2022-06-26, 02:54 | Link #141 |
#1 Akashiya Moka Fan
Author
|
As much as I'm pro-choice and think Republicans have devolved, one proposed idea kinda... makes sense, unfortunately. Mind you, the idea needs a TON of support that Repubs will never do.
The short-but-taken-to-extremes version is that this is as close as the Republicans can get to a eugenics program without actually saying "eugenics" So it starts off with this. I ask: so... if the easiest way to prevent abortion is to not even get pregnant in the first place, are y'all okay with women not sleeping with any men? The answer I saw to that one was "Yes, women should only sleep with men once they're married!" (Note: I am only taking into account consensual acts, not other things like rape or incest). Now, arguably marriage can be VERY cheap: technically speaking, you just go in front of a court of law, say your vows and sign a piece of paper; no need for the Victorian-style wedding that most people think of. But, I'm pretty sure most Republicans think of married people as "have a good chunk of money and can afford to get married". So let's say we've checked all the "appropriate" boxes for Republicans to be happy about someone having a baby, and also going to ignore any miscarriages. Add in how much it costs to give birth, and Republicans are essentially saying "Poor people shouldn't breed!" And in all honesty... at least from my view, there's a certain amount of sense to that: if you're unable to provide resources for a new life, then don't create new life. But the abstinence-only method also has been shown not to work. So, if they don't want women having sex, you'd think they'd support sex ed. And yet, they don't support much of any education in the first place. I'd say it's ironic, and a classic case of double-think: They're essentially saying "Well, we want people to breed (because Bible and "be fruitful and multiply")... but not poor people. Poor people need to stop existing". Wait a second... okay, eugenics isn't the right word, but it sounds like Class Warfare. But on top of that... it's the states with the highest amount of poor people that are also most likely to vote Republican. Are you saying you want the people who vote for you the most to stop existing? I won't go so far as to say that actually ends up being a good thing for Democrats in the long run, but sure... keep shrinking not only your base, but also where (whether they admit it or not) most of the labor for the "undesirable" jobs come from. And again... so, you're forcing people to give birth. So, that means that if you're forcing a child into existence, you ARE going to now support this life that you said MUST exist, right? Either that, or women should just stop having sex so as to prevent pregnancy in the first place. If you're a single guy, you're ok with that, right? If so, I don't want to hear any stories about what are known as "incels" getting angry that they aren't getting laid.
__________________
|
2022-06-26, 07:41 | Link #142 |
Born to ship
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
|
Actually, that's the reasoning I've heard people use to claim that "pro-choice" laws were for eugenic purposes. If you have tons of "undesirables" having babies that they don't really want and/or can't afford, what's the best way to fix that "problem"? Give them the means to get rid of those unwanted babies and encourage them to do so, of course. If you can convince all the "types" you don't like to have more abortions, their numbers will go down pretty quickly.
|
2022-06-26, 07:54 | Link #143 | ||
Speedy Sea Cucumber
IT Support
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW you did see Clarence Thomas concurring opinion saying that Griswold (contraceptives case from 1965) should be reviewed in light of the Dobbs decision I'm assuming? The notion you kept defending last month that forced birthers would stop at overturning Roe is quaint. |
||
2022-06-26, 08:27 | Link #144 | ||
Born to ship
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2022-06-26, 08:44 | Link #145 | ||
Speedy Sea Cucumber
IT Support
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2022-06-26, 09:14 | Link #146 | |
Born to ship
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Texas
|
Quote:
And I wasn't personally saying it's different, I was noting that the majority SAID that THEY considered contraception to not be the same as abortion. Not to mention, they most certainly DID give a substantive reason, which I previously mentioned: it doesn't involve the question of an additional life. Abortion involves a living, unique human organism, and the question of when that organism gains any number of rights and when those rights supersede other individuals' rights. Contraception doesn't involve any other organisms at all, just sperm, eggs, and the body's ability to produce and transmit these to the necessary location. I can understand your confusion though. Anyone's arguments can seem illogical if you ignore or miss some of what they said. |
|
2022-06-26, 09:42 | Link #147 | ||
Speedy Sea Cucumber
IT Support
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia
|
Quote:
Quote:
You should probably read both Roe and Dobbs yourself if you get a chance. |
||
|
|