This is not what Planned Parenthood is about. Very little of their services go toward abortions, and the way that social conservatives characterize it as an abortion agency is downright absurd. Now to put it on par with the Klan because of an awkwardly-phrased phone call? It’s just ridiculous.
They promote abortion and birth control – they are, in almost every way, an anti-child agency. Planned Parenthood is one of the biggest promoters of the ideology that a child is a burden to be avoided rather than a gift to be cherished – and its that exact mindset that has already caused a lot of problems in other parts of the world, and, unless things change, is soon going to catch up with us in the US.
And yes, some – if not many – of their employees would (and sometimes, I’m sure, do) attempt to provide abortion services to those who should not be receiving them. The recent event isn’t the first time PP has been caught red-handed.
Yes, and not to mention that 2 planned parenthood employees have been busted advising girls they believed to be 13 to cross state lines to get an abortion.
“Which is why parts of the world where that mindset is accepted have lower abortion rates. You are the one promoting anti-child ideology.”
Apparently, you also subscribe to the idea that children are something to be avoided…
===
Planned Parenthood is part of an unholy trinity that is slowly but surly destroying the future of our country by eliminating huge swaths of the future generations that are supposed to pick up the torch in a couple of decades.
They promote abortion and birth control – they are, in almost every way, an anti-child agency. Planned Parenthood is one of the biggest promoters of the ideology that a child is a burden to be avoided rather than a gift to be cherished
I hope you knock some girl up and your parents rejoice in your gift.
Funny cartoon, but a bit sobering at the same time, to just imagine that such an evil organization exists.
[i]I hope you knock some girl up and your parents rejoice in your gift.[/i]
So the solution to an unwanted child is to get it aborted? Look, in olden times, children may have been unexpected, but they were always born into a family happy to have them. That this has changed should show how bitterly anti-life this world has become.
It’s not like there’s no birth control available either. There is absolutely no excuse to get an abortion in this day and age.
I won’t go that far – certainly there are some medical reasons (life of the mother, etc.) that, in extremely rare circumstances, might justify an abortion, but you are right in that almost all abortions that happen today are not justified.
Wow. Anyone who thinks unexpected children were welcomed with open arms before legal abortion should read some history books past secondary-school textbooks.
But, yeah, in a rural America with high child-mortality rates and little industrialization families had more kids around. OK, so? Does that imply that a large number of children is a proper goal now?
I financially support Planned Parenthood every year. I have organized escort services to assist women in getting through picket lines outside of PP facilities.
Fritz, you’re an idiot. While children may not have been welcomed with ‘open arms’ the difference is they weren’t killing them. Aborting babies for personal convenience is sick. Congratulations on your financial support for Planned Parenthood, you must feel really good knowing where this money is all going toward.
Damarcus, actually often they were sometimes killing them. Of course, sometimes it was written down as just sudden unexplained death.
There have been studies of crib death using what records were kept. The rates of unexplained sudden newborn death in Scotland were astoundingly high. Guess the Scots were just sickly.
And, yes, I do feel good knowing where my contributions to Planned Parenthood are going. That’s why I keep making them.
“I financially support Planned Parenthood every year. I have organized escort services to assist women in getting through picket lines outside of PP facilities.”
…then you endorse and fund the barbaric extermination of innocent children – who are the future of both American society and the human race as a whole.
===
“Does that imply that a large number of children is a proper goal now?”
That in itself doesn’t – though it does show that America is more than capable of flourishing and surviving with large families. But the fact that America needs a strong future generation if this country is to remain even anything close to the Superpower and success that it is now certainly makes more children a good thing.
Do liberals just not understand how vital children are to our country’s survival? Or do they just not care?
Matthew — first, I do not endow a first-trimester foetus with the name “child”. You probably differ on that.
My wife and I have raised three children, so I guess we’ve done our part. We are currently surviving teenagers.
If I may rephrase your concern… I believe that you are concerned that, when people have a choice and have urban lives with lots of entertaining things they can be doing, they choose to not raise children. I believe you are correct in that concern. Most of our friends have chosen to remain childless — and, for the most part, those friends have more spare money for hobbies, interests, and travel than we do. As well has much more free time and fewer hassles.
However, I don’t think the solution is or can be to force people to have children by outlawing abortion (and presumably next contraception).
Our current national strategy is to outsource birth, as we have outsourced manufacturing. This strategy has side-effects. Although, since America is a nation of immigrants, we have so far had fewer (although certainly not no) qualms about this practice than, say, Italy. We are remarkably good at incorporating immigrants into our culture, probably because we are reasonably comfortable with our culture morphing in response.
Do you have any thoughts on what it would take for middle-class Americans to choose to birth and raise children in sufficient numbers? It’s pretty daunting, and I doubt that a birth bonus or something like that would do it.
Oh — and I’m not a liberal (except in the classical sense).
“Our current national strategy is to outsource birth, as we have outsourced manufacturing. This strategy has side-effects. Although, since America is a nation of immigrants, we have so far had fewer (although certainly not no) qualms about this practice than, say, Italy. We are remarkably good at incorporating immigrants into our culture, probably because we are reasonably comfortable with our culture morphing in response.”
Well, in the past, that has worked fine, when the immigrants who were coming in had a clear desire to become American citizens, when they had a clear respect for our heritage and culture, and when they had clear intentions to have their children integrate into American society and provide only a dash of flavor from their own country – ex. Little Italy, Chinatown, Irish communities in Boston, etc.
But look at the recent problems we’ve had with immigration – slogans like “the border crossed us” and those who only come for jobs and money – with no intention to immigrate, and those who don’t even make attempts to integrate…I don’t think that strategy is a good one anymore.
====
“If I may rephrase your concern… I believe that you are concerned that, when people have a choice and have urban lives with lots of entertaining things they can be doing, they choose to not raise children. I believe you are correct in that concern. Most of our friends have chosen to remain childless — and, for the most part, those friends have more spare money for hobbies, interests, and travel than we do. As well has much more free time and fewer hassles.
