less sums up my whole point. Nice.

[Gaidin]

My favorite part about this thread is that the regions of the US most against abortion have willfully given up the easiest access to maternity care/wards and neonatal facilities.

[basics]

My favorite part about this thread is that the regions of the US most against abortion have willfully given up the easiest access to maternity care/wards and neonatal facilities.

Gaidin,

Can you blame them since the trend is now to abort?

[Gaidin]

That flew over your head.

[basics]

That flew over your head.

Gaidin,

No it didn't as the one has no correlation to the other. If that's all you've got on killing little babies in the womb then it's a poor argument in favour of abortion.

[Gaidin]

Gaidin,

No it didn't as the one has no correlation to the other. If that's all you've got on killing little babies in the womb then it's a poor argument in favour of abortion.

Heavily pro-choice regions have much easier access to maternity and neonatal facilities, while pro-life regions have had funding cut in their hospitals and maternity and neonatal facilities have been the first to go. This leaves them seeing their specialist fewer times through their pregnancies. They're often unaware if problems arise, often problems that could've been easily handled but they're leading to premature birth. Finally, when the baby is to be delivered, they're often driving two hours to the nearest maternity ward. God forbid they need neonatal care, they're often put on a medical transport and its another two hours beyond that.

If you want to be pro-life, you should be pro-life. Put your money where your mouth is. At least help the pro-life people give birth to the baby. Or are you pro-life*?

*(as long as the baby is in the womb. The mother is on her own and so is the baby when it pops out.)

[fkizz]

In places like Brazil also very easy to get an abortion.

I guess Brazil is the current posterboy of the West. That's what happens when inequalities can't be handled anymore.

[PointOfViewGun]

Gaidin,

Can you blame them since the trend is now to abort?

Are you saying there are more abortions in the USA compared to births?

[basics]

Are you saying there are more abortions in the USA compared to births?

Setekh,

Of course I'm not saying that but what I am saying is that if there is no abortion allowed in a state then there will be excess in doctors and nurses thus enabling cuts or reorganising for more important things. However, the trend is to make abortion easier to get whether it will ever overtake births is a matter only time will tell.

[Gaidin]

Setekh,

Of course I'm not saying that but what I am saying is that if there is no abortion allowed in a state then there will be excess in doctors and nurses thus enabling cuts or reorganising for more important things. However, the trend is to make abortion easier to get whether it will ever overtake births is a matter only time will tell.

You know abortions are harder to get in the regions I’m talking about right?

[Prodromos]

So you're saying that anti-abortion laws do significantly reduce the number of abortions? But we always hear how anti-abortion laws are futile, since women who want an abortion will just get one illegally anyway...

Anyway, back to the morality of abortion. So after 24 pages, the only moral justification provided for abortion has been, "society determines whether human beings have any worth, and due to their inconvenience to us, we've arbitrarily determined that unborn human beings have no worth."

Replace that unborn part with any other class of human being. Black, Italian, Polish, Jewish, poor, capitalist... Would you tolerate that moral reasoning to justify killing these classes of human beings?

[Gaidin]

There are many strange ways to abort a baby. You get a pregnant woman desperate enough she will find one no matter how unhealthy it is. But that’s not the point I’m making with basics.

Regions against abortion don’t provide much for birth either. Ironic, no?

Morality is talking the talk and that’s interesting. I’m getting the feeling that the groups against abortion aren’t against abortion so much as they don’t give a frak if resources aren’t provided for pregnancies and birth either. Gotta walk the walk.

[Prodromos]

Regardless, how does that morally justify abortion? How is it the unborn baby's fault what pro-life advocates do or don't support? Imagine a slave-owner justifying slavery by pointing out abolitionists' unwillingness to provide for freed slaves. Would that be acceptable?