Left lose their mind celebrating Abortion

"One of the pillars of the anti-choice movement is that they do not want tax dollars to pay for abortions. But how much tax money covers abortions each year in real life? I hate to break it to you, fam, but no federal tax dollars have been spent on abortions since 1977, when the Hyde Amendment was passed just five years after the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade. So the government has essentially pretty much never paid for abortions. Tax money paying for abortions is simply not a thing, it's an anti-choice myth."



How Much Tax Money Covers Abortions Each Year? You Might Be Surprised

This Is How Much Taxpayer Money Goes To Abortions

 

Alright man, you got me. Didn't realize your main intention was to be dismissive while I try to participate.

 

Okay here is a question. This may be entirely ridiculous. I understand it's inflammatory but for the sake of argument lets hear it out. The stretch in it is comparable to believing we could house, feed, properly take care of these children to give them a fighting chance in my opinion.

If you only had two choices and you would be the deciding vote between:

Abortions happening to one million babies

OR

Allowing the one million babies to live for two years after which they would be violently drowned

Which would get your vote?

Right after you think long and hard about it weighing all the pros and cons and consult the masses, then the actual mothers step in and make their decision.

See, it doesn't matter in this set up what happens to those babies but I hope it illustrates that if they want to the women who actually carry the babies should be able to not have the baby. Full stop. For whatever their reasons may be.

If that is their choice most would want it to be a medically sound procedure in that it wouldn't cause additional loss of life or harm.

For the sake of argument, I am coming from the perspective that it's okay for them to be murdered and I can call it murder just fine. So I do not need to debate when it becomes life or is a mass of cells for this scenario.

 

My first rebuttal was the medical necessity, I have since mentioned the lack of ability to care for the orphaned children on large and also how legislating for broad banning of not just abortions but the other services for women specifically causes a drastic lack of information and awareness of everything having to do with children, mothers and pregnancies in the people who should be making the informed decision to begin with.

 

It’s gotra be like 0% before 15 weeks or some number of weeks. The point being that there is some point where a fetus becomes a self sustaining organism. I think it’s hard to argue before that that it’s a living creature by the strict biological definition.

 

20 weeks is 5 months give or take. Some states do 25 weeks which is why I said 4-6 months to cover the range most states use. At one point you indicated that the fetus can feel pain and that makes it immoral to abort. My point was that before they develop central nervous systems they wouldn’t feel anything. Not saying that makes it moral to abort, that’s still an open question but before they develop these systems they wouldn’t feel or perceive pain in the slightest. So you can argue abortion before that 20 week period is immoral but not for causing pain to the fetus as they can’t feel anything.

Meant to type abortion don’t know how that shit came up lol, my bad. I’m saying the children that would be born if they were not aborted. We’ve established that before a certain point in time a fetus is not a living being as they could not possibly self sustain nor do we have the medical equipment to even sustain them such as in your life support example. You are saying that ending those fetus’s is ending life but I take a problem with that. To me a living thing is something which has the ability to live on their own biologically which fetus’s before a certain point don’t have the ability to do (we can debate that number but ultimately at some point this is true). To me your description feels like a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day a conscious being never existed whether it was aborted at 6 weeks or never consemated. Correct me if I’m wrong but the reason ethically you take issue with it is that you consider even a 4 or 6 week fetus to be a living thing. Additionally you believe that depriving a fetus the chance of living is immoral. I don’t see how that justification taken to its logical extreme wouldn’t also find not choosing to have a kid as problematic. Why is that once a child is conceived and a fetus is being developed it is owed the right to existence?

 

Yes absolutely.

The survival rate drops precipitously before 19 weeks.

"Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished."

 

Birth control/IUD’s are not 100 percent effective. Most common forms are 97-99% effective. So let’s do some basic math here. We got 320 odd million people. 1/5th is under 18 and about 60 percent are sexual active. That means approximately 150 million people are sexually active. Let’s assume half are woman and can have children. That’s 75 million women having sex in US every year. If BC’s 97 percent effective that 2.25 million unwanted pregnancies yearly. If it’s 99 percent effective there is still 750,000 unwanted pregnancies yearly. On top of that this is perfect usage and often times people forget to take their pill or do not take at the exact same time everyday. This decreases the typical usage effectiveness (how effective it actually is for most consumers) to 92 percent according to one source I could find. I could find more sources if these are not sufficient for you. If it’s 92 percent effective that’s 6 million unwanted pregnancies yearly. BC and condoms are not perfect by any means and have a higher failure rate than most people realize. So even if used perfectly you’re talking about anywhere from 750,000 to 2.25 million unwanted pregnancies and the efficacy rate we actually see in average consumers would mean closer to 5-6 million yearly unwanted pregnancies with an oral contraceptive (most popular form of bc). The notion that you are simply irresponsible if you get an unwanted pregnancy is not based in the actual data. It’s a lot easier even if you’re responsible to get an unwanted pregnancy than one might think. Lastly, the notion we should just not have sex is preposterous. Sex is integral to human and animal existence. It’s been shown time and time again to be extremely psychologically beneficial because it’s an evolutionary impulse.

