1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Pro Abortion NOT Pro Choice

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
21 June 2019 15:34
 

UK court orders forced abortion for disabled woman

A British judge has authorized doctors to perform an abortion on a pregnant Catholic woman with developmental disabilities and a mood disorder, despite the objections of the woman’s mother and the woman herself. The woman is 22 weeks pregnant.

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,” said Justice Nathalie Lieven in her ruling in the Court of Protection, June 21.

“I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination,” Lieven explained, arguing that her decision is in the best interest of the woman.

. . .

Unrestricted abortion is legal in the UK until 24 weeks of pregnancy, after which doctors must certify that the abortion is in the medical interests of the mother.

NHS statistics show babies born at 24 weeks have a 50% chance of survival on average, though the rate depends on the NHS trust providing care. Babies born in a University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust hospital in London at 23 weeks of gestation have a 70% chance of survival.

I’m not sure I support the idea of forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, but I do think that pregnant women receiving entitlements like welfare or food stamps—women who are financially unable to support themselves, let alone a (or another) child—should be required to have an abortion in order to continue to receive entitlements. Just as Roe v Wade is thought by many to have led to a long term decrease in crime, a “no more kids for welfare queens” policy could well lead to a long term decrease in the number of people receiving public assistance, by breaking the self-perpetuating entitlement cycle.

In the case of mentally disabled women like the one in the article, I would leave the decision to the woman’s legal guardian. But the choice to not have an abortion would still trigger a termination of any entitlements the woman is receiving.

Am I cold hearted? Or far sighted?

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
22 June 2019 16:53
 

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

[ Edited: 22 June 2019 16:55 by Garret]
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21579
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
22 June 2019 17:08
 

Wouldn’t it be better to let her have the child, then terminate her parental rights and put the child up for adoption?  Why abort a 22 week fetus and give the appearance of a Draconian decision.  She and her mother wanted it. Appoint the grandmother as custodian - another option.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7112
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 June 2019 19:09
 
EN - 22 June 2019 05:08 PM

Wouldn’t it be better to let her have the child, then terminate her parental rights and put the child up for adoption?  Why abort a 22 week fetus and give the appearance of a Draconian decision.  She and her mother wanted it. Appoint the grandmother as custodian - another option.

Why abort?
Frequently the real and perilous risks of pregnancy and child-birth get forgotten when this question comes up.
There is a non-zero chance that the mother could die.  If her disabilities are heritable, there is a non-zero chance the child will inherit those.

I’m not saying it is necessarily correct for the government to impose this decision, but there are health risks involved in carrying and delivering a baby, and we don’t know the whole health story of the mother in this case.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6358
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
22 June 2019 20:47
 

Can we try it as a TV police drama first? CSI: Fetal Confiscation Unit

It does seem one-sided to focus on lust-filled welfare queens. What about the death penalty for lads who impregnate women who are receiving public assistance and must get an abortion? They are complicit in a homicide and reckless endangerment of the mother. A life for a life seems more like justice.

Men on public assistance must appear regularly for court-supervised orgasms as scheduled by their masterprobation officer. That would mean more cold showers for hot welfare queens and fewer terminations on the public dime.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
22 June 2019 21:30
 

The, at most, handful of cases where this kind of argument could be made is such a small epsilon on the overall cost of welfare that I don’t see how that could offset the moral intrusion involved.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7112
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
22 June 2019 23:03
 

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 00:12
 
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 11:37
 
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17614
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 June 2019 11:47
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

+1

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6757
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 11:54
 
Skipshot - 23 June 2019 12:12 AM
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

You’re missing the point. I’m all in favor of publicly funded abortions for poor people. If you can’t afford an abortion, I don’t mind paying for it. Better that than paying for another kid for eighteen years. I’m just taking it one step further by making abortions mandatory in order for people already on public assistance to continue receiving it.

As long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your kids, I don’t care how many little monsters you want to squeeze out. In general, as long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your lifestyle, I don’t care how you live your life. But when I’m on the hook for your stupid decisions, that’s when I should have a say in what you can or can’t do. It has nothing to do with “fiscal shaming” (is that really a thing?). It’s a matter of fairness.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17614
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 June 2019 12:35
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:54 AM
Skipshot - 23 June 2019 12:12 AM
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

You’re missing the point. I’m all in favor of publicly funded abortions for poor people. If you can’t afford an abortion, I don’t mind paying for it. Better that than paying for another kid for eighteen years. I’m just taking it one step further by making abortions mandatory in order for people already on public assistance to continue receiving it.

