[subego]

Assuming you take issue with the current situation of legal and federally funded abortion: separate from the constitutional issues, would you accept a compromise of abortion being legal but not federally funded?

FWIW, I have no ulterior motive and am not planning some sort of ambush. I'm just trying to get inside the head of people who think differently than I do.

[peeb]

I don't think the issue of federal funding is really relevant. I mean, obviously, on some pragmatic level it is, but it's a fringe issue with how you fund healthcare, not core to the abortion debate for me.

[subego]

How does the abortion debate shake out for you though?

What issue do you take with the current situation beyond the constitutional?

I've scored pretty badly at guessing your politics.

[peeb]

I find the abortion debate deeply troubling and have no glib answers. I see merit in the arguments of both sides, but little merit in the way in which the debate is being conducted. It tends to polarize and eliminate middle ground. I tend to side with the pro-choice folks, but am deeply uncomfortable with the framing of the debate as being around abortion. I think we need to put a lot more focus on education, prevention of unplanned pregnancy, alternatives such as adoption, and, ultimately, probably respect people's decisions in some of the hardest times they will ever go through.

[stupendousman]

I've said it before - I'd be happy if laws concerning abortion and child raising weren't sexist and discriminatory. Currently, a woman can absolve herself of any responsibility for her actions if she chooses by having an abortion. A man can not do likewise and abort his responsibilities after sex. If it's about "choice" and freedom, then it's only being given to one side.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

but little merit in the way in which the debate is being conducted.

QFmfT

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've said it before - I'd be happy if laws concerning abortion and child raising weren't sexist and discriminatory. Currently, a woman can absolve herself of any responsibility for her actions if she chooses by having an abortion. A man can not do likewise and abort his responsibilities after sex. If it's about "choice" and freedom, then it's only being given to one side.

Are you saying your issue is that this inequality hasn't been fixed, or are you saying the inequality's existence is justification for abortion being illegal?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you saying your issue is that this inequality hasn't been fixed, or are you saying the inequality's existence is justification for abortion being illegal?

No. I'm just saying it if it is legal, and the point is freedom of choice, then it shouldn't be discriminatory.

The fact that the laws are discriminatory is evidence that they have little to do with freedom, fairness or much of anything to do with the Constitution. Current laws regarding abortion are a joke, invented by a few un-elected lawyers, to the detriment of society. Just my opinion of course.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...or much of anything to do with the Constitution. Current laws regarding abortion are a joke, invented by a few un-elected lawyers

I can't disagree with you here, which is why I explicitly removed it from consideration in the OP.

Separate from the constitutional issues, what is your take?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Assuming you take issue with the current situation of legal and federally funded abortion: separate from the constitutional issues, would you accept a compromise of abortion being legal but not federally funded?

Seeing as how it is both legal and publicly funded, taking away the "federally funded" part is a good start or compromise. I don't think the public dollar should be used to help fund this extremely controversial medical procedure.

[BRussell]

Is abortion federally-funded today? In what context?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is abortion federally-funded today? In what context?

One example is Planned Parenthood. They receive a full one-third of their 1 BILLION dollars of funding from government grants and programs. I'm not sure how much is federal and how much is state local funding.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

One example is Planned Parenthood. They receive a full one-third of their 1 BILLION dollars of funding from government grants and programs. I'm not sure how much is federal and how much is state local funding.

Abortion is only a small part of Planned Parenthood. Most of the money goes towards education. I'd vote to double that money because educated teens and couples means less unexpected/unwanted pregnancies; that leads into the reduction of abortions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Seeing as how it is both legal and publicly funded, taking away the "federally funded" part is a good start or compromise. I don't think the public dollar should be used to help fund this extremely controversial medical procedure.

FWIW, mentioning that you took issue with it is what prompted the question.

It strikes me that the desire not to have the government regulate abortion, and the desire not to have government fund it, are in fact an expression of the exact same principle.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Abortion is only a small part of Planned Parenthood. Most of the money goes towards education. I'd vote to double that money because educated teens and couples means less unexpected/unwanted pregnancies; that leads into the reduction of abortions.

He asked for an example of federally funded abortions, so I gave him one. I really don't care one way or the other about abortion. I suppose if they take a few of my tax dollars to rid the planet of an unwanted child, I'm all for that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Abortion is only a small part of Planned Parenthood.

Their other services are outnumbered 10-1 by abortion services. There are 138 abortions performed for each referral to adoption services for example.

Most of the money goes towards education.

Does this include money spent on lawsuits launched by them against school districts that include teaching abstinence programs?

I'd vote to double that money because educated teens and couples means less unexpected/unwanted pregnancies; that leads into the reduction of abortions.

