quote: Originally posted by MightyCow: How much are you willing to pay so a woman keeps the baby? Is an unborn child only worth $500?
Loaded question. Targeting low-income women is an effective way to implement the program because trying to target all income ranges would be prohibitively expensive. So it's not about the value of the child, it's about cost effectiveness in a desperate struggle to save children's lives.
I'm reminded of Oskar Schindler. He couldn't save all the Jews, and he didn't even do all that he could, but he did do something and his efforts were noble. So are those of these people in Texas.
And the analogy is correct because we are looking at something as horrible as the holocaust. Worse, even. Here's a comparison: In order to make the extermination of the Jews palatable to so many Germans, they had to be dehumanized. Similarly, babies are now "fetuses." It makes the killing of these babies mentally digestable to pro-choicers, because they don't even have a human life in mind when discussing the thing being aborted. The woman is a person to them, of course. And her freedom of choice is something identifiable to them, unlike the concept of a fetus being a person.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, there is no way that a discussion concerning abortion can be productive or respectful when you're comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It's insulting on so many levels.
posted
You're done, huh? Can't handle being compared to a Nazi? Then stop killing millions of innocent people!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insults to the pro-choice aside, don't you think it's just a little insulting to people who were actually victims of the Holocaust or had family who were victims?
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The pro-life people are the ones who came up with the idea to pay women $500 to keep a baby they were considering aborting. I'm just asking why stop at $500? $500 is clearly targeting low-income women. If someone makes $50,000 a year, the extra $500 isn't going to make a significant dent financially to make it a deciding factor.
The kidnapping analogy is meaningless, and simply a way to ignore the question.
How much are you willing to pay so a woman keeps the baby? Is an unborn child only worth $500?
No, your question is a way of ignoring the question, and a particularly accusatory way at that.
The question is "why does a woman have to be bribed at all to give her baby a chance at a life?" But it's pretty obvious the pro-choice crowd has no intention of ever dealing with that one.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see how that would be a concern, pH, but no. I think unborn children are as human as you, me, and anyone who suffered because of the holocaust. And so I am comparing the willful killing of millions of one specific race during a specific period in history to the willful killing of many millions more during an existing period of history.
If I'm wrong, then I am guilty of insensitivity to holocaust victims and women faced with a tough choice. If I am right, then you are as guilty as the Germans who let the holocaust happen (if you are pro-choice). Here's to hoping I'm wrong, because I sure hope I am. I'd rather be the one who is guilty, because I could forgive myself for my possible sin. I don't think I could if it were your possible sin.
Edit: to include your.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
We all know a huge part of the issue is whether or not fetus = person/baby. We all know that we disagree on this point. Can we please stop addressing each other with the deliberate assumption that the other person shares our opinions on the subject?
quote:Originally posted by pH: Insults to the pro-choice aside, don't you think it's just a little insulting to people who were actually victims of the Holocaust or had family who were victims?
-pH
How is it insulting to one set of victims to talk about another set of victims? Is it insulting to victims to compare the Holocaust to the (greater in scope) purgings in the Soviet Union?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Oh, my Lord. Everyone, calm the heck down.
We all know a huge part of the issue is whether or not fetus = person/baby. We all know that we disagree on this point. Can we please stop addressing each other with the deliberate assumption that the other person shares our opinions on the subject?
-pH
Who are you addressing?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can we please stop addressing each other with the deliberate assumption that the other person shares our opinions on the subject?
As long as this is something done by both sides, sure.
But I don't think most of the posts mocking this idea were made with the understanding that the people supporting it - however reluctantly - are doing so because they think it might save human lives. Do you?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Why does a woman have to be bribed to give her baby a chance at life?" Please.
-pH
I said "a chance at"
surely you can grant me that the baby will in the vast majority of circumstances, have a life if it is not aborted?
edit: genuinely here, if you prefer, change "baby" to "fetus". It doesn't change my meaning or intent one whit.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry pH, I'm not sure what you meant by that post. The part about sharing opinions.