Edit: forgot to disclude those over 40 who are unlikely to get pregnant. About 33 percent of population is over 40 so cut about a third of my estimates to see unwanted pregnancies occuring even if BC is responsibly used. Point still stands that even with BC there is a shitload of unwanted pregnancies.

https://www.cyclebeads.com/blog/673/birth-control-effectiveness_how-risky-is-your-birth-control
Source isn’t the best so I could find better sources if you’re interested

 

Come on man this quote is clearly taken out of context.

http://time.com

Much of the controversy stems from a 1939 letter in which Sanger outlined her plan to reach out to black leaders — specifically ministers — to help dispel community suspicions about the family planning clinics she was opening in the South.

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” she wrote. It was, as the Washington Post called it, an “inartfully written” sentence, but one that, in context, describes the sort of preposterous allegations she feared — not her actual mission. The irony is that it has been used to propagate those very allegations. Cruz’s letter to the director of the National Portrait Gallery, for example, quotes only the first half of the sentence.

It was clear she had a lot of racist and euginicisf views (like most people at the time) but the notion she wanted to exterminate the black race is historical revisionism. At the end of the day the leaders of a movement don’t invalidate the overall movement because of their checkered past. By your logic we shouldn’t consider the constitution a valid historical document with good ideas because the people who constructed it in most cases were virulently racist and constructed a system which permitted the viciois treatment and owning of human beings. You can agree with Margaret Sanger’s mission to provide abortion and not agree with her racism or weird eugenic views. Additionally the mission of organizations change over time. Even if it originally was to exterminate the black race (which there is no historical evidence to back) it is clearly an organization dedicated to providing birth control and abortions these days and not to kill one race.

 

You realize that funding payment to planned parenthood is people using government sponsored care to pay for services rendered right. So if a woman say goes for an ultrasound or BC or STI testing and is on Medicare or Tittle X the government will pay PP for their services rendered. The government doesn’t fund pp that’s a silly talking point. They pay for PP for services such as Medicare payments to normal doctors. These woman go to PP because it’s the best option for them and the government cutting PP funding would simply be the government restricting woman the autonomy to choose where they want to receive care for purely punitive reasons. The only federal funds which can be used for abortions are Medicaid under rare cases of medical emergencies. This is the law and if PP was violating one of 30 GOP state attorney generals would have successfully already charged them with breaking this law. They’ve been gunning for PP for almost two decades now and consistently they find they’re respecting the law.

 

Thanks for this, I was about to research a bit about it myself.

 

Just giving the babies to someone who wants them is too simplistic of an idea to ever work, as many others have outlined better than I could.

We are also fully glossing over the toll it takes on the mother who has to make the decision to not keep or keep the child.

They go to a service like Planned Parenthood and are counceled. They have to take their entire situation into consideration, for them it's not a hypothetical talking point, it's their responsibility. Life changing. Potentially they will have to live their whole existence dealing with their decision whatever it may be.

Many fail to recognize that even if they decide to keep the baby and give it up for adoption, pregnancy isn't easy. It can and does mentally and physically take from the mother as nature designed.

So a proposed alternative is to act like it's NOTHING? Instead of a loss of life that wouldn't exist unless they give a part of themselves, they should just suck it up, and then give up the child? Seems like a slippery slope... What if they cannot give the baby up and change their minds? Then they are stuck in THE situation they feared and are forced to "make it work" when the deck has already been stacked heavily against them and their child.

 

It also means not working for several months at the very least which most Americans simply cannot afford to do without support from others. Not everyone is lucky enough to have the kind of support system to manage that or the financial means to do so. Additionally it has a lot of negative effects both during and after the pregnancy. Also in America it costs insane amounts of money just to have a child even if you have good health insurance. I know someone who’s husband works for DOD, has some of the best healthcare you can get, and paid almost 15,000 dollars in hospital expenses when everything was all said and done and that was after almost two years of fighting the insurance company.

 

It does cost a lot to care for orphans. It's better to just kill them, think of all the money we'll save. Maybe we could put them in workhouses and make them support themselves.