Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

Women tend to be optimistic...... and they tend to think that they have the power to train their boyfriend and turn him into a "solid, decent man"........ her optimism may be unrealistic....... but it is a part of her psychological make up.

Frankly........ it is astonishing how many young men have dramatically positively changed their lives when they found out that they are going to be fathers within six to nine months!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corpus_callosum&oldid=427333904


Women tend to be somewhat more spiritual than we guys tend to be.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mal/4/1/s_929001

 

I don't buy that at all. I'm female, and I held no illusions about that stuff. I would never have dreamed of taking chances, given the possible innocent lives involved.

Exercising that responsibility is a function of caring about the welfare of your future children. It's a very basic adult thing - and coincidentally entirely in our nature as female mammals, to be attracted to the best providers.

 

That is a very good point........ and I am glad that you are in that segment of the female population who are very wise in that way but I do think that a lot of young women fall into the trap explained in the documentary, The Secret, that explains the Law of Attraction. We tend to think that other people think like we think......... and many young women can visualize that if they were a guy and got their best female friend pregnant..... they would be loyal to them and would assist them so...... they assume that the father thinks like they think....... even if he is on a totally different page.

I think that in many cases the mother gets so emotionally connected with the father of her child..... that she just assumes that he is a good person even if he is just somebody who knows what to say to a woman.

 

Wow!!

What a steaming pile of paternalistic crap!!

 

Wow! Then you go TOTALLY off the rails.

First of all, a minor detail: I've never heard anyone claim that there are two few willing to adopt. When my siblings and others wanted to adopt the lines for babies born in America was WAY too long. Making that line loger isn't going to change the number of abortions.

Way more importantly, why did you insantly abandon your central idea of addressing the reasons that women abort???

THAT was the sensible part.

And, deciding to try to tie abortion to fixing the national debt hits me as just plain nutty.

Finally, just let me emphasize once again that the last page or two is rife with paternalism that leads to issues that are blindingly irrelevant and totally nonsensical.

 

You speak of this stuff as though it's a happy accident. Luck of the draw. Genetics.

Young women are a product of their upbringing. They're either raised to be responsible and discerning in choosing a mate, or they're not. Young women are no more likely to be flakey dimwits than older women, in this regard. I know middle aged women who still can't get it right, after multiple failed marriages .. and women who married at age 22 and remain happily married to their good men 30 years later.

 

I think you're ignoring the role of men, you're ignoring the fact that sexual relations is an important and healthy part of human relations, ignoring that all birth control methods have a failure rate, ignoring that you aren't going to reduce abortion by changing how kids are brought up today, ignoring the factors that lead to an abortion decision (a decision that is NOT made by women alone), ignoring rape and incest.

How about getting back to focusing on the factors that are evaluated at the time that abortion decisions to be made?

 

1) I "ignored" that stuff because it's not relevant. I spoke ONLY of women making sound choices in men. The actual role of men in terms of conception is also largely irrelevant, since he doesn't make the decision to copulate - she does. That's how nature roles. The female mammal gets to choose. The only way you can torque that basic science into an ideologically pleasing 'truth' is by going flat-earther and engaging in special pleading. Is that what you're doing?

2) How about we focus on the actual choice .. which happens prior to conception. That's the ONLY choice we should be looking at, other than in cases of rape.

 

I'm recognizing the fact that sexual relations is a mutual activity that is important in human relations.

But, it goes way beyond that. Suggesting that women are to "blame" for unwanted pregnancies is just plain ridiculous. Beyond that, it's not even actionable. Beyond THAT, using babys as punishment (as specified by stating blame) is a humanitarian atrocity. Babys are not punishment.

That wouldn't even make sense if there were a perfect method of prophylaxis - which there is not.

Beyond that, you have NO idea whether rape or incest took place. Only the individual knows that, so saying "other than in cases of rape" is totally meaningless. And, I note that you omitted incest.

Beyond that, the factors being weighed when an abortion is being considered CAN be addressed.

Deciding to IGNORE that is just plain stupid. Purposefully ignoring the factors that lead to a decision you don't like is surely about the most idiotic direction possible.

 

1) The FEMALE chooses whether copulation will take place, not the male. It's science Dude. Nature. Why deny it and pretend humans are somehow exempt ... like Christians think the earth is exempt from sphere-forming physics.

