Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[DDD Dad 14,654]

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.
People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 
I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

You might want to sit this one out, pard.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

The scariest part is half the population is dumber than our resident trolls.

[Goofyboy 3,434]

What humans are being killed at a high rate?

[safe sex 12,017]

33 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

 

It's astonishing how committed to the bit you are.

[hookemATL 12,292]

Jfc. Stick to the semen loads and begging for money on the internet.

[jimmyjazz 47,221]

51 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

% children living below the poverty level:  14.4%

% adults (18-64) living below the poverty level:  9.4%

% adults (65-older) living below the poverty level:  8.9%

 

I suppose this could be construed by seed and his buddies that 1/3 of those children eventually pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get out of poverty.  Yay.

Lesson:  Republicans don't give a flying fuck about children living in poverty.  They care about controlling women and dark people.  This includes every single one of our resident conservative trolls, including @workswithseed, @Johnny Sack, @immortal13 and the rest of them.  Fuck every single one of you, and Happy Fucking New Year, assholes.  Oh, wait.  Strike that.  I hope you meet with severe  misfortune so you can finally see just how fucked up your world view is.  Is that wrong?  I don't think that's wrong.

[immortal13 4,059]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

% children living below the poverty level:  14.4%

% adults (18-64) living below the poverty level:  9.4%

% adults (65-older) living below the poverty level:  8.9%

 

I suppose this could be construed by seed and his buddies that 1/3 of those children eventually pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get out of poverty.  Yay.

Lesson:  Republicans don't give a flying fuck about children living in poverty.  They care about controlling women and dark people.  This includes every single one of our resident conservative trolls, including @workswithseed, @Johnny Sack, @immortal13 and the rest of them.  Fuck every single one of you, and Happy Fucking New Year, assholes.  Oh, wait.  Strike that.  I hope you meet with severe  misfortune so you can finally see just how fucked up your world view is.  Is that wrong?  I don't think that's wrong.

I guess I'm living rent free in your tiny brain, as I haven't ever posted on this thread. You should get a hobby or something 

[jimmyjazz 47,221]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

I guess I'm living rent free in your tiny brain, as I haven't ever posted on this thread. You should get a hobby or something 

You're one of the most active trolls.  You deserve the mention.

[Sawbonz 28,229]

38 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I think you are for the most part arguing in good faith. And I agree that studies that look at these things show pro life people give a larger percentage of their income to charities including those who help poor mothers and their children, and are more likely to foster or adopt, especially disabled and minority children. But the truth is all of that private help is woefully inadequate to meet the need. So if you want to be intellectually consistent you must be for a strong government safety net. 
 

As far as whether lives are being taken, something like 90% of abortions are first trimester, with most of those in the first 12 weeks. You just cannot argue scientifically that a less than 20 week fetus is a human being. 23 week preemies require hundreds of thousands of dollars and weeks/months in the NICU just to make it home, and most have lifelong problems. Some countries don’t even consider preemies that early to be live births, and offer them only comfort measures for care. 
 

Abortions after the point of viability are exceedingly rare and are almost always due to fatal anomalies to the baby or significant risk to the mother to continue the pregnancy. But even if you believe an elective late term abortion ends a human life, and I do, you still have to consider the woman’s right to control her body vs the right of the baby. I would try to talk a loved one out of such a procedure, and I would never perform one. I think it would be reasonable to debate a ban on truly elective abortions past say 32 weeks but I really don’t think any are being done

I’m not even going to get into the public health ramifications of widespread back alley abortions that would result with a blanket restriction on abortions 

tl/dr if you want to reduce the number of abortions, vote for people who are for easy access to birth control, sec education in schools, and expanded social services for single parents and working class families

[hobbes2702 13,488]

We shouldn’t need charities to solve our societal problems.

[jimmyjazz 47,221]

13 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

We shouldn’t need charities to solve our societal problems.

Personally, I think the government should deal with unwanted pregnancies and child poverty, and charities should deal with purchasing fighter jets.

[ChiTownDoc 21,345]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

 

Man I’m gonna refrain from flipping you off bc zork RIP.  You may really be this naive.  Educate yourself.  

[workswithseed 2,204]

35 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Man I’m gonna refrain from flipping you off bc zork RIP.  You may really be this naive.  Educate yourself.  