However, I don’t think the solution is or can be to force people to have children by outlawing abortion (and presumably next contraception).”
Well, I don’t like the term “force people to have children” – since the only thing I support “forcing” people to do is to care a child to term – at which point they can keep or give up the child, and since no one is being forced to become pregnant.
====
“Do you have any thoughts on what it would take for middle-class Americans to choose to birth and raise children in sufficient numbers? It’s pretty daunting, and I doubt that a birth bonus or something like that would do it.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here…elaborate, please.
===
“I do not endow a first-trimester foetus with the name “child”. You probably differ on that.”
I do, and with good reason. In my view, there are only two points where you can reasonably choose to believe that “personhood” begins – either conception, or birth. Anything else is an arbitrary line set by current medical limitations and the thinking of the time. That is the problem with arguing that the point of fetal viability outside the womb should be the cut-off line – that point changes. 100 years ago, the point of viability was very close to the term date. 100 years from now, it could be within weeks of conception – not comforting if that means that we would have aborted millions of babies who would then be considered human life.
Now, if you support abortion even on the day before the due date, I can see your view, though I disagree with it.
Matthew — actually, I sort of like the old Catholic division of “quickening”. That seemed like a reasonable one (and also is about at the end of the first trimester anyway). A fertilized egg is simply not a child to me.
People are going to have sex. So if you outlaw abortion and contraception (and a number of social conservatives are opposed to contraception and remember that Planned Parenthood started as a provider of contraceptive services when such were illegal), you are, rather directly, forcing people to birth kids. And, while there is a maternal death rate with abortion, it is less than with birth, so you are forcing women to increase their risk of death.
I’m referencing the fact that the American birth rate is below population replacement levels (and only stabilizes because of immigration — my comments about “outsourcing birth”). Not as low as Japan and Italy, to be sure, but still low. Do you have any ideas about how to make childrearing more attractive in a wealthy society? I honestly don’t see how to do this.
I share your concern about “guest workers”, which is why I want amnesty/citizenship for currently illegal immigrants rather than a guest worker program. I think it is NOT a good idea to have lots of people living here for years who have no desire to become citizens.
“I share your concern about “guest workers”, which is why I want amnesty/citizenship for currently illegal immigrants rather than a guest worker program.”
Actually, I wouldn’t mind a guest worker program – since those people wouldn’t stay. My fear is the people who will stay here without having a respect for the practice of blending in to – rather than turning upside down – American culture.
Fritz, you’re an idiot. While children may not have been welcomed with ‘open arms’ the difference is they weren’t killing them.
Incorrect. In fact, literal infanticide was sometimes practiced in “olden times,” depending upon how far back you go and in what societies you study, while today it is looked at as barbaric.
Oh — and I’m not a liberal (except in the classical sense).
No matter what you think about cultural relativism, capitalism, or national security, you’re always a liberal to MatthewK if you support abortion rights.
it was probably a part – though probably not anywhere near the rate it is today with abortion.
Thats the problem I have with people who say “abortions are going to happen, we might was well make them legal” – it might, but certainly not at the rate of 1,000,000+ a year.
“No matter what you think about cultural relativism, capitalism, or national security, you’re always a liberal to MatthewK if you support abortion rights.”
Thats the problem I have with people who say “abortions are going to happen, we might was well make them legal” – it might, but certainly not at the rate of 1,000,000+ a year.
Virtually all abortions happen in the first trimester.
Do you know what a first-trimester fetus looks like?
Social issues: Guns, immigration, abortion, gay rights, culture perception, education, etc.
I’m a far-right extremist on guns, liberal on immigration, generally pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, a strong defender of Western values, conservative on education.
Matthew — I assume you know that there was a great deal of anger about Irish and Italian immigrants in the 1800s because they were not “fitting in” and even dared to found their own schools. This has been going on for a long time and current immigration problems don’t seem worse or different than they were 150 years ago. I don’t know what you mean about current immigrants wanting to turn American culture upside-down — for the most part American popular culture has been singularly effective at turning other cultures upside-down.
I want people here who have a stake in the society.
Libertarian capitalist – and that puts you in line with the socially liberal line of thinking, which is probably better described as extreme social libertarian, but, whatever. Same thing.
Fritz, I’m aware with the past problems, but most of the people who came to this country had the expectation that their offspring would eventually become members of American culture.
How many people were calling for Independence for Boston so it could become a state loyal to Ireland?
Matthew — I assume you know that there was a great deal of anger about Irish and Italian immigrants in the 1800s because they were not “fitting in” and even dared to found their own schools. This has been going on for a long time and current immigration problems don’t seem worse or different than they were 150 years ago. I don’t know what you mean about current immigrants wanting to turn American culture upside-down — for the most part American popular culture has been singularly effective at turning other cultures upside-down.
The mass hysteria among the far-right over Hispanics is the same thing as the mass hysteria among the far-right back then. Everything will come to pass and we’ll be fine, and everyone will calm down and the next wave of discrimination will surely be led by adherents who say that they’re “not like those ones.” Same with people fifty years from now: opposing gay marriage will be thought of as medieval and people opposing acceptance for the transgendered will insist haughtily that they’re “not like those barbarians who opposed gay marriage,” just as the opponents of gay marriage today insist that they’re not like people who opposed interracial marriage, even though the exact same arguments are being made.
A baby has everything it needs to develop from the time of conception – its own DNA, etc.
Like I said, there are two reasonable views on when life beings – conception, and birth.
Anything else is an arbitrary line that can change.
How about the point of viability? Your silly dichotomy is keeping you from thinking.
How many people were calling for Independence for Boston so it could become a state loyal to Ireland?
How many people are actually calling for independence for the Southwest USA so it can become loyal to Mexico? Don’t be a tool; use statistics, not anecdotes.
Libertarian capitalist – and that puts you in line with the socially liberal line of thinking, which is probably better described as extreme social libertarian, but, whatever. Same thing.
