Abortion (again)

[Rhea]

As far as “free” is concerned, it only matters if the person “says” they care about reducing abortions. They want to spend money regulating abortions, spend money incarcerating doctors and women who use them, then they complain about a CHEAPER solution that actually reduces abortions?

Doesn’t that make them hypocrites and liars? Because they don’t actually care about the reduction in abortions OR the cost savings. They just want to make sex as risky as possible for women so they can control whether it’s happening.

 

[fast]

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying in that post.

That things are not as clear cut as suggested.

Your clarification and example helps. Thank you. The problem I see reminds me of the slight of hand people use to claim racism when there's genuinely no racist motives but merely racial disparities. Don't tell me what it is I must want simply because my actions result in a certain way.

Sure, I want people to drive and be safe doing so, but no, I'm not going to demand that whites singlehandedly foot 88% of the bill for blacks to have a seatbelt. Yes, the results are consequentially less optimal than if I would, but that's not to say that what I want is less optimal results.

Also, there is another tactic layered in your wording that bothers me. If I give you something, I'm the giver. If I give, give, give, I'm the giver. Don't accuse me of being a taker just because I stopped giving, even if it's linguistically sound to twist it such that it rings true to say I've taken away your allowance. We see it all the time how the givers that give less are somehow vilified when it negatively impacts others. Sex carries inherent risks. We could help decrease risks for others, but saying that not helping increases risks rings as true as calling me a taker.

These nuanced differences might come across as pedantic, but there are fundamental differences behind the driving forces of our real life decisions. Confusing not helping with harming is bad enough, but to further imbue motive is especially egregious. You cannot be correct in all cases about what it is people want; for one, we're not always going to do everything possible to get what we want, especially when there are competing wants. Sacrifices are made.

Now, if the black woman isn't helped by our refusing to subsidize her desire for safer sex with the white mans wallet, the result is not the cause of her predicament.

Incidentally, what's the name of that logical fallacy I'm thinking of? I don't think it's the fallacy of accentuation. It's the one where the woman goes into the store demanding to speak with the manager and says she wants to speak with whoever is in charge --and the manager is in charge. Come to find out, what she said is not actually true because unbeknownst to her, her exhusband is now the manager--and she definitely doesn't want to talk to him.

 

[Rhea]

If no one, especially you, is trying to ban abortions, then you don’t need to pay anything. This is equation is _if_ you claim to be against abortions, and if you simultaneously act in a way that increases them, THEN you are not actually against abortions, you have some other, higher priority goal. (Which, by the way, costs you a shitload more in public care for unplanned children. Contraception cheaper than abortions. Abortions cheaper than poor/unplanned children. Elementary math)

I have no idea why you are talking about black women.

 

[fast]

If no one, especially you, is trying to ban abortions, then you don’t need to pay anything. This is equation is _if_ you claim to be against abortions, and if you simultaneously act in a way that increases them, THEN you are not actually against abortions, you have some other, higher priority goal. (Which, by the way, costs you a shitload more in public care for unplanned children. Contraception cheaper than abortions. Abortions cheaper than poor/unplanned children. Elementary math)

I have no idea why you are talking about black women.

This mimics the idea that if one acts contrary to how one claims to believe, then one doesnt actually believe what one claims to. Is that where you're at with this?

 

[Copernicus]

If no one, especially you, is trying to ban abortions, then you don’t need to pay anything. This is equation is _if_ you claim to be against abortions, and if you simultaneously act in a way that increases them, THEN you are not actually against abortions, you have some other, higher priority goal. (Which, by the way, costs you a shitload more in public care for unplanned children. Contraception cheaper than abortions. Abortions cheaper than poor/unplanned children. Elementary math)

I have no idea why you are talking about black women.

This mimics the idea that if one acts contrary to how one claims to believe, then one doesnt actually believe what one claims to. Is that where you're at with this?

Like Rhea, I could not make sense out of your statement:

Now, if the black woman isn't helped by our refusing to subsidize her desire for safer sex with the white mans wallet, the result is not the cause of her predicament.

How are the racial references relative to the discussion about abortion?

 

[fast]

Like Rhea, I could not make sense out of your statement:

Now, if the black woman isn't helped by our refusing to subsidize her desire for safer sex with the white mans wallet, the result is not the cause of her predicament.

How are the racial references relative to the discussion about abortion?

I think the explanation would be more distracting than what was said. After my previous post, I began having reservations about having said anything at all; I hadn't recognized the ole saying for what it was. I still think it's deductively unsound but has some inductive merit.

I wish I had a concise way of explaining why "not decreasing risk" is not "increasing risk."

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oh, if only people would keep abortion and contraception as separate issues.
But the words have become synonymous.

I think they are synonymous. They solve the same problem. And condoms also protect against AIDS. I think the Catholic church's stance on condoms is so immoral its evil. I think it's a shame there is no hell, because I would have aproved the justice of knowing the last popes will burn in it, for all the suffering they have caused.

That policy and the child rapes makes the Catholic church tainted for all eternity.

 

[Rhea]

This mimics the idea that if one acts contrary to how one claims to believe, then one doesnt actually believe what one claims to. Is that where you're at with this?