There is no statistic to establish this notion at all. Given the increase in abuse and neglect, there's really nothing to suggest the children are somehow more "wanted" today. Teen pregnancy? Up. STDs among the predominant age group seeking their services? Up. By doubling the amount of money you funnel into PP, you're only guaranteeing twice the number of the absolute least reliable prophylactics money can buy.

Originally Posted by atheist

I suppose if they take a few of my tax dollars to rid the planet of an unwanted child, I'm all for that.

See above. There is nothing to suggest that children are any more "wanted" today. This notion cannot be connected in any way to abortion rates.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

FWIW, mentioning that you took issue with it is what prompted the question.

I appreciate the thread.

It strikes me that the desire not to have the government regulate abortion, and the desire not to have government fund it, are in fact an expression of the exact same principle.

I agree with this. It is illogical to say; "The government should not interfere with a woman's choice" then in the same breath say; "... but I think we should all be contributing to the costs of this woman's choices." We come close to touching on the Constitutionality of this principle which is why I avoided it.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

One example is Planned Parenthood. They receive a full one-third of their 1 BILLION dollars of funding from government grants and programs. I'm not sure how much is federal and how much is state local funding.

OK, but the premise of the thread seemed to be that many abortions are federally funded, when in fact the Hyde Amendment specifically prohibits that.

The amendment effectively ended the provision of abortions for low-income women across the United States through Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for poor people.
...
The Hyde Amendment inspired the passage of other similar provisions extending the ban on funding of abortions to a number of other federal health care programs. Consequently, those federal government employees who wish to have abortions must pay for them "out-of-pocket". In addition, abortion services are not provided for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

There may be a few indirect exceptions, but it sure looks to me like, as a rule, abortions are prohibited from being federally funded.

And this is in contrast to other situations where, even if you disagree with the policy, your tax dollars still pay for it. For example, lots of people disagree with the Iraq war, but their federal tax dollars go to it just the same as people who support the war.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

There may be a few indirect exceptions, but it sure looks to me like, as a rule, abortions are prohibited from being federally funded.

Wasn't familiar with the amendment, and you got the implication from my OP because I assumed they were. I always appreciate learning something I didn't know. Thank you.

That being said, this seems a tad shell gamey to me. PP gets federal funds and PP performs abortions. Isn't saying the the abortions aren't federally funded just creative bookkeeping?

Note I'm asking this question from the perspective of someone (not necessarily myself) who has a moral objection to federally funded abortion.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And this is in contrast to other situations where, even if you disagree with the policy, your tax dollars still pay for it. For example, lots of people disagree with the Iraq war, but their federal tax dollars go to it just the same as people who support the war.

I can't deny the truth of this statement, but I can't say you're approaching this with the spirit of compromise either.

To make this analogous, would you opt out of paying for the war (i.e. reduced tax burden on you personally for real, no shell game) if what you had to do in return is shut up about it?

[Uncle Doof]

If I wasn't the one bouncing around on her for 20 seconds, I don't see why I should pay for the consequences. No fun for Doof = no moral obligation for Doof to pay.

Her dollar, her choice. My dollar, in my pocket thank you very much.

A related abortion question: Why is it that when we're talking about abortion, all the usual left-of-centre peeps come out and say something like "but it's her body so it's her choice". But then when you suggest selling one of your kidneys for a downpayment on the latest Ferrari all of a sudden the body becomes state's property. Odd, no?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

when you suggest selling one of your kidneys for a downpayment on the latest Ferrari all of a sudden the body becomes state's property.

Where did this happen? I definitely missed that thread.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't deny the truth of this statement, but I can't say you're approaching this with the spirit of compromise either.

To make this analogous, would you opt out of paying for the war (i.e. reduced tax burden on you personally for real, no shell game) if what you had to do in return is shut up about it?

Wouldn't it be a fascinating experiment to let people pay taxes for what they want? Or even, say, let people direct 10% of their taxes as they please. Who would want their money to go to interest on the debt?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Where did this happen? I definitely missed that thread.

Oh come on, it's like every thread that some leftist is complaining about people selling their kidneys for Ferraris. Damn hypocrites.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Where did this happen? I definitely missed that thread.

Theoretical example. Go sign up at a leftie forum (let's say "Feminists for Hitlery" or something) and try it. Report back.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Theoretical example.

Surprise, surprise.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Wouldn't it be a fascinating experiment to let people pay taxes for what they want?

What, like have tax-free capitalism where folks pay for what they use? How radical!

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Who would want their money to go to interest on the debt?

Interesting thing that - someone forcing you to make payments on a debt which they took out for you without asking you whether you wanted it or not. How the hell did that become legal?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Surprise, surprise.

Well, not really theoretical. Wrong word.