Hey, I live in the hell-hole that is the PNW where I have to take vitamin D to keep from getting SAD (seasonal affective disorder). I don't think you or anyone else on here would be the reason I kill myself. I do appreciate the sentiment.

I'm trying to be as honest on this subject, without getting my elephant riled up. I could just lash out and call y'all murders, I just don't think that would be conducive. I really do think that there could be common ground with some stuff that @Sawbonz said (just noticed there's a sawbonz, and sawbones). I would be willing to say that a strong safety net would be good if abortion rates in general went down. The first trimester argument will persuade most people. I would say those who believe life starts at conception don't want to control women, but it would be getting closer to people who just think women are property, which are horrible.   

I'm not wanting to outright ban abortion, since I don't think it will work out, I only think changing hearts and minds the best way to have fewer abortions.

 

[safe sex 12,017]

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Hey, I live in the hell-hole that is the PNW where I have to take vitamin D to keep from getting SAD (seasonal affective disorder). I don't think you or anyone else on here would be the reason I kill myself. I do appreciate the sentiment.

I'm trying to be as honest on this subject, without getting my elephant riled up. I could just lash out and call y'all murders, I just don't think that would be conducive. I really do think that there could be common ground with some stuff that @Sawbonz said (just noticed there's a sawbonz, and sawbones). I would be willing to say that a strong safety net would be good if abortion rates in general went down. The first trimester argument will persuade most people. I would say those who believe life starts at conception don't want to control women, but it would be getting closer to people who just think women are property, which are horrible.   

I'm not wanting to outright ban abortion, since I don't think it will work out, I only think changing hearts and minds the best way to have fewer abortions.

 

And yet...you vote for Republicans.

[Sawbonz 28,229]

24 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I would be willing to say that a strong safety net would be good if abortion rates in general went down.

Guess which administrations have had the lowest abortion rates since RvW

[tchookem 3,975]

I'm not wanting to outright ban abortion, since I don't think it will work out, I only think changing hearts and minds the best way to have fewer abortions.
 

I sometimes forget how much younger you are than many of the posters on this board. I know that sounds condescending, but sometimes your posts come across as trolling and too often you're arguing alongside trolls.

The reason I mention that is because this quote makes me think you're genuine open to learning and discussion. It also reminds me that you're in a place that many of us reformed conservatives once were. The things we're trying to tell you is that we've learned (based on experience and shifting perspectives) that changing hearts and minds shouldn't be your goal. It just ain't in the cards. Instead you should focus on preventing abortions. It's already been mentioned ad nauseam, but it boils down to education and opportunity (ie - actual sex education and easier access to birth control)

Unfortunately, you're siding with (and more importantly voting for) people that consider outlawing abortions as the only way to prevent abortions.

[wildcat09 29,589]

8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Guess which administrations have had the lowest abortion rates since RvW

To be fair, that has less to do with which party is in the White House and more to do with who is running education at the state level. Of course, who is running education at the state level is generally pretty strongly correlated with which party is in the White House. 

[Captainant 28,561]

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I would say those who believe life starts at conception don't want to control women, but it would be getting closer to people who just think women are property, which are horrible.   

You're describing typical evangelical churchgoers here man. Those are the people who ardently and unshakably believe that life starts at conception. Haven't you seen all the purity culture shit that's been happening for decades?

[Brisketexan 106,919]

49 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're describing typical evangelical churchgoers here man. Those are the people who ardently and unshakably believe that life starts at conception. Haven't you seen all the purity culture shit that's been happening for decades?

It's not even that complicated.  You have elected leaders of the GQP calling women mere "earthen vessels," and how pregnancy after rape isn't a thing if it's "legitimate rape," because the female body "has ways of shutting things down."  All responsibility  - and burden - for sex, conception, pregnancy, and birth, falls on women.  Because that is what women are -- earthen vessels.  Receivers, not actors.  If you can't see that the modern "pro-life" movement is DEEPLY anti-woman, you aren't paying any attention.

I'll say it one more time, so the people in back can hear me: if your ACTUAL goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (that is, the starting point for most abortions), then you wouldn't just be okay with, you'd be CRUSADING for 1) comprehensive and realistic sex education, and 2) easy/free access to birth control for all.  It seems silly to have to say this, but reducing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely the most effective way to slash the number of abortions.