As long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your kids, I don’t care how many little monsters you want to squeeze out. In general, as long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your lifestyle, I don’t care how you live your life. But when I’m on the hook for your stupid decisions, that’s when I should have a say in what you can or can’t do. It has nothing to do with “fiscal shaming” (is that really a thing?). It’s a matter of fairness.

I’ve made this argument here many times over the years and been deemed evil, misogynist and a moral monster.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
23 June 2019 13:03
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:54 AM
Skipshot - 23 June 2019 12:12 AM
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

You’re missing the point. I’m all in favor of publicly funded abortions for poor people. If you can’t afford an abortion, I don’t mind paying for it. Better that than paying for another kid for eighteen years. I’m just taking it one step further by making abortions mandatory in order for people already on public assistance to continue receiving it.

As long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your kids, I don’t care how many little monsters you want to squeeze out. In general, as long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your lifestyle, I don’t care how you live your life. But when I’m on the hook for your stupid decisions, that’s when I should have a say in what you can or can’t do. It has nothing to do with “fiscal shaming” (is that really a thing?). It’s a matter of fairness.

I was off topic and responding to the “welfare queen” comment and the double standard of shaming poor people who take public assistance but when wealthy people or corporations receive handouts and tax exemptions it is good business or smart.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 June 2019 16:05
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:37 AM
Garret - 22 June 2019 04:53 PM

You’re saying that you’re okay with the government making life and death medical decisions about you.

The logical conclusion of allowing the government to force medical decisions on the population is that they can make a judgement about your organs, while you’re still alive, in the interests of the greater good.

If you’re an unproductive worker, and not providing as much benefit to the economy, shouldn’t we use both of your kidneys to help people who are more productive?  Wouldn’t that be better for society?  Plus, then we’d get both of your lungs and heart soon afterwards, which means more benefits to society.

No, I’m in favor of making people choose between continuing to receive entitlements and breeding. If the Catholic church is so concerned about the life of the fetus, they can step in as an alternative to entitlements.

You are enforcing this decision through government mandated medical procedures, yes or no?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7112
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 June 2019 16:37
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:54 AM
Skipshot - 23 June 2019 12:12 AM
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

You’re missing the point. I’m all in favor of publicly funded abortions for poor people. If you can’t afford an abortion, I don’t mind paying for it. Better that than paying for another kid for eighteen years. I’m just taking it one step further by making abortions mandatory in order for people already on public assistance to continue receiving it.

As long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your kids, I don’t care how many little monsters you want to squeeze out. In general, as long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your lifestyle, I don’t care how you live your life. But when I’m on the hook for your stupid decisions, that’s when I should have a say in what you can or can’t do. It has nothing to do with “fiscal shaming” (is that really a thing?). It’s a matter of fairness.

An easier, and possibly better way is affordable and readily available contraception. 
Lets start with less invasive methods first?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7112
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 June 2019 16:45
 
GAD - 23 June 2019 12:35 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 June 2019 11:54 AM
Skipshot - 23 June 2019 12:12 AM
Jefe - 22 June 2019 11:03 PM

Does anyone even still give credit to the ‘welfare queen’ manufactroversy?

Exactly.  Keeping the poor down, minimizing options, and fiscal shaming is a more likely motivation.  Rich people have unwanted pregnancies, too, but they have more options to avoid the social stigma.

You’re missing the point. I’m all in favor of publicly funded abortions for poor people. If you can’t afford an abortion, I don’t mind paying for it. Better that than paying for another kid for eighteen years. I’m just taking it one step further by making abortions mandatory in order for people already on public assistance to continue receiving it.

As long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your kids, I don’t care how many little monsters you want to squeeze out. In general, as long as I’m not the one footing the bill for your lifestyle, I don’t care how you live your life. But when I’m on the hook for your stupid decisions, that’s when I should have a say in what you can or can’t do. It has nothing to do with “fiscal shaming” (is that really a thing?). It’s a matter of fairness.

I’ve made this argument here many times over the years and been deemed evil, misogynist and a moral monster.

Isn’t this the whole problem with the US? 
People don’t want ‘their’ tax money paying for things/people they disapprove of.
White nationalists don’t want their tax dollars helping non-whites
Proponents of Prosperity Gospel myths don’t want their tax dollars helping the poor.
Misogynists don’t want their tax dollar helping women.
Individualists don’t want their tax dollar helping anyone but themselves.

But nobody seems to mind if their tax dollars help the wealthy or the corporate ‘royalty’ for some reason.

It all boils down to trust or mistrust of governmental structures, and the US has several undercurrents of ‘bad government’ mythology that the bat around. 

In reality, if they got off their high horses and constructed a less ‘post-capital’, less ‘pro-corporate’ society, everyone could benefit - even those at the top.  The difference would only be more prosperity for the reducing middle, and growing lower class tiers of society.

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›