‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

Pro Abortion NOT Pro Choice

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  907
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 June 2019 16:19
 
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 03:41 PM
Jan_CAN - 30 June 2019 02:53 PM

Hey, why not just go full hog like the Nazis and forcibly sterilize all those whose offspring might prove to be a “social burden”?  There’s no telling how much money could be saved, eh?

In my opinion, any government/court control over one’s body or reproductive system is abhorrent and I thought civilized societies had learned this lesson.  I can hardly believe this is being seriously discussed.  Yes, there will be children born who will require social assistance, and yes, this will cost money.  That’s just the way it is.  Suck it up.

Then California’s got a bunch of nazis doing their social work.

Huh???

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
30 June 2019 16:37
 
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 12:18 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 11:56 AM

yes, forcing unwanted medical treatment on someone is more akin to shooting someone than more gentle and less physical efforts to, say, assist people who are addicted to drugs.  There is a spectrum of “degree of coercive force”, and we get to pick where we draw the line.  In my estimation you draw the line at a place that goes too far in removing individuals’ liberty.

But is it criminally forceful to coerce someone into medical treatment who relies on state assistance in order to survive, when his/her behavior resembles con artistry on some level? I ask this because shooting someone is usually considered a criminal action.

1.  It doesn’t matter what behavior might resemble to you.  It only matters what the behavior actually is.
2. Criminal behavior is something that is considered illegal.  If the government is doing it, then it isn’t illegal (it can be unconstitutional, or whatever term another country might use, but then the policy is ended, and it would be individuals not the government engaging in said behavior, and they would then be acting outside of government policy).
3. You’re still advocating for the government to use it’s economic influence to coerce people into specific medical decisions.  Are you willing to go down the full line of this logical proposition?  If you aren’t, and why are you only willing to apply this to young women who are economically vulnerable?

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 June 2019 17:37
 
Garret - 30 June 2019 04:37 PM
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 12:18 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 11:56 AM

yes, forcing unwanted medical treatment on someone is more akin to shooting someone than more gentle and less physical efforts to, say, assist people who are addicted to drugs.  There is a spectrum of “degree of coercive force”, and we get to pick where we draw the line.  In my estimation you draw the line at a place that goes too far in removing individuals’ liberty.

But is it criminally forceful to coerce someone into medical treatment who relies on state assistance in order to survive, when his/her behavior resembles con artistry on some level? I ask this because shooting someone is usually considered a criminal action.

1.  It doesn’t matter what behavior might resemble to you.  It only matters what the behavior actually is.
2. Criminal behavior is something that is considered illegal.  If the government is doing it, then it isn’t illegal (it can be unconstitutional, or whatever term another country might use, but then the policy is ended, and it would be individuals not the government engaging in said behavior, and they would then be acting outside of government policy).
3. You’re still advocating for the government to use it’s economic influence to coerce people into specific medical decisions.  Are you willing to go down the full line of this logical proposition?  If you aren’t, and why are you only willing to apply this to young women who are economically vulnerable?

It may be unpleasant news to you, but social workers are in the business coercing people into acting responsibly. Also, I didn’t come up with the shooting comparison—mapadofu did.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  907
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 June 2019 17:43
 

Are you unable to distinguish between different forms of coercion?

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 June 2019 18:40
 

“Are you unable to. . . ” is the beginning of a sentence you might reserve for a toddler, if that.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  907
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 June 2019 18:46
 

And your point is?  In this discussion it doesn’t seem to me that you are making distinctions between different situations; it’s possible that you don’t recognize that relevant differences exist between them.  Thus, I ask.

[ Edited: 30 June 2019 18:50 by mapadofu]
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10151
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
30 June 2019 19:04
 
Jefe - 30 June 2019 02:19 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 01:25 PM

Performing medical treatment without consent can be a criminal offense (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/BatteryNoConsent.html).  I don’t see why you two feel entitled to strip away other peoples’ rights just because you pay your taxes.

The few dollars (or cents?) of any individual’s taxes that may help such a person does not warrant such a harsh removal of autonomy.
In almost any other case, the removal of personal autonomy is either a crime, or requires significant legal precedent to accomplish.

Again, this seems to be a fundamental problem in the US.
People want to control every cent of their tax deductions, and get all up-in-arms if there is a possibility that any minuscule portion of ‘their’ tax dollars get used to help people they disprove of.

I gotta go with Jefe’s point.  1. A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done before rights are removed.  2.  ASD, you are on record here for advocating a war on the poor by making their lives more difficult (which is your prerogative) but wouldn’t it be easier to remove government benefits than to remove a right?