You’ve never spoken with a truly extreme libertarian, if you think that I’m one of ‘em. I’m a classical liberal.
Matthew — there also is implantation. Just because an egg is fertilized doesn’t mean that you have to give it a home.
And, actually, a fertilized egg does not have everything it needs. Besides nutrition, it also needs active hormonal regulation from the uterine environment. But I really try to not get into abortion debates — I find them profoundly useless.
Hey, Alex — I guess there are two of us.
Matthew — are there an extra million adoptive couples in America? (I really don’t know the answer to that). That seems to me to be the alternative.
“How many people are actually calling for independence for the Southwest USA so it can become loyal to Mexico? Don’t be a tool; use statistics, not anecdotes.”
Go back a couple years to the big immigration protests – how many American flags did you see on the FIRST DAY?
====
“How about the point of viability?”
Its bad – because it can change. The point of viability is determined by the medial advances at the given time. As I said, 100 years ago, the point of viability was very near the term date. Now its further back, and 100 years from today it could be within weeks or conception. Already, in areas that do use that standard, babies are starting to be born – and live – earlier than the point of viability.
That means that, when we look back in a century, there will be a lot of lives (150 million+ if current trends continue) that we destroyed.
Alex, I’m well aware that there are those more extreme than yourself, who think that ANY restriction on personal behavior with no or minimal effects on others is evil, but its all a degree of the same philosophy that has attempted to marry two incompatible ideas – an abandonment of any sense of communal morality and values, and an on-your own, make-your-own-way economic approach.
“Matthew — are there an extra million adoptive couples in America? (I really don’t know the answer to that). That seems to me to be the alternative.”
Not sure – though easing the restriction and cost of adoption would certainly create many more.
But in all likihood, you wouldn’t need that many – its likely that the vast majority of those who have their kids will come to love them, provide for them, etc.
Its bad – because it can change. The point of viability is determined by the medial advances at the given time. As I said, 100 years ago, the point of viability was very near the term date. Now its further back, and 100 years from today it could be within weeks or conception. Already, in areas that do use that standard, babies are starting to be born – and live – earlier than the point of viability.
Also, you’re aware that the earlier a baby is born, the more likely it is to have a seriously diminished quality of life? Sorry, but if I’d have ended up mentally retarded, please abort me. There are those out there that think that all life, no matter what the quality, is worth bowing at the altar of. This is not a culture of life. It’s a culture of living death. I am pro-choice because I think that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the morality of such things.
Alex, I’m well aware that there are those more extreme than yourself, who think that ANY restriction on personal behavior with no or minimal effects on others is evil, but its all a degree of the same philosophy that has attempted to marry two incompatible ideas – an abandonment of any sense of communal morality and values, and an on-your own, make-your-own-way economic approach.
I’ll tell you what’s incompatible: liberty and tyranny. You advocate getting government out of the economy because the government will surely screw things up. But government suddenly is excellent at what it does, to you, once it gets involved in social affairs? Give me a break. Why are you a capitalist? Because “it’s always been that way”? Is there any particular reason you like capitalism, or do you just support it because you think you’re supposed to? I support it because I support personal liberty. You don’t seem to have any coherency to your beliefs. You just support things because “if it was good enough for my daddy, it’s good enough for me!” Well, I’d like for you to get the F out of my affairs, please.
“How about the point of viability?”
The point of viability is a silly point of reference when it comes to abortion. Its based on the idea that somehow inability to live on your own makes you less human, which would logically lead past justifying abortion and to justifying infanticide.
“Well, I’d like for you to get the F out of my affairs, please.”
If you’re really interested in persuing writing as a career, I’d suggest cultivating a more refined use of the English languange.
“This is not what Planned Parenthood is about. Very little of their services go toward abortions”
Planned Parenthood in the largest abortion provider in the United States. If doing 260,000 abortions every year and making over $110,000,000 from it (Abortions cost about $450 each) is “very little” then I don’t know what delusion you are under.
While PP says that abortion is 3% of its services…it brings in about 30% of its service revenue. I guess giving out 100 condoms = 100 services so they can make it look like they don’t do much abortion. Seek the truth and you will know.
The point of viability is a silly point of reference when it comes to abortion. Its based on the idea that somehow inability to live on your own makes you less human, which would logically lead past justifying abortion and to justifying infanticide.
No it doesn’t. Having to physically depend on someone is different than the implied pact that a woman makes the second that she gives a child independence.
If you’re really interested in persuing writing as a career, I’d suggest cultivating a more refined use of the English languange.
A newborn is just as physically dependent upon others as an embryo, only difference is, other’s can take care of it. As to the woman making a pact with the child, how is it that she makes a pact with the child when it is born, but not when she already created the child in her womb?
Sorry, the only pact a woman is making when having sex is to enjoy it and, hopefully, help her partner enjoy it also. Conception is a byproduct of sex.
If you are really worried about all of those babies, make adoption easier for everyone (including gays) so that a hundred thousand children, non infants, could be adopted. You could also start a national movement so that there was affordable daycare for everyone.
If you are a couple and between the two of you you make $50k and you find youself pregnant again it can be very costly. Daycare for an infant costs close to $200 a week. If there is an older sibling add on an extra $100. Especially when you can barely make ends meet as it is. Summer time will cost even more because the older child won’t be in school.
Make it easier to afford children and more might be born. Also make birth control more affordable and those pregnancies might not happen in the first place.
You want more children to be born, have 12 yourself. Just don’t ask me, or anyone else, to have children to make you happy.
As to the woman making a pact with the child, how is it that she makes a pact with the child when it is born, but not when she already created the child in her womb?
Irrelevant; a fetus is not entitled to rights. We have to make there be a cutoff point somewhere. I say that a physically autonomous human being is entitled to rights.
Casey makes a good point: if MatthewK thinks that having children is the responsibility of this generation, then I expect MatthewK and his wife to have lots and lots and lots of kids. Every nine months not spent pregnant is a waste of potential!