And again, we won't even get to the care and safety net for the kids born to unprepared/poor mothers.  Most of the modern "pro-life" movement opposes that as well.*

* I actually award some points here to the Catholics, at least in my experience/perspective.  I have seen firsthand Catholic communities 1) not judge young women in a crisis pregnancy, but instead, support her, and 2) work actively to support and help the mother and child going forward, whether that be by facilitating adoption, ensuring that the mother's education is not interrupted, etc.  At least on that front, the Catholic church (again, in my personal experience) hasn't been hypocritical.  

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

21 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

can you expound a bit on that for those of us who are dumb?

The problem with this statute is, "who do you sue"?  Normally, you sue the state for enacting and enforcing a statute by suing a or the state official charged with enforcing the statute. If it's criminal, then the local DA, etc. Legally, that official embodies the state.  When that person loses the lawsuit, they, and in turn the state that they embody, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Because the state is actually barred from enforcing it, potential plaintiffs are limited to individual officers, like judges, court clerks, etc. who aren't really charged with the enforcement of the statute, but play a major role when a private plaintiff sues someone for "abortioning."  Those officers, although they are state officials, do not embody the state in the same way that an official who actually enforces the statute does.

But, if a case hasn't been brought under the statute, there are questions about whether one can maintain a lawsuit against a state judge, or a clerk of court who is not currently, actively participating in such a suit.  There are also questions about whether all state judges and all district clerks can be permanently enjoined from participating in the enforcement of the statute.

So, the plaintiffs here have been trying to play "pin the tail on the donkey" to find the right party to sue and have enjoined from participating in the enforcement of SB 8.  And the Supreme Court and 5th Circuit seem to be narrowing that pool of possible people to sue down to nothing.  It is a tricky question, legally, but as Roberts, the dissenters, and commentators have opined, this statute needs to be enjoined, period, without paying attention to the niceties of who can properly be sued.  If nothing else, the attempt to evade judicial review should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers and federal supremacy.

So, what might happen is that in each individual case, until Roe is overruled, the statute as applied to the "abortioner" will be held unconstitutional, but the case still gets to be filed, and the defendant still has to make the motion to dismiss, and there may be no statewide injunction against the enforcement of SB 8.

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

14 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

We shouldn’t need charities to solve our societal problems.

This is an interesting thought.

Let me abstract it a layer.  Do we need charitY to solve our societal problems?  Or, to use another word, some form of individual and societal altruism?

I'm going to guess that your answer to that question is yes.

And, I assume that you might admit that the ability of individual altruism to solve societal problems is limited, in reach if nothing else.

So then that individual altruism must be harnessed into some sort of collective effort if it is to have the wide-ranging effect that is desired.

Is government the only acceptable way to harness that individual altruism into collective action necessary to solve national/societal problems?

Edited December 29, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[hobbes2702 13,488]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is an interesting thought.

Let me abstract it a layer.  Do we need charitY to solve our societal problems?  Or, to use another word, some form of individual and societal altruism?

I'm going to guess that your answer to that question is yes.

And, I assume that you might admit that the ability of individual altruism to solve societal problems is limited, in reach if nothing else.

So then that individual altruism must be harnessed into some sort of collective effort if it is to have the wide-ranging effect that is desired.

Is government the only acceptable way to harness that individual altruism into collective action necessary to solve national/societal problems?

No the government is not the only way. But we only need charities to fix our problems because our government  spends its money on 500 million dollar fighter jets instead of investing money in our citizens 

[lemonlime 5,503]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

No the government is not the only way. But we only need charities to fix our problems because our government  spends its money on 500 million dollar fighter jets instead of investing money in our citizens 

This.  We have a fucked up view of "national security," focussing solely on military might, and ignoring things like disease, lack of access to healthcare including prenatal care, and climate change, all of which have killed far more Americans over the last decade than foreign governments or foreign born terrorism.

[wildcat09 29,589]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with this statute is, "who do you sue"?  Normally, you sue the state for enacting and enforcing a statute by suing a or the state official charged with enforcing the statute. If it's criminal, then the local DA, etc. Legally, that official embodies the state.  When that person loses the lawsuit, they, and in turn the state that they embody, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Because the state is actually barred from enforcing it, potential plaintiffs are limited to individual officers, like judges, court clerks, etc. who aren't really charged with the enforcement of the statute, but play a major role when a private plaintiff sues someone for "abortioning."  Those officers, although they are state officials, do not embody the state in the same way that an official who actually enforces the statute does.