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3503
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
30 June 2019 19:14
 
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 05:37 PM

It may be unpleasant news to you, but social workers are in the business coercing people into acting responsibly.

Nonverbal, do you actually mean ‘coercing’, exactly?  As I understand it, coercion involves the use of force or threats.  I’m thinking you’re probably speaking more about educating, counselling, sometimes advising strongly, that sort of thing.  Of course I understand there are times when there would be a ‘threat’ involved such as informing a parent that there are/could be repercussions (e.g. loss of custody of a child).

I understand that you have expertise in this regard.  I consider social work to be one of the noblest professions, and I suspect one of the most frustrating.

[ Edited: 01 July 2019 13:20 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
30 June 2019 19:27
 

Jan, I admit to using “coerce” in an unusual way because when I speak here, I tend to feel free to be somewhat meta in my approach, as compared to when I speak to social workers involved with people I assist. It would be a filthy word for them to hear applied to their deal-making with clients, since they don’t see themselves as being bad people and coercion is “bad.” I love mapadofu, though. It’s one of my favorite dishes and I’ve made it several times.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
01 July 2019 15:05
 
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 05:37 PM
Garret - 30 June 2019 04:37 PM
nonverbal - 30 June 2019 12:18 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 11:56 AM

yes, forcing unwanted medical treatment on someone is more akin to shooting someone than more gentle and less physical efforts to, say, assist people who are addicted to drugs.  There is a spectrum of “degree of coercive force”, and we get to pick where we draw the line.  In my estimation you draw the line at a place that goes too far in removing individuals’ liberty.

But is it criminally forceful to coerce someone into medical treatment who relies on state assistance in order to survive, when his/her behavior resembles con artistry on some level? I ask this because shooting someone is usually considered a criminal action.

1.  It doesn’t matter what behavior might resemble to you.  It only matters what the behavior actually is.
2. Criminal behavior is something that is considered illegal.  If the government is doing it, then it isn’t illegal (it can be unconstitutional, or whatever term another country might use, but then the policy is ended, and it would be individuals not the government engaging in said behavior, and they would then be acting outside of government policy).
3. You’re still advocating for the government to use it’s economic influence to coerce people into specific medical decisions.  Are you willing to go down the full line of this logical proposition?  If you aren’t, and why are you only willing to apply this to young women who are economically vulnerable?

It may be unpleasant news to you, but social workers are in the business coercing people into acting responsibly. Also, I didn’t come up with the shooting comparison—mapadofu did.

Are you forcing me to debate anecdotes you have about social workers?  Or do you have data you want to share?

Because I can’t debate an anecdote you experienced/heard of.  I don’t know the particulars, besides, anything I say against it will be unconvincing to you.  In addition, I find anecdotes unconvincing.  They can be useful in illustrating a point, or as an example, but without data, they are largely useless in understanding cause and effect.

Are you saying that you WANT social workers to pressure women into getting abortions?  If you aren’t saying that, then I am unclear why you are bringing them up at all.

Also, I would use language somewhat differently.  Not all influence is coercive.  That doesn’t mean that social workers can’t be coercive, and I’m sure many are.  I’ve known many social workers as well, and some I find definitely apply inappropriate amounts of pressure, while others do not.  That said, the origin of this thread is about an explicit government policy.  Social workers being too zealous in their ideology/job/social pressure is not a government policy.

Debating whether [insert name] LCSW does a good job is vastly different from debating whether the US or UK should adopt a policy of enforced abortion.

[ Edited: 01 July 2019 15:12 by Garret]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7145
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
01 July 2019 20:01
 
Jan_CAN - 30 June 2019 02:53 PM

Hey, why not just go full hog like the Nazis and forcibly sterilize all those whose offspring might prove to be a “social burden”?  There’s no telling how much money could be saved, eh?

Hyperbole.

Jan_CAN - 30 June 2019 02:53 PM

In my opinion, any government/court control over one’s body or reproductive system is abhorrent and I thought civilized societies had learned this lesson.  I can hardly believe this is being seriously discussed.  Yes, there will be children born who will require social assistance, and yes, this will cost money.  That’s just the way it is.  Suck it up.

But I’m not suggesting that the government/court control one’s body or reproductive system. I’m proposing giving women a choice between continuing to receive assistance and having more kids. Kids who will not only require social assistance and cost money, but who will most likely perpetuate the cycle of dependency.

Happy Can Day.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7145
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
01 July 2019 20:14
 
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 11:56 AM

yes, forcing unwanted medical treatment on someone is more akin to shooting someone than more gentle and less physical efforts to, say, assist people who are addicted to drugs.  There is a spectrum of “degree of coercive force”, and we get to pick where we draw the line.  In my estimation you draw the line at a place that goes too far in removing individuals’ liberty.