At any rate, if the argument really is fetus= person/not person, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution? All I need is a .00001 percent possibility of fetus=person to decide it's not worth the risk to be pro-choice, because look what the consequence is! Guilty of a human atrocity on a scope larger than any other in history! I'd like to be calm about it, but I feel guilty anyway because I'm not being as proactive as possible to keep abortions from happening. What if you were a German during WWII and believed that all those Jews might just be human beings? If you sat by and did nothing, would you be able to live with yourself?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'm not seeing what makes this a good idea, when there are so many other things that could be done that would be more effective (such as REAL sex-ed instead of abstinence-only). So I'm not really sure that these people are honestly trying to save human lives. I think if they were, they'd be going about it in an entirely different way.
I think that most of the people who've posted here to mock the idea think that it's at best a woefully ineffective strategy.
quote:Dag, I'm not seeing what makes this a good idea, when there are so many other things that could be done that would be more effective (such as REAL sex-ed instead of abstinence-only). So I'm not really sure that these people are honestly trying to save human lives. I think if they were, they'd be going about it in an entirely different way.
Only if they share the same conclusions you do about both the efficacy and the morality of those sex ed classes. I'm not particularly interested in discussing either issue at length, mainly because my views are certainly not in the majority on either side of this issue, but your quote only makes sense if you assume that the others hold the position you do about certain things.
And that was what you wanted to avoid, right?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to have any more to do with this thread so long as Resh continues with this Nazi fiasco. Resh, you do other pro-lifers a huge disservice.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think it's woefully inadequate too, pH. But I give them more credit than myself for at least actively trying to do something.
Kwea, you're the only one demonstrating anything here.
No, I just just the only one who is aware of how he looks.
Even the people who agree with your starting premise wish you didn't agree with them, because they don't want to be associated with you.
That alone should tell you something....if you are half as smart as you obviously think you are.
Too bad for all of us you aren't.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pro-choice, and although I'm unsure as to the line between inanimate fetus and person, I believe that both stages exist before birth, and that abortions may routinely kill babies. Without being able to communicate with an unborn child, I'll never know.
I just don't care if we kill unborn babies. Freedom for those whose identities as people I'm sure of is worth it, the same way many wars are worth it, the same way I'd rather see a hundred, even a thousand, even ten thousand anonymous people in another country die than see my mother, father or brother die.
quote:At any rate, if the argument really is fetus= person/not person, why wouldn't you err on the side of caution? All I need is a .00001 percent possibility of fetus=person to decide it's not worth the risk to be pro-choice, because look what the consequence is! Guilty of a human atrocity on a scope larger than any other in history!
No, I just don't value human life the way you seem to. Life is not sacred. There were undoubtedly many Germans in WWII that thought the Jews were human beings, and simply agreed with Hitler's reasoning that they needed to die anyway.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I think that most of the people who've posted here to mock the idea think that it's at best a woefully ineffective strategy.
-pH
Not that you were addressing me here, but I think that most of the people posting on the thread at all think it's, at best, a woefully ineffective strategy.
But some people here are walking around blithely demanding some sort of "put your money where your mouth is-- how much are you willing to pay for a fetus to be saved" and when I tried, by neutral example to show how ridiculous the question was I was dismissed and accused of dodging the question. When I attacked the situation head on, it made you angry for reasons that yet remain unclear to me because all you've done is confirm it's me who is ticking you off and roll your eyes at me.
Now, do you yet want to re-think about which side is being dismissive and insulting?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want to talk about "disservice" and "insulting," and Kwea wants to call people a moron. This is a way for you to ignore the reality of the situation. You blind yourself to something you recognize within yourself to be absolutely horrific, and perhaps you see the torturous existence we pro-lifers have, having to deal with the knowledge of what is happening. Because it is just that: torturous. You don't want that existence, and so you believe the lies instead. Can't hardly blame you, but I do.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's awful, Eros. There is a such thing as righteous killing. And there is also a such thing as being mistaken about what is righteous. You are betting on your judgment of righteousness over the lives of millions. If you wish to continue trying to justify that, you are more than welcome. But don't be surprised when one day you are under judgement for that decision.