I *have* actually seen the lefties in said forums deny someone the right to sell their own body parts just after they've been banging on about abortion rights. Of course, I might have been steering the conversation a little at the time but it's a solid observation. Really Dak, go try it.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Well, not really theoretical. Wrong word.

I *have* actually seen the lefties in said forums deny someone the right to sell their own body parts just after they've been banging on about abortion rights. Of course, I might have been steering the conversation a little at the time but it's a solid observation. Really Dak, go try it.

Yeah, I'm not wasting my time trying to verify your claim.

It's not on these forums so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Yeah, I'm not wasting my time trying to verify your claim.

You don't need to waste your time verifying my claim, Dak. I thought we'd already established the fact that all of my claims are accurate beyond reproach.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

You don't need to waste your time verifying my claim, Dak. I thought we'd already established the fact that all of my claims are accurate beyond reproach.

My, my, aren't we grandiose today.

And stop calling me Dak, you know better.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

My, my, aren't we grandiose today.

Today? Are you new here or something?

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

And stop calling me Dak, you know better.

Sorry Dak.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Sorry Dak.

Grow up.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Grow up.

No, I won't.

Who the hell wadded your panties today?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No, I won't.

Who the hell wadded your panties today?

In regards to what? Not liking being called something that isn't my screenname?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

In regards to what? Not liking being called something that isn't my screenname?

Oh, I see. You've moved in with Besson* for the summer.

(* sorry. Besson3c, I mean)

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Oh, I see. You've moved in with Besson* for the summer.

(* sorry. Besson3c, I mean)

If I was besson, I'd insist on being called Dakar the Fourth.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've said it before - I'd be happy if laws concerning abortion and child raising weren't sexist and discriminatory. Currently, a woman can absolve herself of any responsibility for her actions if she chooses by having an abortion. A man can not do likewise and abort his responsibilities after sex. If it's about "choice" and freedom, then it's only being given to one side.

Amen. It's a one-sided issue of "choice." In fact, a man doesn't even get a say (although he's responsible) in whether the child is aborted or not. I'm not sure how I'd work that otherwise, but it is hardly fair.

You have two ideals at work here: the life of an innocent being versus the value of someone's quality of life. I can see the argument FOR abortion: the mother's lifestyle and quality of life is more valuable than the life of an undeveloped (uninvested) child. As a society, we make that kind of nod to death every day, outside of abortion. I have sympathy for those who make that choice, but I'd like for them to acknowledge that they are, in fact, taking a life. Because they are. Taking a life. Killing a child. That's what they're doing.

As a parent, I can't imagine aborting a child. Nor could I rationalize it for myself or my spouse before we had a baby. Our first was unexpected, but there was never any suggestion/thought that we would kill it unborn.

I can, however, see the need to let a woman choose whether or not to keep a baby. With open adoption in most states now, a woman's options are limited. The real problem I see with abortion on demand is that I've never met anyone who didn't have some kind of psychological problems after having one, guys too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by finboy 

The real problem I see with abortion on demand is that I've never met anyone who didn't have some kind of psychological problems after having one, guys too.

Shhh...that's the "dirty little secret" no one likes to talk about.

With sex comes responsibility. You can make laws to remove the results of the sex (women can anyways, and men are unconstitutionally discriminated against doing the same), but in the end you still will have to deal with the ramifications of what you choose to do. I wish it wasn't such a secret

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I've never met anyone who didn't have some kind of psychological problems after having one.

I have. How many people have you known with psychological problems regardless of abortion? Maybe you should find some actual psychological research on the topic...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I have. How many people have you known with psychological problems regardless of abortion?

Uhh, I'd have to say (at least empirically) not having some type of psychological problem after having an abortion is in fact an indicator of psychological problem in and of itself.

I could be wrong here but I don't think the term "problem" is a technical one, so I'm assuming this leaves the size of the problem open to question.

Edit: everyone's different, but I had to euthanize a squirrel once and even that caused me no small amount of psychological distress afterwards. This was purely conceptual distress BTW, the squirrel was covered and I never had to touch it, not to mention that this distress was completely regardless of the fact I had inarguably done the right thing in that circumstance.

Edit2: I eat meat too, and the way I deal with the psychological distress of that is to completely deny it. Effective? Yes. Psychologically healthy? Not so sure.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Wouldn't it be a fascinating experiment to let people pay taxes for what they want? Or even, say, let people direct 10% of their taxes as they please. Who would want their money to go to interest on the debt?

I'd still like some way wherein you had to shut up about whatever you opted out of.

If someone catches you, you have to pay double.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Uhh, I'd have to say (at least empirically) not having some type of psychological problem after having an abortion is in fact an indicator of psychological problem in and of itself.

I call shenanigans on that. You've basically defined his claim to be tautologically correct. Therefore it's a meaningless claim.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I have. How many people have you known with psychological problems regardless of abortion? Maybe you should find some actual psychological research on the topic...