2) How is a baby punishment? What does that even mean? What baby? Who is using them as punishment?

3) There is a perfect prophylaxis, it's called "not tonight, dear". There is nothing perfecter! If a woman chooses not to avail herself of that option, then she has chosen to risk a pregnancy. Choose the action, choose the consequences. Unless of course you're saying women are too stupid to understand consequences. Are you?

4) We're not discussing rape. We're discussing the vast majority of 'unwanted' pregnancies, which are a freely made FEMALE choice.

5) No, those 'factors' are not relevant. Buyer's remorse is not the voice to be listened to. She made her free choice at the point of conception. There is no reality in which we get do-overs consequence free. Supporting a constructed 'reality' which provides that is despicable. It means you want us to continue shedding responsibility until we're no more able to function and think than an amoeba. It means you want us acting on the slightest urge, without impediment. Like selfish, spoiled, lazy, careless three year olds - without any grasp of consequences. You are infantalising women.

6) Okay, show me the universe in which we can 'stop and consider the backstory' of the multiple daily decisions made by seven billion people. Explain how that will work.

 

Your whole argument means absoulutely nothing if you aren't working to require women to carry every fetus to term for the very reason that women are to BLAME!!

No, you are saying, "Not EVER dear - NEVER again."

And, it's biologically irrelevant which partner says that.

You don't get to say that, as you have no way to separately address a limited subset.

Ignoring that men are every bit as involved is not an excuse for blaming blaming women.

?? We have no way to "stop and consider the backstory".

I'm saying that the very idea of that is just plain silly.

 

1) My argument is SOLELY that women have full bodily autonomy and decision making powers. You are arguing otherwise (perhaps you're a male?). I have said nothing at all about carrying babies to term .. not a single word.

2) When did I ever say NEVER? Not once. You're flat out engaging in untruths now. Shows how much confidence you have in your argument, that you have to make stuff up to feel you still having a footing.

3) Yes, I absolutely get to say that I'm addressing ONLY those 'unwanted pregnancies' which result from freely made choices.

4) Men have no say in the copulation act outside of rape. ALL power to decide that is on her. That's NATURE. You have a real big problem with science and nature, don't you? Maybe you also think humans aren't primates?

5) Yes, it is plain silly to think seven billion people can have their back story considered in every decision they make or the world makes about them. It's way past plain silly.

 

No, men and women have sex together. I'm pretty sure of that.

Do you really thing that procreation is a daily decision where sometimes the answer for a couple is yes and sometimes no? In the very best case the issue of procreation is not base on today - it's based on factors that do not change over short periods of time.

In human terms, saying "not tonight" never addresses what you are really saying. You are actually saying "not until some future point where our situation is NOT like it is at present". So, it might be "until I'm ready to not be employed" or "until I'm well established in the business world", or whatever.

In terms of normal relations between a man and a woman, that is similar to "never" - NOT to "not tonight".

I don't believe you are addressing any real world situation.

False as noted above. Human sexual relations should never become anywhere near that onesided. I think it can ony be described as a pathology.

??

This is one important reason for individuals being allowed to make their own decisions. There are others, too.

 

1) Once again .. I'm referring only to the fact that the female has full decision making powers over what happens to HER body .. and outside rape that means every instance of copulation.

2) Irrelevant. She has full power to say 'not tonight' if she believes she's at risk for conception. If she chooses to proceed despite that risk, it means she has chosen the consequences of that action.

3) How does "not tonight" mean "never"? You're just being weird and dramatic now.

4) I'm addressing all those 'unwanted' pregnancies which did not result from rape. AKA, the majority of pregnancies which are terminated.

5) And yet mammals evolved that way over millions of years. Take your argument up with nature, or god. Not my problem.

 

And, I'm saying that there are couples who have real relationships, not the aggressively confrontive and absolutive version you seem to think prevails. I'm certainly not going to question your personal decisions.

No, I'm saying that with this topic there is no "not tonight". There CAN be a "no sex for some number of years" or "no sex until X happens."

There is no possibility of sex without a chance for what you call "consequences" regardless of what kind of BC you use - outside of sterilization.

The factors that would be involved in a conception decision don't go away in a "not tonight" manner. That's just BS.

So, how do you address those? You've said I'm wrong when I guess how you would address those, so I think you need to say.

In general, evolution works in favor of the success of the organism. And, that's certainly what happened for humans.

So, I'm not sure what argument you think I have with that.

 

1) Irrelevant. Humans are mammals, and female mammals have decision making power in every act of copulation outside of rape. Take it up with nature, as recommended. You can argue it all you like, but nature will just point and laugh. No idea why you insist on denying this basic law of the jungle. Perhaps you don't like the idea of females having bodily autonomy?

2) "Not tonight" means NOT TONIGHT. We're discussing reality here, not the solipsist vision of WRM.

3) I address the non-rape 'unwanted pregnancies' by addressing them, just like this.

 

The problem with "not tonight" is that it is meaningless in terms of the years during which human procreation is possible.

If accidental procreation is to be solved by denying sexual relations it has be denied over a full timerange covering all factors that would cause procreation to be seen as undesirable.

And, I'm proposing that is closer to saying "never" as dedicated human relationships where there is no sex, ESPECIALLY when it is because of ONE partner denying sex (as you propose), have NO history of lasting.


If you have anythig to say about rape and incest you have to do better then hint at how such a statement might appear.

 

Look, Buddy .. you can make it never if that's your preference - I'm not interested in your relationship, or your relationship problems. I'm referring ONLY to the option of saying no on those occasions when contraception isn't certain and a pregnancy isn't wanted. Please just focus on that, and remember that women have full power and responsibility for taking that option, or choosing not to take it. It's HER body, and she has complete autonomy. If you can't deal with that reality, you probably need to have a careful look at your views on women.

We're not discussing rape and incest - we're discussing the vast majority of 'unwanted' pregnancies - which are NOT the product of rape or incest.

 

As I've mentioned before, contraception is NEVER certain.

Every method of contraception has a failure rate - except for sterilization.

I'll wait on the rape/incest issue until you say something that would legally limit abortion in some way.

 

Pardon my French, but WTF does that have to do with anything? Saying 'not tonight' is 100% perfect contraception. Women take that option or they don't. That's IT. Nothing more to it.

Why are you waiting on me for that? I'm not addressing those exceptions, never was, and don't plan to. I'm addressing the vast majority .. those 'unwanted' pregnancies not resulting from rape or incest. How many ways do you want that said?

I have zero plans to 'limit' abortion. I don't have that kind of power, and am not interested in pursuing it. I'm interested in intellectual honesty in this debate, and the full bodily autonomy of women.

 

As I've pointed out many times now, saying "not tonight" does not allow for time until pregnancy becomes desired.

If the issue is a job, carreer establishment, education, sheer poverty, lack of health care, etc., "not tonight" is MEANINGLESS.

It would only gain meaning if strung together with nightly "not tonigh" directives to cover the entire time period until the reasons for not welcoming pregnancy no longer exist.

"Not tonight" until we're no longer in poverty.
"Not tonight" until we can afford healthcare.
"Not tonight" until we are food secure.
etc.

The issues that motivate abortion are NOT issues that are solved in one night of abstinance. They are solved by years of endeavor.

And, dedicated human relationships between a man and a woman don't last when "not tonight" actually means YEARS of "not tonight".

 

Okay, look .. it's pretty apparent at this point that you're talking about personal relationships, or something. No idea what it's about, other than that it appears to be very personal. The tangent you've galloped out on is way way waaaaaay off course, in any case.

Meantime, I'll keep reiterating that "NO" is the ultimate contraceptive, when a pregnancy isn't 'convenient'. Beyond that, there's tubal ligation and vasectomy. Whatever, this is about the simple fact that pregnancy is the easist thing to avoid, if you're determined to avoid it. We're talking ONLY about biology, not your relationship problems .. okay? BIOLOGY.

 

OR, you could respond to my post without the crap you interject about me.

NOTHING I said has anything to do with me.

The problem is, you can't. You KNOW that the decision not to procreate yet is not a one night issue.

 

And very irresponsible to get pregnant or get somebody pregnant in the first place if you aren’t ready to raise a child.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Uh, here's the whole post:Abortion isn’t only about money. It’s about giving up part of your life for 18 years because you’re not ready"""

I think it is very responsible to abort when you can't afford and/or don't want a kid...

Yes, it may be...so what? It happens....it also happens when one is being responsible....it's a human thing...NO one is perfect and EVERYONE makes mistakes....it IS responsible to RECTIFY the mistake.

Getting pregnant is NOT a crime and shouldn't have a punishment...