[Edit] The lives of the children of people you know over that persons freedom to have as much sex as she wants without having to suffer any consequences? These are your values?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You want to talk about "disservice" and "insulting," and Kwea wants to call people a moron. This is a way for you to ignore the reality of the situation. You blind yourself to something you recognize within yourself to be absolutely horrific, and perhaps you see the torturous existence we pro-lifers have, having to deal with the knowledge of what is happening. Because it is just that: torturous. You don't want that existence, and so you believe the lies instead. Can't hardly blame you, but I do.
I think you are a moron not because of your arguiments, but because of your tone, your attitude, your self-rightious behavior, and your high-handed bullshit tone.
You are a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum...and this isn't a first time, is it?
You know nothing about my personal views on abortion, or my religious background. You have no personal knowledge of me at all, but that doesn't seem to stop you at all.
You are acting like a spoiled little child, and I am sick of it.
Who the F#@K do you think you are, telling be what I think, feel, and then telling me I delude myself...simply because I don't froth at the mouth like you do? You try to say everything "they" believe in is lies, and your "proof" is that they don't agree with you?
BULLSHIT.
And it is past time someone called you on it, because it happens almost every time you post.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's awful, Eros. There is a such thing as righteous killing. And there is also a such thing as being mistaken about what is righteous. You are betting on your judgment of righteousness over the lives of millions.
No, I'm one person. My voice and my opinion are not law.
quote:If you wish to continue trying to justify that, you are more than welcome. But don't be surprised when one day you are under judgement for that decision.
I don't need to justify myself to anyone but myself, and I fulfilled that a long, long time ago. But who's going to judge me? You? Or a deity I don't believe in?
Trust me, if I'm wrong about the afterlife, a nebulous belief in what's right and wrong will be the least of my sins, and I'm not worried about any of them.
quote:The lives of the children of people you know over that persons freedom to have as much sex as she wants without having to suffer any consequences? These are your values?
Because clearly, support of a woman's right to choose is support of a woman's right to have sex without having to suffer the consequences. By all means, continue shoving your words in my mouth.
By all means, continue to think of these children you're so hellbent on saving as "consequences" people must "suffer."
To add: I'm willing to condemn what are potentially human lives. You're willing to condemn the hundreds of millions of people who don't agree with you. Which of us is worse, I wonder?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I just don't care if we kill unborn babies. Freedom for those whose identities as people I'm sure of is worth it, the same way many wars are worth it, the same way I'd rather see a hundred, even a thousand, even ten thousand anonymous people in another country die than see my mother, father or brother die.
Speaking as someone who is at least two nieces or nephews short because of abortion I'm certainly glad that the pro-choice side has volunteered them to give up whatever lives they would have had (again, on the assumption that they weren't alive at the time, they almost certainly would have been eventually but for the abortion) in the name of freedom.
To quote Otto Lillienthal, "sacrifices must be made."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I just don't care if we kill unborn babies. Freedom for those whose identities as people I'm sure of is worth it, the same way many wars are worth it, the same way I'd rather see a hundred, even a thousand, even ten thousand anonymous people in another country die than see my mother, father or brother die.
Speaking as someone who is at least two nieces or nephews short because of abortion I'm certainly glad that the pro-choice side has volunteered them to give up whatever lives they would have had (again, on the assumption that they weren't alive at the time, they almost certainly would have been eventually but for the abortion) in the name of freedom.
To quote Otto Lillienthal, "sacrifices must be made."
The pro-choice side didn't volunteer them; your sibling(s) did.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a good point, Dagonee! Silly me for not thinking that through. Although implementing the program may cost a little bit, and women who were planning to give the child up for adoption anyway might apply for the money as well.
That's a good point. If most women who take the money would not have gotten an abortion anyway, then I wouldn't consider the program particularly effective at its stated goal of reducing abortions. However, I don't begrudge the mothers the money, anyway, so I don't see it as a problem.
Honestly, the thing I see this doing is possibly getting some women to do a little more research into options. It's not much. But it's something.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The pro-choice side didn't volunteer them; your sibling(s) did.