Put simply, some of us believe that life is more than about merely existing. We believe that quality of life matters. The point of it all isn’t merely to propagate the species, but to make it so that the species prospers.
“Irrelevant; a fetus is not entitled to rights. We have to make there be a cutoff point somewhere. I say that a physically autonomous human being is entitled to rights.”
So that’s all you’ve got; a “physically autonomous human being” is entitled to rights because you say so? The point is, likely very few of us if any are truly autonomous. You’re talking about the point a child can live outside the womb, but all thats changed is the necessary location for survival, the child is still just as dependent upon others for survival, so why a change in its rights?
And as to the need to make a cutoff point – I believe the cutoff point is conception, when a new distinct human has been formed. I can however, see logic to the position that the point should be consciencness of the child, as one can argue that one is not truly a live person without being able to have consciousness. Also, we use brain waves as a way to measure when one dies, so there would be logic to using that as a measurement of when one is first truly alive.
However, I see no logic to your position of arguing that the change of location where a child can survive from inside the womb to outside the womb changes the rights the child has as a human being.
So that’s all you’ve got; a “physically autonomous human being” is entitled to rights because you say so? The point is, likely very few of us if any are truly autonomous. You’re talking about the point a child can live outside the womb, but all thats changed is the necessary location for survival, the child is still just as dependent upon others for survival, so why a change in its rights?
I said physically autonomous.
And as to the need to make a cutoff point – I believe the cutoff point is conception, when a new distinct human has been formed. I can however, see logic to the position that the point should be consciencness of the child, as one can argue that one is not truly a live person without being able to have consciousness. Also, we use brain waves as a way to measure when one dies, so there would be logic to using that as a measurement of when one is first truly alive.
However, I see no logic to your position of arguing that the change of location where a child can survive from inside the womb to outside the womb changes the rights the child has as a human being.
Meaning that it is reliant upon itself for its capacity to function — not prosper, with food, care, etc., but merely function. Yes, a cutoff point must be somewhere, and it almost has to be arbitrary. I certainly don’t believe in granting Constitutional rights to clusters of cells. It equates the potential with the actual, the part with the whole, the sperm with the citizen. It’s a worship of mindlessness, not of life. Since there is no objective way to do it, I have chosen a reasonable cutoff point. Of course, other reasonable people may come to a different conclusion and may choose not to abort, which is why I am pro-choice, rather than pro-abortion, as pro-life zealots like to call people like me. A healthy legal cutoff is the standard point viability.
Don’t know if anyone mentioned it, but Planned Parenthood and the Klan do have something in common. They have both historically targeted black people.
Yes, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a big proponent of eugenics. One of Planned Parenthood’s early goals was to contracept and abort black people into extinction.
“I said physically autonomous.” And a baby is “physically” dependent upon others for survival. Meaning it is not truly physically autonomous. The only thing that changes at viability is the where the child can survive, and who he relies on for survival, his utter and complete “physical” dependence upon having another human to take care of him does not change. So again tell me, why does a child have more rights at viability?
Don’t do this semantics game with me about what “truly” constitutes “physical” “autonomy.” You know what I mean and I’m not arguing over the word game. Why does a child have more rights at viability? Let me repeat the answer I just gave, because I already addressed the point:
…it is reliant upon itself for its capacity to function — not prosper, with food, care, etc., but merely function. Yes, a cutoff point must be somewhere, and it almost has to be arbitrary. I certainly don’t believe in granting Constitutional rights to clusters of cells. It equates the potential with the actual, the part with the whole, the sperm with the citizen. It’s a worship of mindlessness, not of life. Since there is no objective way to do it, I have chosen a reasonable cutoff point. Of course, other reasonable people may come to a different conclusion and may choose not to abort, which is why I am pro-choice, rather than pro-abortion, as pro-life zealots like to call people like me. A healthy legal cutoff is the standard point of viability.
Alex, for several weeks since you came back on you’ve been conducting yourself much better. WHy have you went back down hill this last week? I know you can do better. Some of the things you said to Matthew on this thread were entirely uncalled for.
I fully agree with you on this post Illinoisguy. I fail to understand why people try to justify killing of innocent babies, target African American babies and then claim to be non-racists and Pro-child.
African American babies are not being targeted. No one is forcing them to go to the clinics. Why is it surprising that the poorest would choose not to have a child? They probably feel the children they already have would suffered more if their already over-stretched finances had to stretch even further.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am
This is not what Planned Parenthood is about. Very little of their services go toward abortions, and the way that social conservatives characterize it as an abortion agency is downright absurd. Now to put it on par with the Klan because of an awkwardly-phrased phone call? It’s just ridiculous.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
They promote abortion and birth control – they are, in almost every way, an anti-child agency. Planned Parenthood is one of the biggest promoters of the ideology that a child is a burden to be avoided rather than a gift to be cherished – and its that exact mindset that has already caused a lot of problems in other parts of the world, and, unless things change, is soon going to catch up with us in the US.
And yes, some – if not many – of their employees would (and sometimes, I’m sure, do) attempt to provide abortion services to those who should not be receiving them. The recent event isn’t the first time PP has been caught red-handed.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Yes, and not to mention that 2 planned parenthood employees have been busted advising girls they believed to be 13 to cross state lines to get an abortion.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
This ‘funny’ and anyone actually thinking it is amusing creeps me out.
“its that exact mindset that has already caused a lot of problems in other parts of the world”
Which is why parts of the world where that mindset is accepted have lower abortion rates. You are the one promoting anti-child ideology.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“Which is why parts of the world where that mindset is accepted have lower abortion rates. You are the one promoting anti-child ideology.”
Apparently, you also subscribe to the idea that children are something to be avoided…
===
Planned Parenthood is part of an unholy trinity that is slowly but surly destroying the future of our country by eliminating huge swaths of the future generations that are supposed to pick up the torch in a couple of decades.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
They promote abortion and birth control – they are, in almost every way, an anti-child agency. Planned Parenthood is one of the biggest promoters of the ideology that a child is a burden to be avoided rather than a gift to be cherished
I hope you knock some girl up and your parents rejoice in your gift.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I didn’t say there wasn’t a personal responsibility factor – but how is PP NOT an anti-child agency?
