Abortion bans gives the government too much power.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forgive my impertinence.
But I was always told that the Republicans (who I think support this as a platform/campaign thingy???) were for small government?

Ha! No.

Republicans generally favour large government: bloated military, police, and border patrol, lots of juicy defense contracts and fossil fuel subsidies for their friends, lots of regulation on other people, etc.

What they object to is the government helping other people.

 

[Sand Dancer]

For years I was Republican because at one time they were the fiscally conservative party. I must note that during the time of the balanced budget the Republicans did control Congress. That was the last time that Republicans and Democrats worked together constructively. At that time I was prochoice but the Republican position on abortion did not bother me much because everyone could see that they merely gave the prolifers lip service. That changed too after the Clinton administration I kept getting more and more displeased with the party. They dropped fiscal conservatism and became a pro-large scale capitalism benefiting the rich and anti freedom in almost every other aspect (except for gun ownership) and became a party that learned how to use and abuse their single issue voters.

The party was fine until they started pandering to the religious right. I think we need four major parties. A far left, center left, center right and far right. Let the RR go to the far right party and leave the normal centrist folks alone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

Better late than never to realize that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be honest I was listening to the Atheist Experience when Matt Dillahunty made this point.. I saw that he was right on the money.

I saw that one too.

 

[Bathos Logos]

This is why Conservatives wish to send this back to the states and get Big Government out of the abortion trade. Once in the states, many R&D scenarios can be run to find a better sweet spot.

I don't agree with the rescinded right of abortion that will be going on as various states select their "sweet spot" (this is an extremely odd term to use in this instance, I feel). It is no surprise that some of the already most-repressive states (states that, for example, outlaw anyone handing a bottle of water to a voter in line within a certain distance from a polling station) with the loudest mouths are the ones anticipated to install abortion bans and some even (I have heard tell) criminalization with proposed consequences all the way up to death sentencing.

But there is some small consolation in what you bring up here. That states are left to their own devices to come up with their abortion laws. I've heard multiple times of the drop in crime nearly country-wide experienced about 20 years post Roe vs. Wade, and how there were all kinds of people willing to take credit, and all kinds of explanations offered as to why, but that it very well could have been because legalizing abortion saw to it that fewer children who ultimately weren't wanted by their parents ended up in the world. This would, obviously, lead to fewer people growing up within a tough foster-care system, fewer people with a chip on their shoulder over the circumstances of their upbringing, most probably fewer people exposed to certain abusive situations, etc. And even if all of that isn't entirely demonstrable, and exists only as a probability, an idea - this difference that will now exist between the various states can offer better data on that idea. Do states with abortion remaining legal have lower rates of crime committed by state, or state-born residents? Do states with abortion being criminalized have higher rates of crimes committed by state residents as time goes on? Authorities may actually have some actionable data to use in order to make new, stronger cases for the actual positives one can add to the list of body-autonomy claims that end up being mostly what get employed.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I don't agree with the rescinded right of abortion that will be going on as various states select their "sweet spot" (this is an extremely odd term to use in this instance, I feel). It is no surprise that some of the already most-repressive states (states that, for example, outlaw anyone handing a bottle of water to a voter in line within a certain distance from a polling station) with the loudest mouths are the ones anticipated to install abortion bans and some even (I have heard tell) criminalization with proposed consequences all the way up to death sentencing.

But there is some small consolation in what you bring up here. That states are left to their own devices to come up with their abortion laws. I've heard multiple times of the drop in crime nearly country-wide experienced about 20 years post Roe vs. Wade, and how there were all kinds of people willing to take credit, and all kinds of explanations offered as to why, but that it very well could have been because legalizing abortion saw to it that fewer children who ultimately weren't wanted by their parents ended up in the world. This would, obviously, lead to fewer people growing up within a tough foster-care system, fewer people with a chip on their shoulder over the circumstances of their upbringing, most probably fewer people exposed to certain abusive situations, etc. And even if all of that isn't entirely demonstrable, and exists only as a probability, an idea - this difference that will now exist between the various states can offer better data on that idea. Do states with abortion remaining legal have lower rates of crime committed by state, or state-born residents? Do states with abortion being criminalized have higher rates of crimes committed by state residents as time goes on? Authorities may actually have some actionable data to use in order to make new, stronger cases for the actual positives one can add to the list of body-autonomy claims that end up being mostly what get employed.

Yes. This was a conclusion discussed in Freakonomics some time ago. It’s an interesting and compelling take on the right of Freedom of Choice. Most people, especially on the right, do not bother to think of long term consequences of their current choices.
As a result, everyone suffers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion.

How so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?

They are ordering someone what they have to do with their bodies when pregnant. If one can be justified so can the other. China implemented such a policy once.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The entire gender fad also has the same thing in common. None of the combinations beyond genetic male and female can make babies. The new fad gets the planet to lower population, via a wide range of individuals getting to have fun playing a mind game.

In terms of evolution, this will alter the trajectory of natural selection, since evolution needs male and female genes to combine and babies born become adults. A whole branch of humanity is being taken out of the evolutionary game. The future will be more heavily slanted toward religion and conservatives. Science is not even aware it will loose on its home court of evolution.

Got any statistics to back this up?

 

[Revoltingest]

They are ordering someone what they have to do with their bodies when pregnant. If one can be justified so can the other.

