You can get unintentionally pregnant without being a slut, or careless.
It is illogical to say that you get to kill kids, if that is what abortion is, unless other people pay for your kids.
It makes perfect sense to ask whether people who argue that banning abortion is in the best interests of kids, how they will prevent these kids from growing up in misery, crime and poverty.
Extremely rare. Those people are also usually in a relationship and the kid is generally taken care of by them.
Agreed.
Not really. It's not their concern or responsibility. Society has the resources even when it is legal, and still does almost nothing to prevent this. There's no reason once it's banned, for whatever reason, for people to get involved now either. Questions like this only mean anything if both sides are equal and we live in a just society. It's not.
Extremely rare. Those people are also usually in a relationship and the kid is generally taken care of by them.
But you can be 19 and not want a kid yet. It is wrong to label this as somehow 'being a slut'. You are not more likely to conceive if you have sex with different men (slut) vs. a lot of sex with the same man (not a slut).
There's no reason once it's banned, for whatever reason, for people to get involved now either.
That is then probably going to lead to an amazing amount of social pathology. Considering the amount of crime and poverty resulting from women who are single parents today, with abortion available, can you imagine how much worse it will become without abortion? So I would like to see a plan for this.
Honestly, I don't care. These women were going to make things worse for everyone either way because that's how the vast majority of people are these days. They are regressing away from the social fabric that made us a society and it's time they stopped enjoying the benefits that society gave them.
There are no positive rights. Such a concept is a logical fallacy, because positive rights cannot exist without infringing the rights of others. We can and we should outlaw child murder without giving any further thought to compensating people who want to murder children but now cannot.
As for the crime rate, I can only assume you're using that old reddit canard about how the drop in crime rate in America coincided with one generation after child murder was legalized. Funny thing about that is the crime rate drop also coincides with one generation after banning leaded gasoline.
It makes perfect sense to ask people who argue that banning abortion is in the best interests of kids, how they will prevent these kids from growing up in misery, crime and poverty.
This is not a reason to kill them. A life, once conceived, has its own intrinsic value that can't be mitigated by the material circumstances that might affect it. No matter how miserable or impoverished a person's childhood might be, that child has a potential contribution to make, and a right to live.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead," and that it is possible to make that determination before the child is even born. Even on its surface, that is obviously immoral, and that's before we get into discussing who makes those determinations and what criteria they use to do so.
But I already acknowledged that (though I do not regard all abortion as murder). I find it laughable that the advocates of abortion say that "if you don't give social services, we get to have abortion". That is not how it works, no more than you get to commit infanticide if there are not social services to your liking after birth.
My point is: if you are saying that anti-abortion is in the best interests of the child, then it makes perfect sense to try to ensure that they do not grow up in misery, poverty and crime.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead,"
If you believe that abortion is murder, then yes. But that was never my point. My point is that if it's welfare of kids that you care about, do not stop at just outlawing abortion. Considering how much crime and poverty results from single parenthood, many of which are now prevented due to abortion, I think this is a legitimate point.
I don't disagree, but on this particular issue, I'm a one-battle-at-a-time kind of guy. Abortion is a moral evil so extreme that the only remedy I can see is to eliminate it first and worry about the consequences later. Reestablishing family togetherness and monogamy as the societal norm would certainly improve child welfare, but that is a generational task and it doesn't mean we should wait a generation before outlawing abortion.
That may be shortsighted of me, but I can't get past the fact that in the United States alone this practice has already exterminated 85 million lives that could have been lived, 85 million people who might have been the next Isaac Newton or the next Shakespeare, however unlikely. Yes, many of those children may have grown up in poverty, but they would have grown up. Instead they were denied the opportunity to enjoy a life, and the opportunity to contribute, and we have been denied the benefits of what they might have contributed. Enough is enough.
Number 3 further exposes you as a socialist. If that point is true then everyone is a slave to providing cradle to grave welfare states.