December 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Funny cartoon, but a bit sobering at the same time, to just imagine that such an evil organization exists.
[i]I hope you knock some girl up and your parents rejoice in your gift.[/i]
So the solution to an unwanted child is to get it aborted? Look, in olden times, children may have been unexpected, but they were always born into a family happy to have them. That this has changed should show how bitterly anti-life this world has become.
It’s not like there’s no birth control available either. There is absolutely no excuse to get an abortion in this day and age.
None.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I won’t go that far – certainly there are some medical reasons (life of the mother, etc.) that, in extremely rare circumstances, might justify an abortion, but you are right in that almost all abortions that happen today are not justified.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I didn’t say there wasn’t a personal responsibility factor – but how is PP NOT an anti-child agency?
Because children with children = bad idea?
December 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Look, in olden times, children may have been unexpected, but they were always born into a family happy to have them.
Hahahahahahahahaha this is such nonsense.
So much social conservatism rests on a mythological puritan society that never existed.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Apparently, you also subscribe to the idea that children are something to be avoided…
Yes, when the parents aren’t ready for children.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“So much social conservatism rests on a mythological puritan society that never existed.”
Sometimes, but having a family was certainly seen as a far better thing in the past…
===
“Yes, when the parents aren’t ready for children.”
so killing the child is the preferred alternative?
December 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Wow. Anyone who thinks unexpected children were welcomed with open arms before legal abortion should read some history books past secondary-school textbooks.
But, yeah, in a rural America with high child-mortality rates and little industrialization families had more kids around. OK, so? Does that imply that a large number of children is a proper goal now?
I financially support Planned Parenthood every year. I have organized escort services to assist women in getting through picket lines outside of PP facilities.
December 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Does anybody know where you can see the video? youtube removed it.
December 27th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Fritz, you’re an idiot. While children may not have been welcomed with ‘open arms’ the difference is they weren’t killing them. Aborting babies for personal convenience is sick. Congratulations on your financial support for Planned Parenthood, you must feel really good knowing where this money is all going toward.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Anyone who thinks killing the baby is the answer is pathetic.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Damarcus, actually often they were sometimes killing them. Of course, sometimes it was written down as just sudden unexplained death.
There have been studies of crib death using what records were kept. The rates of unexplained sudden newborn death in Scotland were astoundingly high. Guess the Scots were just sickly.
And, yes, I do feel good knowing where my contributions to Planned Parenthood are going. That’s why I keep making them.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“I financially support Planned Parenthood every year. I have organized escort services to assist women in getting through picket lines outside of PP facilities.”
…then you endorse and fund the barbaric extermination of innocent children – who are the future of both American society and the human race as a whole.
===
“Does that imply that a large number of children is a proper goal now?”
That in itself doesn’t – though it does show that America is more than capable of flourishing and surviving with large families. But the fact that America needs a strong future generation if this country is to remain even anything close to the Superpower and success that it is now certainly makes more children a good thing.
Do liberals just not understand how vital children are to our country’s survival? Or do they just not care?
December 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Matthew — first, I do not endow a first-trimester foetus with the name “child”. You probably differ on that.
My wife and I have raised three children, so I guess we’ve done our part. We are currently surviving teenagers.
If I may rephrase your concern… I believe that you are concerned that, when people have a choice and have urban lives with lots of entertaining things they can be doing, they choose to not raise children. I believe you are correct in that concern. Most of our friends have chosen to remain childless — and, for the most part, those friends have more spare money for hobbies, interests, and travel than we do. As well has much more free time and fewer hassles.
However, I don’t think the solution is or can be to force people to have children by outlawing abortion (and presumably next contraception).
Our current national strategy is to outsource birth, as we have outsourced manufacturing. This strategy has side-effects. Although, since America is a nation of immigrants, we have so far had fewer (although certainly not no) qualms about this practice than, say, Italy. We are remarkably good at incorporating immigrants into our culture, probably because we are reasonably comfortable with our culture morphing in response.
Do you have any thoughts on what it would take for middle-class Americans to choose to birth and raise children in sufficient numbers? It’s pretty daunting, and I doubt that a birth bonus or something like that would do it.
Oh — and I’m not a liberal (except in the classical sense).
December 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
This is completely indefensable.
http://www.laadvocate.com/pp/
December 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Here’s updated videos:
http://liveactionfilms.org/youtube/index.html
December 27th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“Our current national strategy is to outsource birth, as we have outsourced manufacturing. This strategy has side-effects. Although, since America is a nation of immigrants, we have so far had fewer (although certainly not no) qualms about this practice than, say, Italy. We are remarkably good at incorporating immigrants into our culture, probably because we are reasonably comfortable with our culture morphing in response.”
Well, in the past, that has worked fine, when the immigrants who were coming in had a clear desire to become American citizens, when they had a clear respect for our heritage and culture, and when they had clear intentions to have their children integrate into American society and provide only a dash of flavor from their own country – ex. Little Italy, Chinatown, Irish communities in Boston, etc.
But look at the recent problems we’ve had with immigration – slogans like “the border crossed us” and those who only come for jobs and money – with no intention to immigrate, and those who don’t even make attempts to integrate…I don’t think that strategy is a good one anymore.
====
“If I may rephrase your concern… I believe that you are concerned that, when people have a choice and have urban lives with lots of entertaining things they can be doing, they choose to not raise children. I believe you are correct in that concern. Most of our friends have chosen to remain childless — and, for the most part, those friends have more spare money for hobbies, interests, and travel than we do. As well has much more free time and fewer hassles.
However, I don’t think the solution is or can be to force people to have children by outlawing abortion (and presumably next contraception).”