Absolutely true. Edit: except to expand the list of possibles to include my in-laws and extended family.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hell, I'm still not over the "Constitution requires government to allow people to kill babies." Maybe when I get over that I'll get around to being shocked by this.
I guess that's the primary disconnect, then. The fundamental moral approach you have to the issue means that your support of the program is a crusaderly* approach that does logically follow your own moral premises.
Since I'm working from an obviously more detached and perhaps contemptibly relativist position, I will doubtlessly not be able to see eye to eye on your analysis, and that's just the way it works.
I'm going to continue to steadfastly maintain that I think that its a sucky and stupid program that vigorously attacks the problem from a totally wrong angle!
posted
Research into options is always good. In my opinion, doctors should inform patients of all their options and point them to the resources they need.
quote:All I need is a .00001 percent possibility of fetus=person to decide it's not worth the risk to be pro-choice...
Reshpeckobiggle, I put human lives at risk all the time for my own convenience. It's called driving. Additionally, what about the people who argue that animals are people? Should I never eat steak because of the slight probability that the animal it came from was, in some sense, a person? I actually think you have a reasonable point, that if we don't know (or can't agree) that the fetus isn't human, it's better to protect it. I think there's more room for disagreement than you're allowing, though.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that most of the people who've posted here to mock the idea think that it's at best a woefully ineffective strategy.
While I certainly agree that there has been substantial criticism of this idea on the grounds that it would be ineffective, a quick perusal of the first page found me five rejections that definitely weren't grounded in that particular criticism.
*shrug* It was certainly there, but it wasn't the majority opinion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm going to continue to steadfastly maintain that I think that its a sucky and stupid program that vigorously attacks the problem from a totally wrong angle!
I don't disagree, and I think most of the pro-life side joins us there... the problem is that attacking this problem from the right angle gets you labeled as "not fighting fair" and "dodging the question of what you personally are doing to fix the problem."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: $500 is clearly targeting low-income women. If someone makes $50,000 a year, the extra $500 isn't going to make a significant dent financially to make it a deciding factor.
If a woman making $50,000 a year is aborting, she clearly isn't doing so for economic reasons. I'm not sure we could fix any reasons she might have, and I'm not sure anyone would want us so far in her business that we'd know how. But if women are aborting because they can't afford it, we can offer them more money.
It might not be perfect, it might not even be the most effective way to address it, but it certainly raises awareness. Upping per capita Medicaid payments would never do that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strengthening medicaid benefits and support networks certainly does, though. If the resources are available, women will be more inclined to see what the state can do for them, as opposed to .. say, immediately checking in with the nearest Planned Parenthood.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like some people are trying to rein it in now.
As long as the psychics stop telling us what we REALLY think /mean we should be fine for now, but it is not my call.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I was away from home when all the ruckus happened. I appreciate that folks appear to be more restrained in their posting now (hopefully that hasn't changed since I started typing). Please let it continue from all sides, or I'll resign myself to locking another thread, which I hate doing. Please help me not to make that choice.
A reminder for all (though many/most know it and act as such): just because you know a person's position on one subject doesn't mean you know how they arrived at the position or what postulates they accept regarding it, and it doesn't mean you necessarily know that person's opinion/position on anything else. And to go a bit further, just because you think you know a person's position doesn't mean you do.
And believing someone has crossed a line doesn't give one license to respond in kind.
We all know this to be one of the most heated topics we ever have at this site. This is mainly because (it seems to me) no matter which "side" one finds oneself on, most people agree that it's important. Because of that (in part, at least), I try to give as much leeway as possible to the thread and the discussion. But I think that for the same reason, it's all the more important to keep one's cool if one is to take part in the discussion at all.
posted
This is a completely impractical idea.... besides, it might convince desperate teenagers to get pregnant just to get some easy cash... definitely a BAD idea.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly, but it doesn't seem worth the pain and inconvenience. I mean, I've also heard the claim that people on welfare have more children to get more money, but I'm pretty skeptical of the idea.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Possibly, but it doesn't seem worth the pain and inconvenience. I mean, I've also heard the claim that people on welfare have more children to get more money, but I'm pretty skeptical of the idea.