Making murder illegal puts no logical burden on anyone else, because asking someone to not commit murder isn't an undue or unreasonable request. In fact it's a basic precept of society. Nobody gets any reward for simply not being a murderer.
"How do you write women so well?"
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."
Women demand to be treated like children.
Children are cruel.
Jack.
They're bribed and blackmailed by the Joooz.
From this start this journalist is a hack
Extremely rare. Those people are also usually in a relationship and the kid is generally taken care of by them.
Agreed.
Not really. It's not their concern or responsibility. Society has the resources even when it is legal, and still does almost nothing to prevent this. There's no reason once it's banned, for whatever reason, for people to get involved now either. Questions like this only mean anything if both sides are equal and we live in a just society. It's not.
But you can be 19 and not want a kid yet. It is wrong to label this as somehow 'being a slut'. You are not more likely to conceive if you have sex with different men (slut) vs. a lot of sex with the same man (not a slut).
That is then probably going to lead to an amazing amount of social pathology. Considering the amount of crime and poverty resulting from women who are single parents today, with abortion available, can you imagine how much worse it will become without abortion? So I would like to see a plan for this.
Honestly, I don't care. These women were going to make things worse for everyone either way because that's how the vast majority of people are these days. They are regressing away from the social fabric that made us a society and it's time they stopped enjoying the benefits that society gave them.
I don't think you understand.
There are no positive rights. Such a concept is a logical fallacy, because positive rights cannot exist without infringing the rights of others. We can and we should outlaw child murder without giving any further thought to compensating people who want to murder children but now cannot.
As for the crime rate, I can only assume you're using that old reddit canard about how the drop in crime rate in America coincided with one generation after child murder was legalized. Funny thing about that is the crime rate drop also coincides with one generation after banning leaded gasoline.
Then don't have sex
This is not a reason to kill them. A life, once conceived, has its own intrinsic value that can't be mitigated by the material circumstances that might affect it. No matter how miserable or impoverished a person's childhood might be, that child has a potential contribution to make, and a right to live.
The only logical way to argue that banning abortion is not in the best interests of kids is to argue that there is such a thing as a child being "better off dead," and that it is possible to make that determination before the child is even born. Even on its surface, that is obviously immoral, and that's before we get into discussing who makes those determinations and what criteria they use to do so.
But I already acknowledged that (though I do not regard all abortion as murder). I find it laughable that the advocates of abortion say that "if you don't give social services, we get to have abortion". That is not how it works, no more than you get to commit infanticide if there are not social services to your liking after birth.
My point is: if you are saying that anti-abortion is in the best interests of the child, then it makes perfect sense to try to ensure that they do not grow up in misery, poverty and crime.
If you believe that abortion is murder, then yes. But that was never my point. My point is that if it's welfare of kids that you care about, do not stop at just outlawing abortion. Considering how much crime and poverty results from single parenthood, many of which are now prevented due to abortion, I think this is a legitimate point.
I don't disagree, but on this particular issue, I'm a one-battle-at-a-time kind of guy. Abortion is a moral evil so extreme that the only remedy I can see is to eliminate it first and worry about the consequences later. Reestablishing family togetherness and monogamy as the societal norm would certainly improve child welfare, but that is a generational task and it doesn't mean we should wait a generation before outlawing abortion.
That may be shortsighted of me, but I can't get past the fact that in the United States alone this practice has already exterminated 85 million lives that could have been lived, 85 million people who might have been the next Isaac Newton or the next Shakespeare, however unlikely. Yes, many of those children may have grown up in poverty, but they would have grown up. Instead they were denied the opportunity to enjoy a life, and the opportunity to contribute, and we have been denied the benefits of what they might have contributed. Enough is enough.
Number 3 further exposes you as a socialist. If that point is true then everyone is a slave to providing cradle to grave welfare states.
Making murder illegal puts no logical burden on anyone else, because asking someone to not commit murder isn't an undue or unreasonable request. In fact it's a basic precept of society. Nobody gets any reward for simply not being a murderer.