Well, I don’t like the term “force people to have children” – since the only thing I support “forcing” people to do is to care a child to term – at which point they can keep or give up the child, and since no one is being forced to become pregnant.
====
“Do you have any thoughts on what it would take for middle-class Americans to choose to birth and raise children in sufficient numbers? It’s pretty daunting, and I doubt that a birth bonus or something like that would do it.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here…elaborate, please.
===
“I do not endow a first-trimester foetus with the name “child”. You probably differ on that.”
I do, and with good reason. In my view, there are only two points where you can reasonably choose to believe that “personhood” begins – either conception, or birth. Anything else is an arbitrary line set by current medical limitations and the thinking of the time. That is the problem with arguing that the point of fetal viability outside the womb should be the cut-off line – that point changes. 100 years ago, the point of viability was very close to the term date. 100 years from now, it could be within weeks of conception – not comforting if that means that we would have aborted millions of babies who would then be considered human life.
Now, if you support abortion even on the day before the due date, I can see your view, though I disagree with it.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Matthew — actually, I sort of like the old Catholic division of “quickening”. That seemed like a reasonable one (and also is about at the end of the first trimester anyway). A fertilized egg is simply not a child to me.
People are going to have sex. So if you outlaw abortion and contraception (and a number of social conservatives are opposed to contraception and remember that Planned Parenthood started as a provider of contraceptive services when such were illegal), you are, rather directly, forcing people to birth kids. And, while there is a maternal death rate with abortion, it is less than with birth, so you are forcing women to increase their risk of death.
I’m referencing the fact that the American birth rate is below population replacement levels (and only stabilizes because of immigration — my comments about “outsourcing birth”). Not as low as Japan and Italy, to be sure, but still low. Do you have any ideas about how to make childrearing more attractive in a wealthy society? I honestly don’t see how to do this.
I share your concern about “guest workers”, which is why I want amnesty/citizenship for currently illegal immigrants rather than a guest worker program. I think it is NOT a good idea to have lots of people living here for years who have no desire to become citizens.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“I share your concern about “guest workers”, which is why I want amnesty/citizenship for currently illegal immigrants rather than a guest worker program.”
Actually, I wouldn’t mind a guest worker program – since those people wouldn’t stay. My fear is the people who will stay here without having a respect for the practice of blending in to – rather than turning upside down – American culture.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Fritz, you’re an idiot. While children may not have been welcomed with ‘open arms’ the difference is they weren’t killing them.
Incorrect. In fact, literal infanticide was sometimes practiced in “olden times,” depending upon how far back you go and in what societies you study, while today it is looked at as barbaric.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Oh — and I’m not a liberal (except in the classical sense).
No matter what you think about cultural relativism, capitalism, or national security, you’re always a liberal to MatthewK if you support abortion rights.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
it was probably a part – though probably not anywhere near the rate it is today with abortion.
Thats the problem I have with people who say “abortions are going to happen, we might was well make them legal” – it might, but certainly not at the rate of 1,000,000+ a year.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Do liberals just not understand how vital children are to our country’s survival? Or do they just not care?
Jesus, you act like we’re literally killing off most of the next generation. Are you insane?
December 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
“No matter what you think about cultural relativism, capitalism, or national security, you’re always a liberal to MatthewK if you support abortion rights.”
Social liberal = liberal.
Because social values and practices
December 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Thats the problem I have with people who say “abortions are going to happen, we might was well make them legal” – it might, but certainly not at the rate of 1,000,000+ a year.
Virtually all abortions happen in the first trimester.
Do you know what a first-trimester fetus looks like?
Even all the way to three months, it’s this. You pro-lifers are big on images, rather than facts, so here: http://www.pregnancy-prep-101.com/images/3month.jpg
THAT IS NOT A BABY.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Jesus, you act like we’re literally killing off most of the next generation. Are you insane?”
well, do the math:
about 1.1-1.3 million abortions per year, with a little over 4 million births a year.
Thats a 20% plus abortion rate.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Social liberal = liberal.
Social issues: Guns, immigration, abortion, gay rights, culture perception, education, etc.
I’m a far-right extremist on guns, liberal on immigration, generally pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, a strong defender of Western values, conservative on education.
What am I?
December 27th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Matthew — I assume you know that there was a great deal of anger about Irish and Italian immigrants in the 1800s because they were not “fitting in” and even dared to found their own schools. This has been going on for a long time and current immigration problems don’t seem worse or different than they were 150 years ago. I don’t know what you mean about current immigrants wanting to turn American culture upside-down — for the most part American popular culture has been singularly effective at turning other cultures upside-down.
I want people here who have a stake in the society.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
A baby has everything it needs to develop from the time of conception – its own DNA, etc.
Like I said, there are two reasonable views on when life beings – conception, and birth.
Anything else is an arbitrary line that can change.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“What am I?”
Libertarian capitalist – and that puts you in line with the socially liberal line of thinking, which is probably better described as extreme social libertarian, but, whatever. Same thing.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Fritz, I’m aware with the past problems, but most of the people who came to this country had the expectation that their offspring would eventually become members of American culture.
How many people were calling for Independence for Boston so it could become a state loyal to Ireland?
December 27th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Matthew — I assume you know that there was a great deal of anger about Irish and Italian immigrants in the 1800s because they were not “fitting in” and even dared to found their own schools. This has been going on for a long time and current immigration problems don’t seem worse or different than they were 150 years ago. I don’t know what you mean about current immigrants wanting to turn American culture upside-down — for the most part American popular culture has been singularly effective at turning other cultures upside-down.
The mass hysteria among the far-right over Hispanics is the same thing as the mass hysteria among the far-right back then. Everything will come to pass and we’ll be fine, and everyone will calm down and the next wave of discrimination will surely be led by adherents who say that they’re “not like those ones.” Same with people fifty years from now: opposing gay marriage will be thought of as medieval and people opposing acceptance for the transgendered will insist haughtily that they’re “not like those barbarians who opposed gay marriage,” just as the opponents of gay marriage today insist that they’re not like people who opposed interracial marriage, even though the exact same arguments are being made.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
A baby has everything it needs to develop from the time of conception – its own DNA, etc.
