The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[$hiftyIceQueen]

no matter what the reason is ...it isnt the childs fault [even though it isnt born yet] .. they shouldnt be punished for something they didnt do, also the mother should have thought of all the concequences before she got herself pregnant, and what if something went wrong in the operation then she had to have thechild but it ended up with some disablitiy, if that was your child what would you do?

 

[withoutaface]

no matter what the reason is ...it isnt the childs fault [even though it isnt born yet] .. they shouldnt be punished for something they didnt do, also the mother should have thought of all the concequences before she got herself pregnant, and what if something went wrong in the operation then she had to have thechild but it ended up with some disablitiy, if that was your child what would you do?

Argument entirely fallacious, because if the woman is raped it's not her fault, but it's not the child's either.

Learn2play.

 

[bshoc]

Argument entirely fallacious, because if the woman is raped it's not her fault, but it's not the child's either.

Learn2play.

No that argument is entirely correct save the exception you mentioned, which accounts for no more than 1% of all abortions.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

huh? if shes raped yeah sorry to her but it still isnt the childs fault..

 

[withoutaface]

No that argument is entirely correct save the exception you mentioned, which accounts for no more than 1% of all abortions.

So the argument "We should kill all people who are named John" is perfectly fine, because it's morally fine for 99% of people, who aren't killed? For an argument to be logically sound it must be able to be moulded and applied to every situation, and there exist situations where this argument contradicts itself, hence it is fallacious.
i.e. No innocent foetus should be aborted because it's not their fault they're unwanted.
Refusing women abortions is morally justifiable only if they should've considered the consequences of their actions more carefully.
These contradict each other, because you cannot morally deny a woman an abortion if they were raped, but you can't morally abort a child either, because it is not their fault.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

ok good point but it still isnt your right to decide on whether the child lives or dies ..

i think the only reason which a woman could have an abortion is if/when it will affect her eg if the doc says that she may die from child birth

 

[bshoc]

Women who get abortions because they can't afford to keep the baby end up on welfare if they don't get an abortion. People sponging off welfare is bad for the economy.

Moron.

No you're a moron becuase you're trying to debate economics with somebody who actually understands the subject.

*Welfare money is money spent in the economy, welfare money does more for the economy than money sitting in Costello's or Iemma's coffers. Now whats one of the first things we learn about money little waf? That all money is anonymous, that means the economy doesen't care who spends it or where they got it from, so long as it is spent on that bottle of milk, the milkman will have a job. This is especially true when currency itself is fiat. Construct the AE model, whats the difference between C+c(Y-T) and G, if the G spends the money of the T. How do you think the US government got itself out of the depression? Public spending (ie. Social Security, the TVA etc.). Now if we were on the gold standard or if the RBA pegged the AUD to a resource, you may have a better case - and I will admit even under our current currency system excess welfare is inefficient compared to labour earned wages. However also given the capacity constraints and popluation limits of our current economy, the short term cost of welfare will be outweighed by the long term benefit of having those 80000 workers. Also you're implying that all those women will stop working or had a job before pregnancy, which is fallacious.

An extra 80000 workers per year are worth more than the welfare money we'd have to pay to raise some of them.

 

[bshoc]

Just quickly, what if a child will have some incurable genetic abnormality and will have a severely compromised quality of life? Is it the mother or the child's fault if this is the case? Do you still think it's wrong to abort if the baby will have a short, extremely painful life?

To be truthful thats more a eugenics question than an abortion one - I'm willing to hear both sides in any case.

 

[bshoc]

So the argument "We should kill all people who are named John" is perfectly fine, because it's morally fine for 99% of people, who aren't killed? For an argument to be logically sound it must be able to be moulded and applied to every situation, and there exist situations where this argument contradicts itself, hence it is fallacious.
i.e. No innocent foetus should be aborted because it's not their fault they're unwanted.
Refusing women abortions is morally justifiable only if they should've considered the consequences of their actions more carefully.
These contradict each other, because you cannot morally deny a woman an abortion if they were raped, but you can't morally abort a child either, because it is not their fault.

It has already been made clear that it is the ethics of the woman having the abortion which matter (as the fetus has no say in the matter), not the nature of the fetus, I'm not pro-life as much as I'm anti-abortion. Clear?

 

[bshoc]

Tell that to the medical profession. You'll find a lot of doctors don't trust those aged <35 to make that decision and patronise them, telling them 'oh, you'll change your mind when you're older.' Until the medical profession trusts a woman's judgement and allows her to get Essure/tubes tied/hysterectomy (if necessary) prior to that period, childfree women will continue to get abortions. Even if you're using the trio of copper IUD/condoms/the pill, sometimes there are still accidents/failures.

Furthermore, if you're expecting that we women who don't want children should abstain from sex until we get tubes tied, etc. in case of an accident, you're an idiot. You think that by 35 and older most of these women aren't married (not all guys want kids, either)? You truly expect them to abstain even after marriage?

All I'm expecting is that all people take responsibility for their own actions and not make other suffer and die due to their mistakes. The chances of a woman taking the proper precautions to fall pregnant are so small that they're hardly worth discussion, if not the woman is playing a pregnancy russian roulette, and if she wins, good for her, if she doesen't, don't take it out on the poor child.