I myself figure that there are people who could have the limbs ripped from the torso of their offspring in-utero and not have a second thought. I wouldn't necessarily trust "actual psychological research" on the subject though, as it's been my experience that actual "research" on any topic - especially ones with political/moral overtones, are often times so mired in bias that they are worthless.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Assuming you take issue with the current situation of legal and federally funded abortion: separate from the constitutional issues, would you accept a compromise of abortion being legal but not federally funded?

FWIW, I have no ulterior motive and am not planning some sort of ambush. I'm just trying to get inside the head of people who think differently than I do.

Nope. Federal funding has never even crossed my mind. The problem with it is that it is legalizing the murder of children.... I kind of think of the fetus as being a "child" when the heart starts beating, so things like the "day after" pill I can mostly accept, but when the baby has a heartbeat (usually before the woman can even know that she is pregnant), that is the cutoff point as far as I am concerned.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I call shenanigans on that. You've basically defined his claim to be tautologically correct. Therefore it's a meaningless claim.

Fair enough. I'm separating psychological problem (fruit loop) from psychological problem (natural emotional distress) in my head, but using the same term for both probably wasn't such a swell idea.

Would you accept (as a rephrasing of sm's argument) that deciding whether to have and then having an abortion causes someone a great deal of emotional stress?

If you do accept that rephrasing, on top of that you can add my argument that people for whom this doesn't cause great emotional stress could be termed to have a psychological problem of the fruit loop variety.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I wish it wasn't such a secret

I want to flip this on you.

It seems to me that this is only relevant to the question at hand (whether abortion should be legal from a solely moral point of view) if one can show a difference in magnitude between psychological problems caused by having an abortion and psychological problems caused by not being able to get an abortion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And this is in contrast to other situations where, even if you disagree with the policy, your tax dollars still pay for it. For example, lots of people disagree with the Iraq war, but their federal tax dollars go to it just the same as people who support the war.

I'm guessing that if we were losing 3,700 people per day, the Iraq procedure would be more controversial. It would likely not have enjoyed support from over 70% of Americans and both sides of the aisle.

- Per Gallup, 51% of Americans say that abortion is "morally wrong"
- Per Family Research Council, 56% would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to 31% who would be "more likely" to support such a candidate.
- Per Zogby International, Respondents overwhelmingly oppose (71% to 22.8%) the use of federal funds for partial birth abortions.

Besides, your tax dollars go to the military and the President authorizes war with that military and Congress provides the purse. Time and again.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Per Gallup, 51% of Americans say that abortion is "morally wrong"
- Per Family Research Council, 56% would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to 31% who would be "more likely" to support such a candidate.

It sure looks to me like people today are more opposed to the Iraq war than abortion.

- 57% say the war in Iraq was wrong
- 52% say the war in Iraq was not morally justified
- 62% would prefer a president who would end the war rather than continue it

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...have the limbs ripped from the torso of their offspring...

Originally Posted by subego 

...that people for whom this doesn't cause great emotional stress could be termed to have a psychological problem...

I take it from these phrases that you are referring to mid- or late-term abortion. I was under the impression that somewhere around 80% of abortions occur in the first term. For this reason, I find it disingenuous to characterize the abortion process by the more gruesome exceptions, rather than the rule.

Would you accept (as a rephrasing of sm's argument) that deciding whether to have and then having an abortion causes someone a great deal of emotional stress?

So does euthanizing pets, but in general we don't try to prohibit that practice, on the contrary, the significant emotional distress acts as its own in-built deterrent. I could come up with dozens of similar activities if you want, where things are not illegal simply because their "immorality" (subjective but true) is balanced by their unpleasantness. What was your point again?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I take it from these phrases that you are referring to mid- or late-term abortion.

Not me. But you can certainly draw the distinction between the greater emotional stress of this versus the lesser yet still significant emotional stress of a first trimester abortion without any argument from me.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So does euthanizing pets...

Maybe I'm missing what you're saying here, but I Kinda sorta felt that was the point of my euthanizing a squirrel story.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What was your point again?

Take your pick...

Thread argument: an analysis of the aspects of where the pro-life and pro-choice arguments intersect (a dislike of the government telling them what to do) has value. (I obviously agree with this one otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread)

sm's argument: the great emotional distress (née "psychological problems") involved in having an abortion is not often discussed as a factor when it comes to arguments about the moral/legal implications of abortion. (I agree this is true, though I've already questioned the relevance of this to the debate)

subego's specific argument here: rephrasing "psychological problems" into "great emotional stress" to counter your implied claim that not having some form of psychological problem is a natural reaction to having an abortion. (Your claim is correct, hence the revision)