But, if a case hasn't been brought under the statute, there are questions about whether one can maintain a lawsuit against a state judge, or a clerk of court who is not currently, actively participating in such a suit.  There are also questions about whether all state judges and all district clerks can be permanently enjoined from participating in the enforcement of the statute.

So, the plaintiffs here have been trying to play "pin the tail on the donkey" to find the right party to sue and have enjoined from participating in the enforcement of SB 8.  And the Supreme Court and 5th Circuit seem to be narrowing that pool of possible people to sue down to nothing.  It is a tricky question, legally, but as Roberts, the dissenters, and commentators have opined, this statute needs to be enjoined, period, without paying attention to the niceties of who can properly be sued.  If nothing else, the attempt to evade judicial review should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers and federal supremacy.

So, what might happen is that in each individual case, until Roe is overruled, the statute as applied to the "abortioner" will be held unconstitutional, but the case still gets to be filed, and the defendant still has to make the motion to dismiss, and there may be no statewide injunction against the enforcement of SB 8.

 

Yet we've got Shelley v. Kraemer on the books.

[hpslugga 4,097]

11 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I could just lash out and call y'all murders,

 

Alright. Let's say you did that:

By what logic/authority would you have any business using that label?

[Biff Tannen 46,169]

18 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Alright. Let's say you did that:

By what logic/authority would you have any business using that label?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,307]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It's not even that complicated.  You have elected leaders of the GQP calling women mere "earthen vessels," and how pregnancy after rape isn't a thing if it's "legitimate rape," because the female body "has ways of shutting things down."  All responsibility  - and burden - for sex, conception, pregnancy, and birth, falls on women.  Because that is what women are -- earthen vessels.  Receivers, not actors.  If you can't see that the modern "pro-life" movement is DEEPLY anti-woman, you aren't paying any attention.

I'll say it one more time, so the people in back can hear me: if your ACTUAL goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (that is, the starting point for most abortions), then you wouldn't just be okay with, you'd be CRUSADING for 1) comprehensive and realistic sex education, and 2) easy/free access to birth control for all.  It seems silly to have to say this, but reducing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely the most effective way to slash the number of abortions.

And again, we won't even get to the care and safety net for the kids born to unprepared/poor mothers.  Most of the modern "pro-life" movement opposes that as well.*

* I actually award some points here to the Catholics, at least in my experience/perspective.  I have seen firsthand Catholic communities 1) not judge young women in a crisis pregnancy, but instead, support her, and 2) work actively to support and help the mother and child going forward, whether that be by facilitating adoption, ensuring that the mother's education is not interrupted, etc.  At least on that front, the Catholic church (again, in my personal experience) hasn't been hypocritical.  

This right here.  And 1) and 2) go a long way to helping with unwanted pregnancies.  But here is the rub, no birth control is 100% effective.  Accidents happen.  Ergo, women will still always need the right to choose in order to be fully in control over their reproduction.  

[jimmyjazz 47,221]

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

But here is the rub, no birth control is 100% effective.  Accidents happen.  Ergo, women will still always need the right to choose in order to be fully in control over their reproduction.  

Ha ha, you had the choice not to have sex, you made your choice, vessel!!!  It's baby time!!!

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,307]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ha ha, you had the choice not to have sex, you made your choice, vessel!!!  It's baby time!!!

Alright, Madison.

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

3 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

No the government is not the only way. But we only need charities to fix our problems because our government  spends its money on 500 million dollar fighter jets instead of investing money in our citizens 

 

3 hours ago, lemonlime said:

This.  We have a fucked up view of "national security," focussing solely on military might, and ignoring things like disease, lack of access to healthcare including prenatal care, and climate change, all of which have killed far more Americans over the last decade than foreign governments or foreign born terrorism.

I don't disagree about misplaced piorities, at all. 

But I think we do need charity and charities to help address certain problems in our society and to supplement the efforts of government.

And, I do think that delegating or abdicating altruism and charity to the government probably overall lowers it across society.

[hobbes2702 13,488]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

 

I don't disagree about misplaced piorities, at all. 

But I think we do need charity and charities to help address certain problems in our society and to supplement the efforts of government.

And, I do think that delegating or abdicating altruism and charity to the government probably overall lowers it across society.