Like I said, there are two reasonable views on when life beings – conception, and birth.
Anything else is an arbitrary line that can change.
How about the point of viability? Your silly dichotomy is keeping you from thinking.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
How many people were calling for Independence for Boston so it could become a state loyal to Ireland?
How many people are actually calling for independence for the Southwest USA so it can become loyal to Mexico? Don’t be a tool; use statistics, not anecdotes.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Libertarian capitalist – and that puts you in line with the socially liberal line of thinking, which is probably better described as extreme social libertarian, but, whatever. Same thing.
You’ve never spoken with a truly extreme libertarian, if you think that I’m one of ‘em. I’m a classical liberal.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Matthew — there also is implantation. Just because an egg is fertilized doesn’t mean that you have to give it a home.
And, actually, a fertilized egg does not have everything it needs. Besides nutrition, it also needs active hormonal regulation from the uterine environment. But I really try to not get into abortion debates — I find them profoundly useless.
Hey, Alex — I guess there are two of us.
Matthew — are there an extra million adoptive couples in America? (I really don’t know the answer to that). That seems to me to be the alternative.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“How many people are actually calling for independence for the Southwest USA so it can become loyal to Mexico? Don’t be a tool; use statistics, not anecdotes.”
Go back a couple years to the big immigration protests – how many American flags did you see on the FIRST DAY?
====
“How about the point of viability?”
Its bad – because it can change. The point of viability is determined by the medial advances at the given time. As I said, 100 years ago, the point of viability was very near the term date. Now its further back, and 100 years from today it could be within weeks or conception. Already, in areas that do use that standard, babies are starting to be born – and live – earlier than the point of viability.
That means that, when we look back in a century, there will be a lot of lives (150 million+ if current trends continue) that we destroyed.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Alex, I’m well aware that there are those more extreme than yourself, who think that ANY restriction on personal behavior with no or minimal effects on others is evil, but its all a degree of the same philosophy that has attempted to marry two incompatible ideas – an abandonment of any sense of communal morality and values, and an on-your own, make-your-own-way economic approach.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“Matthew — are there an extra million adoptive couples in America? (I really don’t know the answer to that). That seems to me to be the alternative.”
Not sure – though easing the restriction and cost of adoption would certainly create many more.
But in all likihood, you wouldn’t need that many – its likely that the vast majority of those who have their kids will come to love them, provide for them, etc.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Go back a couple years to the big immigration protests – how many American flags did you see on the FIRST DAY?
Who the F do you think turns out to rallies and protests? Only the extremists. So, yeah. Still a tool.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Its bad – because it can change. The point of viability is determined by the medial advances at the given time. As I said, 100 years ago, the point of viability was very near the term date. Now its further back, and 100 years from today it could be within weeks or conception. Already, in areas that do use that standard, babies are starting to be born – and live – earlier than the point of viability.
Also, you’re aware that the earlier a baby is born, the more likely it is to have a seriously diminished quality of life? Sorry, but if I’d have ended up mentally retarded, please abort me. There are those out there that think that all life, no matter what the quality, is worth bowing at the altar of. This is not a culture of life. It’s a culture of living death. I am pro-choice because I think that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the morality of such things.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Alex, I’m well aware that there are those more extreme than yourself, who think that ANY restriction on personal behavior with no or minimal effects on others is evil, but its all a degree of the same philosophy that has attempted to marry two incompatible ideas – an abandonment of any sense of communal morality and values, and an on-your own, make-your-own-way economic approach.
I’ll tell you what’s incompatible: liberty and tyranny. You advocate getting government out of the economy because the government will surely screw things up. But government suddenly is excellent at what it does, to you, once it gets involved in social affairs? Give me a break. Why are you a capitalist? Because “it’s always been that way”? Is there any particular reason you like capitalism, or do you just support it because you think you’re supposed to? I support it because I support personal liberty. You don’t seem to have any coherency to your beliefs. You just support things because “if it was good enough for my daddy, it’s good enough for me!” Well, I’d like for you to get the F out of my affairs, please.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I support a sense of communal morality.
Not one that’s imposed by the federal government, though.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“How about the point of viability?”
The point of viability is a silly point of reference when it comes to abortion. Its based on the idea that somehow inability to live on your own makes you less human, which would logically lead past justifying abortion and to justifying infanticide.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“Well, I’d like for you to get the F out of my affairs, please.”
If you’re really interested in persuing writing as a career, I’d suggest cultivating a more refined use of the English languange.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Wake up Alex Knepper.
“This is not what Planned Parenthood is about. Very little of their services go toward abortions”
Planned Parenthood in the largest abortion provider in the United States. If doing 260,000 abortions every year and making over $110,000,000 from it (Abortions cost about $450 each) is “very little” then I don’t know what delusion you are under.
While PP says that abortion is 3% of its services…it brings in about 30% of its service revenue. I guess giving out 100 condoms = 100 services so they can make it look like they don’t do much abortion. Seek the truth and you will know.
And Planned Parenthood offers these 2 girls great (illegal) advice…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTxsWZz9whg or http://liveactionfilms.org
December 27th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
The point of viability is a silly point of reference when it comes to abortion. Its based on the idea that somehow inability to live on your own makes you less human, which would logically lead past justifying abortion and to justifying infanticide.
No it doesn’t. Having to physically depend on someone is different than the implied pact that a woman makes the second that she gives a child independence.
If you’re really interested in persuing writing as a career, I’d suggest cultivating a more refined use of the English languange.
How can I put this: lighten the H up?
December 28th, 2008 at 1:01 am
A newborn is just as physically dependent upon others as an embryo, only difference is, other’s can take care of it. As to the woman making a pact with the child, how is it that she makes a pact with the child when it is born, but not when she already created the child in her womb?
