posted April 05, 2019 02:59 PM            

If we are going to have more unwanted children, are the republicans planning to spend more money on social services involving children? Do you really want your tax dollars to support all those unwanted children's needs? Or do you just not care at all about those children once they are born?

This is a genuine question here. One that is fact based.

ETA: If my recollection serves me right, the republican party was not always so obsessed with limiting women's reproductive choices. I remember in the 70s and early 80s, they support the right to choose .

posted April 05, 2019 03:18 PM            

My question is: are you prepared and ready to have more of your tax dollars allocated to the social services who are going to have to handle all those unwanted babies? Are you prepared and ready to have more of your tax dollars supporting indigent parents of those unwanted babies?

posted April 05, 2019 03:21 PM            

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/how-republicans-became-anti-choice/

How Republicans Became Anti-Choice
Sue Halpern NOVEMBER 8, 2018 ISSUE
Reversing Roe

a documentary film directed and produced by Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg Elliott Landy/Magnum Photos

It is impossible to understand American politics of the past half-century without taking abortion into account. The Brett Kavanaugh charade most recently, the machinations of the Republican Party more generally, and the infectious fundamentalism creeping into everyday life: all begin with abortion. Other issues may have been as divisive—civil rights comes to mind—but none has been as definitional. These days, the litmus test for Republicans running for political office or nominated to the judiciary is opposition to abortion. On the Democratic side, it is almost equally crucial to be pro-choice. Yet as the Netflix documentary Reversing Roe ably shows, this was not always the case.

Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason in the first two trimesters, and in the third trimester under certain circumstances, was issued in 1973. Seven justices affirmed the decision, with Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, writing for the majority. If that seems strange to us now—a conservative justice on a conservative court invoking a right to privacy on behalf of women—it is because the alliance between the Right to Life movement and the right wing appears to us to be so close as to be preordained. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, many Republicans were behind efforts to liberalize and even decriminalize abortion; theirs was the party of reproductive choice, while Democrats, with their large Catholic constituency, were the opposition.

Republican governor Ronald Reagan signed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act, one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, in 1967, legalizing abortion for women whose mental or physical health would be impaired by pregnancy, or whose pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. The same year, the Republican strongholds of North Carolina and Colorado made it easier for women to obtain abortions. New York, under Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, eliminated all restrictions on women seeking to terminate pregnancies up to twenty-four weeks gestation. (Reversing Roe shows young women in Dallas boarding airplanes headed to these states.) Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush were all pro-choice, and they were not party outliers. In 1972, a Gallup poll found that 68 percent of Republicans believed abortion to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. The government, they said, should not be involved.

posted April 05, 2019 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
"Unwanted children" ..
As in neglected children? Abused children? Children offered for adoption? Not sure what you mean here.

---

What do you think is going to happen to children who are unwanted?

Are they not going to be neglected? Abused? Offered for adoption?

Or do you think that somehow magically, the woman forced to bring a pregnancy to term is going to shower her baby with motherly love?

posted April 05, 2019 04:20 PM            

Not unprotected sex...

posted April 05, 2019 04:33 PM            

YES _____ NO ______

posted April 05, 2019 04:37 PM            

And I hope nobody comes and throws the Good Book at me:

posted April 05, 2019 04:47 PM            

People should be held
accountable for their
actions...

The Universal Laws
are immutable...
You get what you give,
automatically balancing
things...most do not
notice. ...

..we already take care
of the children without
parents, why would that
change?

posted April 05, 2019 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
What do you think is going to happen to children who are unwanted?

Are they not going to be neglected? Abused? Offered for adoption?

Or do you think that somehow magically, the woman forced to bring a pregnancy to term is going to shower her baby with motherly love?

---

I'm not sure this scenario is as black and white as we would like it to be. I've witnessed many mothers of planned (ie "wanted"?) children fall far short of showering those children with love. Some were even genuinely neglectful. A few outright abusive. Conversely, I have witnessed unexpectedly pregnant women step up, take responsibility and become decent mothers. Sometimes quite good mothers. Further, we probably all know a woman or two who desperatwly wanted children only to discover, after becoming a mother, that maybe it wasn't for her after all and sadly act accordingly.

So my thought here is 1) can we predetermine potential parenting skills based on personal desire alone and 2) what defines "good" parenthood. What is adequate? Where do we draw the line?

And if we can't agree to terms here, possibly we should look elsewhere for a more logical argument

posted April 05, 2019 06:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
The Republican Party used to support the Right to Choose:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/08/how-republicans-became-anti-choice/

How Republicans Became Anti-Choice
Sue Halpern NOVEMBER 8, 2018 ISSUE
Reversing Roe

a documentary film directed and produced by Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg Elliott Landy/Magnum Photos

It is impossible to understand American politics of the past half-century without taking abortion into account. The Brett Kavanaugh charade most recently, the machinations of the Republican Party more generally, and the infectious fundamentalism creeping into everyday life: all begin with abortion. Other issues may have been as divisive—civil rights comes to mind—but none has been as definitional. These days, the litmus test for Republicans running for political office or nominated to the judiciary is opposition to abortion. On the Democratic side, it is almost equally crucial to be pro-choice. Yet as the Netflix documentary Reversing Roe ably shows, this was not always the case.

Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason in the first two trimesters, and in the third trimester under certain circumstances, was issued in 1973. Seven justices affirmed the decision, with Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, writing for the majority. If that seems strange to us now—a conservative justice on a conservative court invoking a right to privacy on behalf of women—it is because the alliance between the Right to Life movement and the right wing appears to us to be so close as to be preordained. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, many Republicans were behind efforts to liberalize and even decriminalize abortion; theirs was the party of reproductive choice, while Democrats, with their large Catholic constituency, were the opposition.

Republican governor Ronald Reagan signed the California Therapeutic Abortion Act, one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, in 1967, legalizing abortion for women whose mental or physical health would be impaired by pregnancy, or whose pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. The same year, the Republican strongholds of North Carolina and Colorado made it easier for women to obtain abortions. New York, under Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, eliminated all restrictions on women seeking to terminate pregnancies up to twenty-four weeks gestation. (Reversing Roe shows young women in Dallas boarding airplanes headed to these states.) Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush were all pro-choice, and they were not party outliers. In 1972, a Gallup poll found that 68 percent of Republicans believed abortion to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. The government, they said, should not be involved.

Perhaps more surprisingly, the right to abortion was forcefully supported and advanced by the Protestant clergy. The Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCSA), which was established in 1967, not only counseled pregnant women about their choices, it enlisted physicians to perform abortions. One of these, who is featured in the film, was Dr. Curtis Boyd, a gynecologist and Baptist minister now in his eighties. He began his practice in Texas at the behest of the CCSA in…

---

posted April 05, 2019 06:34 PM            

However, are these the norm when it comes to unplanned/unwanted and planned/wanted pregnancies? Are there any legitimate unbiased research that support an argument in either direction?

For these reasons, why should the government make such an unilateral decision for women? As republicans, we advocate minimal government interference in ALL aspects of our daily lives. But apparently, this hands off approach does not hold true when it comes to something as private as reproductive choice.

posted April 05, 2019 06:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:

Also, Israel is a decidedly secular nation. Pretty sure they're not interested in citing the Christian Bible. 😂

---

I honestly thought the US was a secular nation, But I could be wrong, But I do know that we have a separation of church and state written in the constitution.

As for the Christian BIble, it is made of the Tanak (Jewish Bible) and the New Testament. I am not aware of any New Testament verse on abortion.

posted April 05, 2019 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
@ SHura,
You bring some interesting points.
Yes, we all know of planned/wanted babies who were neglected or abused. We all know unplanned /unwanted babies who were raised with love.

However, are these the norm when it comes to unplanned/unwanted and planned/wanted pregnancies? Are there any legitimate unbiased research that support an argument in either direction?

For these reasons, why should the government make such an unilateral decision for women? As republicans, we advocate minimal government interference in ALL aspects of our daily lives. But apparently, this hands off approach does not hold true when it comes to something as private as reproductive choice.

But the bottom line is, do you not agree that this heartbeat bill will result in more unwanted babies being born? If you do not agree, then we don't really have common ground to have a discussion, do we?

---

Ive no more means of confirming the norm than you do. If unbiased stats exist, I'm not aware of them. I have only my experience, observation, and a basic understanding of human nature. Same as you, right? Therefore, I'm not convinced the unwanted argument is viable. No solid ground to stand on.

Regarding unilateral decisions, our government makes these everyday. Many are considered reasonable and in the interest of society and even the individual. So that's the question ... Not that the gov is making a decision, but if the decision is in the best interest of the community and its members.
Also, I question your "for women" because abortion laws, for or against, also affect men. Unless we're seeing a rash of virgin births, the old "if you dont have a uterus ..." line doesnt wash. I would also argue against your claim that the Repub party opposes "ALL" goverment interference in our daily lives. Example: age of consent laws. Not seeing the repubs opposing these, but plenty of debate regarding their Constitutionlity among Progressives.

posted April 05, 2019 09:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:

But the bottom line is, do you not agree that this heartbeat bill will result in more unwanted babies being born? If you do not agree, then we don't really have common ground to have a discussion, do we?

---

I think it will result in some unplanned babies, yes. Whether unplanned necessarily equals unwanted ... Well we've established that we just cant say how often it does, and what the consequence is when it does. Nevertheless I don't think you will see the massive upswing in unplanned births you're looking for. I think women will 1) plan better 2) utilize morning after pills 3) cross state lines.