Maybe I should rephrase. My point isn’t that charities are bad or anything. They are great and I hope everyone donates everything they can to the charities they support. I just mean that we pretend charities should solve these problems for us when we all know they aren’t capable. Charities should supplement the support the government provides its citizens not the other way around.

[Mole 4,343]

18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

 

tl/dr if you want to reduce the number of abortions, vote for people who are for easy access to birth control, sec education in schools, and expanded social services for single parents and working class families

SEC! SEC! SEC!

Edited December 29, 2021 by Mole

[Willfully Horn 8,266]

My mother used to be on a board for a pregnant women’s shelter in Dallas. One day she mentioned that the women in the shelter were required to attend daily Bible class. She insisted the shelter was a charity, and did not like any statement to the contrary. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe a daily responsibility that requires your presence and attention in order to receive something of value isn’t more a job than it is charity. What do y’all think?
 

Still, a single data point, sure.

[elfenix 34,753]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

My mother used to be on a board for a pregnant women’s shelter in Dallas. One day she mentioned that the women in the shelter were required to attend daily Bible class. She insisted the shelter was a charity, and did not like any statement to the contrary. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe a daily responsibility that requires your presence and attention in order to receive something of value isn’t more a job than it is charity. What do y’all think?
 

Still, a single data point, sure.

at least they've improved a bit from forcing starving irish to convert on the spot in order to get a ration of soup

Edited December 29, 2021 by elfenix

[capnamerca 585]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I do think that delegating or abdicating altruism and charity to the government probably overall lowers it across society.

Capitalism takes care of lowering the amount of altruism across society. All government does is help ensure access to said altruism isn't reserved for the rich.

[Anastasis 23,722]

If the government took over the abortion industry there would be fewer abortions and greater abortion related expenditures. 
 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,106]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with this statute is, "who do you sue"?  Normally, you sue the state for enacting and enforcing a statute by suing a or the state official charged with enforcing the statute. If it's criminal, then the local DA, etc. Legally, that official embodies the state.  When that person loses the lawsuit, they, and in turn the state that they embody, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the unconstitutional statute.

Because the state is actually barred from enforcing it, potential plaintiffs are limited to individual officers, like judges, court clerks, etc. who aren't really charged with the enforcement of the statute, but play a major role when a private plaintiff sues someone for "abortioning."  Those officers, although they are state officials, do not embody the state in the same way that an official who actually enforces the statute does.

But, if a case hasn't been brought under the statute, there are questions about whether one can maintain a lawsuit against a state judge, or a clerk of court who is not currently, actively participating in such a suit.  There are also questions about whether all state judges and all district clerks can be permanently enjoined from participating in the enforcement of the statute.

So, the plaintiffs here have been trying to play "pin the tail on the donkey" to find the right party to sue and have enjoined from participating in the enforcement of SB 8.  And the Supreme Court and 5th Circuit seem to be narrowing that pool of possible people to sue down to nothing.  It is a tricky question, legally, but as Roberts, the dissenters, and commentators have opined, this statute needs to be enjoined, period, without paying attention to the niceties of who can properly be sued.  If nothing else, the attempt to evade judicial review should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers and federal supremacy.

So, what might happen is that in each individual case, until Roe is overruled, the statute as applied to the "abortioner" will be held unconstitutional, but the case still gets to be filed, and the defendant still has to make the motion to dismiss, and there may be no statewide injunction against the enforcement of SB 8.

 

I understood most of those words. thanks.

[Brisketexan 106,919]

37 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If the government took over the abortion industry there would be fewer abortions and greater abortion related expenditures. 
 

 

.....and Republicans would find a way to funnel most of those expenditures into the pockets of their cronies (while simultaneously spouting some rationale for why abortion now ain't so bad).  Don't forget that part.  It's an important part.  "Profit" is the only moral value that they won't ever compromise.

Kill a shitload of people with bombs made and sold by your buddy's company?  Morally good.

Kill a bunch of fetuses, but your buddy and you can't profit from it?  Morally bad.

Find a way to make abortion wildly profitable for private industry, and you'll suddenly have all the Republican support you need to keep it legal.

[lemonlime 5,503]

FFS, and I have Ana on ignore, so only seeing him quoted. There is no such thing as the  "abortion industry."  There's women's health care, of which abortion is one component.