Check out this documentary: Seattle is Dying. Seattle takes the “more gentle and less physical” approach to dealing with drug addicted and mentally ill homeless people by not prosecuting them for petty crimes like shoplifting. The result is a disaster. Meanwhile, a city back east takes the opposite approach by prosecuting them, then “coercing” them into treatment programs in prison (letting them out early if they complete the treatment program). Which, it turns out, is good for the homeless people, who are able to transition to productive lives after finishing treatment.

So, in order for your shooting analogy to hold true, shooting someone would have to be good for them.

Face it: drug addicts and lunatics cannot be depended upon to do what’s in their own best interest. Even San Francisco is finally realizing this. The board of supervisors is backing forced treatment for mentally ill addicts. San Francisco!

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7145
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
01 July 2019 20:16
 
Skipshot - 30 June 2019 07:04 PM
Jefe - 30 June 2019 02:19 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 01:25 PM

Performing medical treatment without consent can be a criminal offense (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/BatteryNoConsent.html).  I don’t see why you two feel entitled to strip away other peoples’ rights just because you pay your taxes.

The few dollars (or cents?) of any individual’s taxes that may help such a person does not warrant such a harsh removal of autonomy.
In almost any other case, the removal of personal autonomy is either a crime, or requires significant legal precedent to accomplish.

Again, this seems to be a fundamental problem in the US.
People want to control every cent of their tax deductions, and get all up-in-arms if there is a possibility that any minuscule portion of ‘their’ tax dollars get used to help people they disprove of.

I gotta go with Jefe’s point.  1. A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done before rights are removed.  2.  ASD, you are on record here for advocating a war on the poor by making their lives more difficult (which is your prerogative) but wouldn’t it be easier to remove government benefits than to remove a right?

Which right am I removing?

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10151
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
01 July 2019 20:51
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 01 July 2019 08:16 PM
Skipshot - 30 June 2019 07:04 PM
Jefe - 30 June 2019 02:19 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 01:25 PM

Performing medical treatment without consent can be a criminal offense (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/BatteryNoConsent.html).  I don’t see why you two feel entitled to strip away other peoples’ rights just because you pay your taxes.

The few dollars (or cents?) of any individual’s taxes that may help such a person does not warrant such a harsh removal of autonomy.
In almost any other case, the removal of personal autonomy is either a crime, or requires significant legal precedent to accomplish.

Again, this seems to be a fundamental problem in the US.
People want to control every cent of their tax deductions, and get all up-in-arms if there is a possibility that any minuscule portion of ‘their’ tax dollars get used to help people they disprove of.

I gotta go with Jefe’s point.  1. A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done before rights are removed.  2.  ASD, you are on record here for advocating a war on the poor by making their lives more difficult (which is your prerogative) but wouldn’t it be easier to remove government benefits than to remove a right?

Which right am I removing?

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly, but asking a woman to chose between abortion or assistance is asking her to give up her right to have children.  It could be a slippery slope.

Antisocialdarwinist - 21 June 2019 03:34 PM

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.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7145
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
01 July 2019 21:01
 
Skipshot - 01 July 2019 08:51 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 01 July 2019 08:16 PM
Skipshot - 30 June 2019 07:04 PM
Jefe - 30 June 2019 02:19 PM
mapadofu - 30 June 2019 01:25 PM

Performing medical treatment without consent can be a criminal offense (https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/BatteryNoConsent.html).  I don’t see why you two feel entitled to strip away other peoples’ rights just because you pay your taxes.

The few dollars (or cents?) of any individual’s taxes that may help such a person does not warrant such a harsh removal of autonomy.
In almost any other case, the removal of personal autonomy is either a crime, or requires significant legal precedent to accomplish.

Again, this seems to be a fundamental problem in the US.
People want to control every cent of their tax deductions, and get all up-in-arms if there is a possibility that any minuscule portion of ‘their’ tax dollars get used to help people they disprove of.

I gotta go with Jefe’s point.  1. A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done before rights are removed.  2.  ASD, you are on record here for advocating a war on the poor by making their lives more difficult (which is your prerogative) but wouldn’t it be easier to remove government benefits than to remove a right?

Which right am I removing?

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly, but asking a woman to chose between abortion or assistance is asking her to give up her right to have children.  It could be a slippery slope.

Antisocialdarwinist - 21 June 2019 03:34 PM

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.

I don’t think that constitutes “removing” a right. It gives the woman a choice. Aren’t you pro choice? Anyway, there’s no right to have children, at least not in the US constitution.

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >