Compelling Pro Life Argument

[fishonjazz]

I recall reading it some time back. My brother & his wife adopted 3 children through LDS social services. Afterwards I heard LDS social services no longer does adoptions. I don't know 100% if this is true, and if true, why. I am only speculating that concerns about blowback about using religious criteria (e.g., hetereosexual couple, LDS) to place children may be an explanation.

Understandably some object to such religious-based criteria as discriminatory against same-sex couples, which they are, but this is one area where I have no objection to carving out a religion-based exception. The goal should be to place as many children as possible into loving homes, and if one way to do it is to allow religious adoption services to "discriminate" in this way, then I'm OK with it... provided that non-traditional families are not systematically discriminated against in the market. (I believe a same-sex couple equally as capable of giving a child a stable, loving, nuturing home as a hetereosxual couple.)

As a policy preference, creating financial and other incentives for women to carry to term and for people to adopt HAS to be part of the equation if we want to reduce abortions. I should add putting in place a functioning, reasonably generous safety net for women and families to help care for children, which HAS to include health sector reform that provides universal access to quality care at a reasonable price, something many of the most ardent foes of abortion oppose, without seeing its link back to incentivizing at the margin the thing they hate so much.

The thought of abortions makes me queasy, but so does the state compelling a woman to have a child and interfering in her most intimate decisions about control over her own body and reproduction.

Hell of a post

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[silesian]

I recall reading it some time back. My brother & his wife adopted 3 children through LDS social services. Afterwards I heard LDS social services no longer does adoptions. I don't know 100% if this is true, and if true, why. I am only speculating that concerns about blowback about using religious criteria (e.g., hetereosexual couple, LDS) to place children may be an explanation.

Understandably some object to such religious-based criteria as discriminatory against same-sex couples, which they are, but this is one area where I have no objection to carving out a religion-based exception. The goal should be to place as many children as possible into loving homes, and if one way to do it is to allow religious adoption services to "discriminate" in this way, then I'm OK with it... provided that non-traditional families are not systematically discriminated against in the market. (I believe a same-sex couple equally as capable of giving a child a stable, loving, nuturing home as a hetereosxual couple.)

As a policy preference, creating financial and other incentives for women to carry to term and for people to adopt HAS to be part of the equation if we want to reduce abortions. I should add putting in place a functioning, reasonably generous safety net for women and families to help care for children, which HAS to include health sector reform that provides universal access to quality care at a reasonable price, something many of the most ardent foes of abortion oppose, without seeing its link back to incentivizing at the margin the thing they hate so much.

The thought of abortions makes me queasy, but so does the state compelling a woman to have a child and interfering in her most intimate decisions about control over her own body and reproduction.

Well said

I have no problem allowing religions to impose whatever restrictions they want, even those I disagree with, as long as they are finding good homes for kids. If they are getting government funding, that would be different.

 

[silesian]

what on earth has that got to do with the price of fish?

You don't see how the government getting involved in mandating certain intimate decisions is socialism?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You don't see how the government getting involved in mandating certain intimate decisions is socialism?

I wouldn't call this socialism. Not every form of gov involvement in economy and other aspects of life equates to some form of socialism. Socialism is a word that if oft-used and oft-used incorrectly. Expect a lot of this to happen in next election cycle in which Repub's strategy is taking shape to try to paint Dems as socialism with AOC being one of their primary boogeymen for this purpose. I'm guessing, in 90%+ of the time, they'll use the term improperly.

 

[Eminence]

I wouldn't call this socialism. Not every form of gov involvement in economy and other aspects of life equates to some form of socialism. Socialism is a word that if oft-used and oft-used incorrectly. Expect a lot of this to happen in next election cycle in which Repub's strategy is taking shape to try to paint Dems as socialism with AOC being one of their primary boogeymen for this purpose. I'm guessing, in 90%+ of the time, they'll use the term improperly.

Probably the understatement of the century.

 

[Rubashov]

You don't see how the government getting involved in mandating certain intimate decisions is socialism?

China isn't socialist.

 

[LogGrad98]

The fetus doesn't need to act, but yes, I think the women needs to consent to having her uterus used.



I'm saying we shouldn't force them to stay pregnant.

Who or what is using the uterus without the woman's consent?

Side question, do you think a fetus is a human being, regardless of legality or policy? When do you personally believe life, human life with rights and worth protecting, begins? Again, without commenting in this context on the women's rights, since it is entirely possible to believe that life begins at conception but that a right to an abortion outweighs that belief.

 

[fishonjazz]

Who or what is using the uterus without the woman's consent?

Side question, do you think a fetus is a human being, regardless of legality or policy? When do you personally believe life, human life with rights and worth protecting, begins? Again, without commenting in this context on the women's rights, since it is entirely possible to believe that life begins at conception but that a right to an abortion outweighs that belief.

I think he already answered your question a while back with something about life beginning even before conception by way of sperm being life and eggs as well?

Something to that effect.

So essentially you are aborting some form of human life with every act of masturbation lol.
Murderers all of us!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Alfalfa]

I think he already answered your question a while back with something about life beginning even before conception by way of sperm being life and eggs as well?

Something to that effect.

So essentially you are aborting some form of human life with every act of masturbation lol.
Murderers all of us!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

He asked if it's a human. Not if it's alive. A tomato is alive.

 

[fishonjazz]

He asked if it's a human. Not if it's alive. A tomato is alive.

There is potentially a human life in that sperm though. Tomato isn't the same. Straw man

I agree about the when is it actually human though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[lauriandres]

What constitutes "forced" in your world? If a disempowered woman has sex with her lawful partner, even if she doesn't want to but feels no power to object, is that forced sex, ergo rape? If social/religious norms require that women submit to their husbands, even if they don't want to, is that forced, ergo rape? If a poor, disempowered woman has sex for money, because she is desperate and sees no choice, even if she does not want to, is that forced sex, ergo rape?

Women face any number of circumstances in which they have limited to no ability to exert countervailing power against a partner's demands for sex, are all of these forced sex, ergo rape?

You're not doing anything but continuing to demonstrate that you're incapable of nuanced thinking on this subject displaying for all to see your naivete, lack of insight into the human condition, lack of empathy, and tendency to frame the issue solely within the constraints of your narrow cultural milieu.

Shouldn't we as a society behave so that we show as directly as possible that such kind of behavior is not OK? Of course, not killing anybody, but a la being vocal saying "you are kind of funny guy" for those who go to vacation in Pattaya to have fun with underage girls and boys; while being a car salesman - not selling a supercar to somebody who comes to a dealership with her 14 year old "wife" etc. Of course, as long as money does not have a smell of a fart, then we can only dream about it.
Also, i guess that most of those who have a belief that women must do what they want while in marriage - they were also raised partially by women. I wonder - at what age they teach to children that "women are not as superior as men" in Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc?

 

[Alfalfa]

There is potentially a human life in that sperm though. Tomato isn't the same. Straw man

I agree about the when is it actually human though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

LOL. No. Not a strawman. Potential is meaningless. Any atom in the universe has the potential to be part of anything. Aliveness is irrelevant. Status as a human is not.