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

1 hour ago, capnamerca said:

Capitalism takes care of lowering the amount of altruism across society. All government does is help ensure access to said altruism isn't reserved for the rich.

I don't actually believe that to be true.

It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.

"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actually altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced by altruism.

Edited December 30, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[capnamerca 585]

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't actually believe that to be true.

It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.

"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actually altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced by altruism.

You know why we have child labor laws? You know why we have 40-hour/5-day work weeks? Social security? Retirement accounts with favorable tax options? State colleges?  Capitalism doesn't care about the poor, the sick, the elderly, the dying. The government had to step in so that our economy didn't treat actual, living human beings like fodder. Maybe we don't call it capitalism - it's probably more accurately called "human nature." A person or a group of people are perfectly fine and nice. PEOPLE are assholes, and power congregates as does wealth. There MUST be a social construct with governing power to protect rights.

This isn't up for debate. Look at human rights in any theocracy or dictatorship. They don't exist for any outside of the halls of money and power. Fuck, they barely exist HERE and we're the best the human race has ever invented in trying to prevent that sort of nonsense.

FOH with your "enforced altruism" label. I willingly choose for my tax dollars to go to the less fortunate, and I want those tax dollars aggregated and then applied where they can do the most good. I ALSO give locally in my community and to chosen causes, but I can't impact how a low-income neighborhood gets access to fresh running water or sewage service, or how electricity is routed, or prevent housing permits from being redlined, without a LARGE aggregation of power and money working towards these goals, driven by my elected officials.

That last sentence, btw, is NOT me saying it's perfect. It's simply pointing out that "tithe 10% to your church" doesn't do SHIT for underserved communities in this country. NOr, to keep this on topic, does it help prevent abortion.

[jimmyjazz 47,221]

All I know is I collected several tens of dollars for UNICEF every year throughout my youth, and saved thousands of lives in doing so.

Right?

No?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I don't actually believe that to be true.
It's something else.  Lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality.  Not capitalism per se.
"Enforced altruism" through government taxing and spending is not actually altruism at all.  Although the policy that brought it on might be influenced by altruism.

The widespread systemic lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality can all be traced back to capitalism as a root cause.

[wildcat09 29,589]

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

The widespread systemic lack of community, lack of conscience, lack of morality can all be traced back to capitalism as a root cause.

 

Yup. Capitalism destroys any notion of community and reduces everyone to cogs in the machine, which must be kept running at any cost.

[Sawbonz 28,229]

^^^ there is so much wrong w this post I don’t know where to start. You’re equating capitalism with dictatorships and theocracies? Wtf?

 

edit meant to quote captain America but applies to many other posts. I think y’all mean unfettered capitalism. Carry on

Edited December 30, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Anastasis 23,722]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Kill a shitload of people with bombs made and sold by your buddy's company?  Morally good.

#bothsides. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,106]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

^^^ there is so much wrong w this post I don’t know where to start. You’re equating capitalism with dictatorships and theocracies? Wtf?

which part of his statement do you take exception with? it perfectly describes modern day capitalism. the reason it's not more on the nose is that there is the faintest hint of *gasp* socialism in this country

[Sawbonz 28,229]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

which part of his statement do you take exception with? it perfectly describes modern day capitalism. the reason it's not more on the nose is that there is the faintest hint of *gasp* socialism in this country

capitalism is why our concept of poverty puts our poor in the top decile of the world in terms of income and resources 

 

**excluding the mentally ill and substance dependent, and their children

[Anastasis 23,722]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

.....and Republicans would find a way to funnel most of those expenditures into the pockets of their cronies (while simultaneously spouting some rationale for why abortion now ain't so bad).  Don't forget that part.  It's an important part.  "Profit" is the only moral value that they won't ever compromise.

Kill a shitload of people with bombs made and sold by your buddy's company?  Morally good.

Kill a bunch of fetuses, but your buddy and you can't profit from it?  Morally bad.

Find a way to make abortion wildly profitable for private industry, and you'll suddenly have all the Republican support you need to keep it legal.

That was mostly a quip about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government programs when compared to private charities, but if it made you feel better to get that off your chest, I am happy for you. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,106]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

capitalism is why our concept of poverty puts our poor in the top decile of the world in terms of income and resources 

 

**excluding the mentally ill and substance dependent, and their children

serious question: have you ever left the US?