So you'd prefer that those women who would rather die than have to carry a pregnancy to term suicide because forced-birthers won't allow them to have an abortion?

Sure, the same way I'd rather have a murderer who'd rather die than not kill people becuase forced-lifers wont allow them to post-birth abort people.

1. Not all men want kids.

Same story as the women who don't want kids, infinitely worth less.

2. Many without kids have higher disposable income, which gets poured back into the economy.

Discussed above, a child is in itself a 60 year worker to the state.

3. Those without kids often shoulder the workload of those who do eg. parents taking leave for sick kids/going home early to take their kids to sports practice, etc. I could list a thousand other examples.
4. The welfare system is skewed towards parents. If people didn't have kids they couldn't afford, there'd be less need for welfare. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Again see above, I have no intrest in discussing economics with people who understand very little of it.

I'd like to stay and argue, but some of us actually have to work.

Then may I introduce the concept of the *gasp* working parent? Should I say it isnt so?

 

[withoutaface]

No you're a moron becuase you're trying to debate economics with somebody who actually understands the subject.

*Welfare money is money spent in the economy, welfare money does more for the economy than money sitting in Costello's or Iemma's coffers. Now whats one of the first things we learn about money little waf? That all money is anonymous, that means the economy doesen't care who spends it or where they got it from, so long as it is spent on that bottle of milk, the milkman will have a job. This is especially true when currency itself is fiat. Construct the AE model, whats the difference between C+c(Y-T) and G, if the G spends the money of the T. How do you think the US government got itself out of the depression? Public spending (ie. Social Security, the TVA etc.). Now if we were on the gold standard or if the RBA pegged the AUD to a resource, you may have a better case - and I will admit even under our current currency system excess welfare is inefficient compared to labour earned wages. However also given the capacity constraints and popluation limits of our current economy, the short term cost of welfare will be outweighed by the long term benefit of having those 80000 workers. Also you're implying that all those women will stop working or had a job before pregnancy, which is fallacious.

An extra 80000 workers per year are worth more than the welfare money we'd have to pay to raise some of them.

I'm implying that your argument about them all turning into productive members of society in 20 years time is false, and that a larger percentage of abortions occur among women of lower socioeconomic status, and that a lot of children coming from such backgrounds do not become productive, and get caught in a welfare trap.
The government should not spend all it's money just because it feels a need to spend every dollar it rakes in from taxes. If extra funds are in Iemma's coffers that don't need to be, then he should make tax cuts in the next financial year rather than spending it on crap.
Finally, don't get me started on the depression. It was interventionalist policies that caused it, and as such high spending solutions to dig out of it would not be needed if not for interventionalist policies in the first place.

And yes, let's all bow down to bshoc, who after less than 12cp of study knows everything there is to know about economics.

 

[dieburndie]

Same story as the women who don't want kids, infinitely worth less.
Discussed above, a child is in itself a 60 year worker to the state.

The entire basis for an individual's worth is how much they contribute economically to the state through work and how many children they have? Hmm, maybe society could extend this concept to form some sort of Utopia. We could expand artificial insemination to be the primary technique used to reproduce humans. Then we could organise them into particular groups according to society's requirements in terms of labour. I mean, the possibilities are infinite...

Ok everyone, I'm sorry.

Again see above, I have no intrest in discussing economics with people who understand very little of it.

We grant you the courtesy of discussing everything other than economics with you, even though you know very little about anything. Can't you impart your vast knowledge about economics to us mere mortals? I mean, all that stuff that isn't completely simplistic that you typed before and anyone could understand.

 

[wheredanton]

And yes, let's all bow down to bshoc, who after less than 12cp of study knows everything there is to know about economics.

you made me lol

 

[Serius]

i wish they would invent a male pill that made my entire load sterile aslong as i kept taking the hormone or whatever. That would be so sweet, never have to worry about being trapped by some woman.

 

[KFunk]

Wonders why you care what bshoc thinks, but I'll try to elaborate using the inconvenient truth:

- A woman who doesent want children is inflinitely worth less (to society and to a man) compared to one that does.

Do you actually believe that?

 

[KFunk]

As I said, if a woman is using the pill and a copper IUD, and the man uses condoms, there'd be a minute possibility of failure.

Keep in mind that he's against abortion and a copper IUD doesn't stop conception, but rather expels the conceptus (which is abortion in his eyes... much the same deal with the morning after pill). Similarly, one of the mechanisms of the pill, and many other hormonal contraceptives, is to disrupt the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. I'm not sure whether such a thing is documented or, if so, how often it occurs but it's still part of their effect - certainly they work in most cases by preventing ovulation and thus stopping fertilisation. Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you're saying. (p.s. just noticed that you're a fortian - is it beccy?)

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

why? coz i said that it wasnt the childs fault?

 

[lengy]

No, just to see how you'd react when the tables are turned and it's YOU who is/are in the position to make these decisions.

lol my post was deleted. Hi Josh.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

your mean...

and i dont think i'll change my opinion...[never know whats going to happen in the future or if the tables have turned]

oh and if something happens to me im sooooo blaming you

 

[Generator]

lol my post was deleted. Hi Josh.

Hi Steven :wave:.