IF one is acting contrary to how one claims to believe,
THEN one is not furthering the cause of one’s beliefs by one’s actions.
IF one is not concerned with that,
THEN perhaps one needs to examine whether their beliefs include something they have not yet articulated, but are clearly acting to promote.

Outsiders can often see clearly what one is actually achieving because they are not blinded by one’s self-delusion.
Sometimes - it can help to have an outsider clarify: This is what you say you want, and this is what you are acheiving. Do you know there is actually a way to achieve what you say you want?

Then we watch to see if you care.

Obviously this doesn’t work for those under the influence of addiction. We are assuming the two parties are rational. Some may claim that anti-abortionists are not rational and are driven by addiction to outrage and self-righteousness. There is some evidentiary support for this claim.

 

[fast]

This mimics the idea that if one acts contrary to how one claims to believe, then one doesnt actually believe what one claims to. Is that where you're at with this?

IF one is acting contrary to how one claims to believe,
THEN one is not furthering the cause of one’s beliefs by one’s actions.
IF one is not concerned with that,
THEN perhaps one needs to examine whether their beliefs include something they have not yet articulated, but are clearly acting to promote.

Outsiders can often see clearly what one is actually achieving because they are not blinded by one’s self-delusion.
Sometimes - it can help to have an outsider clarify: This is what you say you want, and this is what you are acheiving. Do you know there is actually a way to achieve what you say you want?

Then we watch to see if you care.

Obviously this doesn’t work for those under the influence of addiction. We are assuming the two parties are rational. Some may claim that anti-abortionists are not rational and are driven by addiction to outrage and self-righteousness. There is some evidentiary support for this claim.

Got it. Sounds reasonable.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was also confused by your post, fast. I still am. I also am wondering what race has to do with any of this. And, btw, the majority of my former public health patients were white, when I was working in the small health department in rural SC. Race shouldn't have a thing to do with any of this. This is about women being able to access both birth control and abortions. And yes, the two are related. They both concern reproductive choices.

Off topic, but why do so many people, primarily conservatives, get their panties in a wad when the poor get a little help from the government, but are perfectly fine with welfare for the wealthy, especially when it comes to tax deductions that they receive?

If abortions for poor women were federally subsidized, there would be less need for other forms of government assistance. I'm not suggesting that abortions should ever be encouraged, but for those who feel they need this service, it's more cost effective than forcing all poor women to continue unwanted or high risk pregnancies in the long run. Shouldn't conservatives be more conservative in how public funds are spent?

I've said this before but I'll say it again. Women have always had abortions, especially before we had many effective means of birth control. It's just that they used to be illegal so they were performed in unsafe conditions. Back in the early 20th Century, women stood in line for cheap abortions which were done by non medical people, often in unsanitary conditions. Is that what people want?

 

[fast]

I was also confused by your post, fast. I still am. I also am wondering what race has to do with any of this. And, btw, the majority of my former public health patients were white, when I was working in the small health department in rural SC. Race shouldn't have a thing to do with any of this. This is about women being able to access both birth control and abortions. And yes, the two are related. They both concern reproductive choices.

My first thought about race did not come until I read your post. It was your unusually high number of times you used the term "poor" coupled with some recent comments elsewhere on this forum equating race with being poor. As to your comment, "the majority of my former public health patients were white," recall this from your prior post: "All of my maternity patients were poor, but not quite poor enough for Medicaid, which was why the clinic was started."

It's difficult to add and subtract when no numbers are given, so I left it up to Bob (and all of his dissociative prowess) to replace unknown facts with speculative fantasy.

 

[Rhea]

Women have always had abortions, especially before we had many effective means of birth control. It's just that they used to be illegal so they were performed in unsafe conditions. Back in the early 20th Century, women stood in line for cheap abortions which were done by non medical people, often in unsanitary conditions. Is that what people want?

Yes because it punishes women via risk of death for being unwilling to be punished for having sex via motherhood.

 

[Kharakov]

I wish my parents were willing to get abortions, but the whole "psychologically abuse your child so they will work for corrupt assholes who guarantee wealth to those who abuse children to create wage slaves" thing was a little too much for them to pass up.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Oh, if only people would keep abortion and contraception as separate issues.

Separate things, same issue though.

But the words have become synonymous.

Not in my world.

Amusingly enough, it's the anti-choice people who have created this monster. You got a problem with it, Lion, take it up with 'your' side.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was also confused by your post, fast. I still am. I also am wondering what race has to do with any of this. And, btw, the majority of my former public health patients were white, when I was working in the small health department in rural SC. Race shouldn't have a thing to do with any of this. This is about women being able to access both birth control and abortions. And yes, the two are related. They both concern reproductive choices.

My first thought about race did not come until I read your post. It was your unusually high number of times you used the term "poor" coupled with some recent comments elsewhere on this forum equating race with being poor. As to your comment, "the majority of my former public health patients were white," recall this from your prior post: "All of my maternity patients were poor, but not quite poor enough for Medicaid, which was why the clinic was started."

It's difficult to add and subtract when no numbers are given, so I left it up to Bob (and all of his dissociative prowess) to replace unknown facts with speculative fantasy.

I don't remember ever equating race with being poor, so to clarify, let me just say that I never equate being poor with race. I've known many poor people of different races and/or cultural backgrounds. But, since that has nothing to do with this thread, I'll leave it at that.