I see a significant difference between the 2 policies.
Prohibiting abortion satisfies right-to-lifers.
Requiring abortion is an anathema to them.
This assumes the fetus's right to life.
Do you really believe that Ameristan would
have a powerful religious lobby to want both?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see a significant difference between the 2 policies.
Prohibiting abortion satisfies right-to-lifers.
Requiring abortion is an anathema to them.
This assumes the fetus's right to life.
Do you really believe that Ameristan would
have a powerful religious lobby to want both?

It would be totally different lobbies, but the reasoning is the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be totally different lobbies, but the reasoning is the same.

Where you see the same,
I see differences lurking
among the similarities.

 

[Bathos Logos]

In terms of evolution, this will alter the trajectory of natural selection, since evolution needs male and female genes to combine and babies born become adults. A whole branch of humanity is being taken out of the evolutionary game. The future will be more heavily slanted toward religion and conservatives. Science is not even aware it will loose on its home court of evolution.

This seems like not much more than wishful thinking from the perspective of a theist/conservative. Since neither belief in God or conservativism are genetic traits, and are solely "nurture" sorts of endeavors on the part of human parents, this assumes that there will no longer be people who think for themselves born out of this future you are predicting, but instead there will just be a continual output of parental-opinion clones.

Is that how the world works as it stands now, do you think? When I, myself, born to two conservative parents who, bless their hearts, would rather ignore facts and demonstrations in order to maintain and go on preaching their own biased opinions on things like climate change or whether or not the (then current) conservative president is a terrible human being, and other such items of interest, now have very different views from theirs, and am constantly found to be schooling them on all manner of topics that they just couldn't be bothered to look into themselves. Here's to hoping (nah, let's go with knowing) you are completely wrong.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

This could be said about anything the government prohibits, so it is meaningless.

If one gives the government the power to decide if one can murder then one is also given the government the power to force murder. They both amount to the same thing.

 

[stvdv]

Try to think of it this way. If one gives the government the power to decide if one can have an abortion then one is also given the government the power to force an abortion. They both amount to the same thing. Telling a women what she has to do with her uterus.

Personally I would not give the government that much power.

I agree

And if they decide to punish the women for delayed abortion they maybe forgot they could should also decide to hold the men acountable, who impregnated the women, to be fair.

Good first step is education to abort in time + don't point at women who decide to abort, as this could make them feel guilty and decide to postpone abortion, creating the opposite of what is wanted

And never smart to change such a hot item overnight.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree

And if they decide to punish the women for delayed abortion they maybe forgot they could should also decide to hold the men acountable, who impregnated the women, to be fair.

Good first step is education to abort in time + don't point at women who decide to abort, as this could make them feel guilty and decide to postpone abortion, creating the opposite of what is wanted

And never smart to change such a hot item overnight.

You seem really bent on punishing men
for having sex with women....across
multiple threads. Why is that?

 

[stvdv]

You seem really bent on punishing men
for having sex with women....across
multiple threads. Why is that?

You totally twist my point here

Men are as responsible as women for the pregnancy. Unfair to punish by jail only the women.

BUT

America is still male dominated, so men find it normal to not take responsibility if they can blame a woman for what they both created

Just pointing out and proving the absurdity to jail women for it.

Men understand men should not be jailed, but the same men find it fair to jail women for it. Crazy and totally Adharmic

 

[Subduction Zone]

You totally twist my point here

Men are as responsible as women for the pregnancy. Unfair to punish by jail only the women.

BUT

America is still male dominated, so men find it normal to not take responsibility if they can blame a woman for what they both created

Just pointing out and proving the absurdity to jail women for it.

Men understand men should not be jailed, but the same men find it fair to jail women for it. Crazy and totally Adharmic

I do not think that women would be the one's jailed in the US. Instead they would go after the providers. Which makes it even riskier for women. By going after professionals that provide safe abortions they force desperate women to go after illegal, untrained people not working in sanitary conditions to provide abortions. Wave some money in someone's face and you can find someone willing to perform almost any illegal act.

 

[fantome profane]

This is why Conservatives wish to send this back to the states and get Big Government out of the abortion trade.

But Mitch McConnell said they might pass a Federal abortion ban when they get the chance.

 

[stvdv]

I do not think that women would be the one's jailed in the US. Instead they would go after the providers

1 good thing, not jailing these women for it

BUT

Indeed it's really stupid to go after the providers, like the scenario you describe below

IF governments get this kind of power, where does it end?

In Holland the government tries to change people to eat vegetarian and stop eating meat. At least they do it gradually and don't jail meat eaters (yet).

And government banned smoking almost everywhere, they did it gradually

But here we don't have these abortion troubles as far as I know

Personally all those rules in Holland I like for myself. But having the goverment deciding what we should eat and do is a bad idea. Soon many more Freedoms might be gone, before we realize it

Imagine that the goal behind these changes is to create a kind of Super Race. Of course it's nice to be healthy, but if it is done by imposing, I call it Adharmic (not right, and doomed to give big troubles)

Which makes it even riskier for women. By going after professionals that provide safe abortions they force desperate women to go after illegal, untrained people not working in sanitary conditions to provide abortions. Wave some money in someone's face and you can find someone willing to perform almost any illegal act.