That is very optimistic of you. A very serious current news incident has charges of doing exactly that: death of Rebecca Riley.
quote:Prosecutors will allege that Carolyn and Michael Riley poisoned their 4-year-old daughter because she was not providing them with sufficient money from government assistance programs, the mother's defense lawyer said yesterday.
It's a difficult subject to broach, and it contains a lot of very difficult things for both sides of the welfare debate to acknowledge, so very little is ever discussed about it outside of heated debates similar to this very abortion discussion (I use the term loosely). However, there are notable cases of this happening, and only the most monstrous of such cases ever become newsworthy.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read all 3 pages, so excuse me if someone has made my point. From my quick scan it looked like the conversation was fur afield of it.
Anyway, as a pro-choice person I have absolutely no problem with this. As a Libertarian I have a problem with the government giving other people's money away. Never the less, I think this idea is reasonable given all the other money we throw around so long as the woman in question gives her baby up for adoption. A woman who can't afford a baby still won't be able to afford one with a $500 check. And if it's not a matter of being able to afford a baby... well, a woman who loves a $500 check more than her child... I'd rather she give it to someone who will love it.
HOWEVER, What I think would be a better solution would be to streamline the adoption process. I know some of us here have looked into adoption and it's a major pain in the butt. If biological parents had to jump through this many hoops, the human race would have died in one generation. CPR classes? FBI investigations? Home inspections? Form after Form after Form? Crazy. And this is just from the adoptive parents side. Get rid of some of this and up the demand.
How about letting the adoptive parents give the biological mother money (beyond paying her medical bills) up to $5,000. This gets the government out of it and creates a market. I know it sounds terrible to create a market for children and I know there's a potential kidnapping (which is why the fee is limited to $5000) problem but I think this is more likely to reduce abortions and increase the supply of adoptions than a small government check.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: This is a completely impractical idea.... besides, it might convince desperate teenagers to get pregnant just to get some easy cash... definitely a BAD idea.
Yes, because only teenagers are that stupid, right?
Come on. I would hardly call carrying a baby for nine months and then giving birth "easy cash".
Posts: 55 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think you are a moron not because of your arguiments, but because of your tone, your attitude, your self-rightious behavior, and your high-handed bullshit tone.
You are a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum...and this isn't a first time, is it?
You know nothing about my personal views on abortion, or my religious background. You have no personal knowledge of me at all, but that doesn't seem to stop you at all.
You are acting like a spoiled little child, and I am sick of it.
Who the F#@K do you think you are, telling be what I think, feel, and then telling me I delude myself...simply because I don't froth at the mouth like you do? You try to say everything "they" believe in is lies, and your "proof" is that they don't agree with you?
BULLSHIT.
And it is past time someone called you on it, because it happens almost every time you post.
Who exactly is it that is a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum? You know as much about me as I know about you, but I'm not accosting you with abusive language and calling you a moron.
Shigosei, the difference with risking other peoples lives every time you get behind the wheel of a car is that you aren't intentionally trying to kill anyone when you do it. An abortionist is most certainly trying to kill something when he does what he does, and that something is quite possible a human being. This explains the vitriolic responses the we pro-lifers are so used to: You must dehumanize the babies and demonize or infantalize the detractors.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, doesn't that sort of thing already happen all the time with private lawyer-mediated adoptions?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not legally, rivka. There are expense reimbursements allowed, and sometimes that can include living expenses during pregnancy, but payments in excess of costs are forbidden.
I realize you didn't comment on whether it happened legally, and, of course, your absolutely right that it does happen. I'm not sure about "all the time," though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Who exactly is it that is a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum? You know as much about me as I know about you, but I'm not accosting you with abusive language and calling you a moron.
I know more about you, because of your attitude, ignorance, and your tendency to attack everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with your arguments.
Judging by my actions, all you should be able to tell is I object to your type of BS, and I don't like it when people try to tell others what they REALLY mean, or pretend they know what others think.
I am hardly the only one to think of you this way, but I suppose you will claim it is all a plot against you or something.
God knows it couldn't possibly be because you don't communicate your ideas well, and always manage to offend people who have the audacity to disagree with you. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