December 28th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Sorry, the only pact a woman is making when having sex is to enjoy it and, hopefully, help her partner enjoy it also. Conception is a byproduct of sex.
If you are really worried about all of those babies, make adoption easier for everyone (including gays) so that a hundred thousand children, non infants, could be adopted. You could also start a national movement so that there was affordable daycare for everyone.
If you are a couple and between the two of you you make $50k and you find youself pregnant again it can be very costly. Daycare for an infant costs close to $200 a week. If there is an older sibling add on an extra $100. Especially when you can barely make ends meet as it is. Summer time will cost even more because the older child won’t be in school.
Make it easier to afford children and more might be born. Also make birth control more affordable and those pregnancies might not happen in the first place.
You want more children to be born, have 12 yourself. Just don’t ask me, or anyone else, to have children to make you happy.
December 28th, 2008 at 2:49 am
As to the woman making a pact with the child, how is it that she makes a pact with the child when it is born, but not when she already created the child in her womb?
Irrelevant; a fetus is not entitled to rights. We have to make there be a cutoff point somewhere. I say that a physically autonomous human being is entitled to rights.
December 28th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Casey makes a good point: if MatthewK thinks that having children is the responsibility of this generation, then I expect MatthewK and his wife to have lots and lots and lots of kids. Every nine months not spent pregnant is a waste of potential!
December 28th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Put simply, some of us believe that life is more than about merely existing. We believe that quality of life matters. The point of it all isn’t merely to propagate the species, but to make it so that the species prospers.
December 28th, 2008 at 5:33 am
“Irrelevant; a fetus is not entitled to rights. We have to make there be a cutoff point somewhere. I say that a physically autonomous human being is entitled to rights.”
So that’s all you’ve got; a “physically autonomous human being” is entitled to rights because you say so? The point is, likely very few of us if any are truly autonomous. You’re talking about the point a child can live outside the womb, but all thats changed is the necessary location for survival, the child is still just as dependent upon others for survival, so why a change in its rights?
December 28th, 2008 at 5:46 am
And as to the need to make a cutoff point – I believe the cutoff point is conception, when a new distinct human has been formed. I can however, see logic to the position that the point should be consciencness of the child, as one can argue that one is not truly a live person without being able to have consciousness. Also, we use brain waves as a way to measure when one dies, so there would be logic to using that as a measurement of when one is first truly alive.
However, I see no logic to your position of arguing that the change of location where a child can survive from inside the womb to outside the womb changes the rights the child has as a human being.
December 28th, 2008 at 7:19 am
So that’s all you’ve got; a “physically autonomous human being” is entitled to rights because you say so? The point is, likely very few of us if any are truly autonomous. You’re talking about the point a child can live outside the womb, but all thats changed is the necessary location for survival, the child is still just as dependent upon others for survival, so why a change in its rights?
I said physically autonomous.
And as to the need to make a cutoff point – I believe the cutoff point is conception, when a new distinct human has been formed. I can however, see logic to the position that the point should be consciencness of the child, as one can argue that one is not truly a live person without being able to have consciousness. Also, we use brain waves as a way to measure when one dies, so there would be logic to using that as a measurement of when one is first truly alive.
However, I see no logic to your position of arguing that the change of location where a child can survive from inside the womb to outside the womb changes the rights the child has as a human being.
Meaning that it is reliant upon itself for its capacity to function — not prosper, with food, care, etc., but merely function. Yes, a cutoff point must be somewhere, and it almost has to be arbitrary. I certainly don’t believe in granting Constitutional rights to clusters of cells. It equates the potential with the actual, the part with the whole, the sperm with the citizen. It’s a worship of mindlessness, not of life. Since there is no objective way to do it, I have chosen a reasonable cutoff point. Of course, other reasonable people may come to a different conclusion and may choose not to abort, which is why I am pro-choice, rather than pro-abortion, as pro-life zealots like to call people like me. A healthy legal cutoff is the standard point viability.
December 28th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Don’t know if anyone mentioned it, but Planned Parenthood and the Klan do have something in common. They have both historically targeted black people.
Yes, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a big proponent of eugenics. One of Planned Parenthood’s early goals was to contracept and abort black people into extinction.
December 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“I said physically autonomous.” And a baby is “physically” dependent upon others for survival. Meaning it is not truly physically autonomous. The only thing that changes at viability is the where the child can survive, and who he relies on for survival, his utter and complete “physical” dependence upon having another human to take care of him does not change. So again tell me, why does a child have more rights at viability?
December 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Don’t do this semantics game with me about what “truly” constitutes “physical” “autonomy.” You know what I mean and I’m not arguing over the word game. Why does a child have more rights at viability? Let me repeat the answer I just gave, because I already addressed the point:
…it is reliant upon itself for its capacity to function — not prosper, with food, care, etc., but merely function. Yes, a cutoff point must be somewhere, and it almost has to be arbitrary. I certainly don’t believe in granting Constitutional rights to clusters of cells. It equates the potential with the actual, the part with the whole, the sperm with the citizen. It’s a worship of mindlessness, not of life. Since there is no objective way to do it, I have chosen a reasonable cutoff point. Of course, other reasonable people may come to a different conclusion and may choose not to abort, which is why I am pro-choice, rather than pro-abortion, as pro-life zealots like to call people like me. A healthy legal cutoff is the standard point of viability.
December 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Alex, for several weeks since you came back on you’ve been conducting yourself much better. WHy have you went back down hill this last week? I know you can do better. Some of the things you said to Matthew on this thread were entirely uncalled for.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Oh, pfft. I’m allowed a jihad here and there.
December 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I fully agree with you on this post Illinoisguy. I fail to understand why people try to justify killing of innocent babies, target African American babies and then claim to be non-racists and Pro-child.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:41 am
African American babies are not being targeted. No one is forcing them to go to the clinics. Why is it surprising that the poorest would choose not to have a child? They probably feel the children they already have would suffered more if their already over-stretched finances had to stretch even further.