LADoc00 said:
Once someone provides a coherent defense of abortion practice, Ill listen. I have yet to hear one not rife with contradiction, inconsistency and political motives. Put aside the morality for a bit, even the premed here admits past viability, abortion "rights" are moot.
We have a very serious legal contradiction by allowing women choice, yet criminalize men who dont pay child support and negating their choice in the matter.
I for long too have beared the incessant whining of a female political establishment unwilling to carry their simple natural reproductive burden without demanding concessions from a pitiful, impotent and broken so-called democratic system. I would argue that if men played a similar game and sat around protesting rather than fighting and dying in places like Bataan, Normandy and Pearl Harbor, we would all speaking a combination of German and Japanese and this whole argument would be moot.
End the welfare state at least so I dont have to pay for it.
If some OBs want to perform abortions to make some cash, so be it. That is all on them and their conscience. But dont act self-righteous about it, that makes me sick.
I would query what blacks and other minorities must think about TABs given that the Roe v. Wade attorney so blatanly admitted it was the "Endlösung der Judenfrage" for the problem of inner city crime and overpopulation by blacks. Even popular culture has now accepted the decrease in black crime rates is due to legalized easy access to abortion (see NYT best seller Freakanomics). Ironically the very political party that professes to represent blacks, is intent on crippling their fecundity (but not that Repubs are much better).
End rant..thanks
Abortion rights are "moot" past viability because abortion just doesn't
happen past viability (except for a few hundred cases a year, due to severe maternal and fetal health problems). Roe v. Wade only protects abortion rights pre-viability. I suspect you'll never hear the argument you're seeking, LADoc, because you just aren't listening. I consider myself to be quite consistent in my positions.
There is a whole thread in Topics in Healthcare called "Roe v. Wade for Men" - I started it specifically to address this child support issue you mention. It was inspired by a recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Men, which argued basically the same point you bring up here.
"Simple natural reproductive burden"? Ouch. (The ladies must
looove you.) I could counter-argue that if
men stopped starting wars in the first place, and started "playing the game" in the way you say women do, we'd
all be better off... just a thought.
The welfare state, as you call it, is essential to free reproductive choice. You want "eugenics"? Revert to complete social Darwinism and see what happens. I don't like eugenic theory, or social darwinism, and I believe in solidarity (you probably will too, once you're old and helpless - me, I "caught on" while young).
So you're OK with doctors doing abortions for purely lucrative reasons, but you're not OK with them doing it because they want to help their patients? (Wow, been reading Ayn Rand lately?) This is, as far as criticism of abortion providers go, certainly
unique. That's something, I guess.
Some black groups do indeed oppose abortion rights and cry "eugenics" as an excuse. However, the modern birth control/abortion rights movement is
not motivated by eugenic thought; eugenics involves the
abolition of free choice and the
imposition of reproductive decisions on others, which is anathema to us. It's the same mentality as abortion opponents, except in reverse: except instead of saying "everybody must have babies", eugenicists say "certain people must not have babies". This is why I claim that being pro-choice is NOT the "opposite view" of the "pro-lifers" -
believing in forced abortion is the opposite view. I am in the middle, leaving it up to each pregnant woman to decide (I suppose you
could say I'm on one end of a liberty/coercion spectrum). I will admit that the history of the movement
was checkered with eugenic thought - but liberal feminism really did sweep it away and take over within the last 40 years. (The history of most religious groups is also very questionable, yet many religious people are doing good in the world today.) Besides, the birth rate for minorities is doing just fine - it's still higher than for whites, despite the higher abortion rate. But gee, why do white people still have all the power and money despite their shrinking numbers, why in fact has the concentration of wealth gotten more acute? Maybe a woman who is able to control her fertility can get farther in life?
The pro-choice community, as a whole, actually doesn't like the Freakonomics abortion theory. Some of its individual members might (including Henry Morgentaler, sadly); but overall we don't believe in choice because "the world will be better off without these children". We believe in choice because the world will be better off
when women are free.