Opinion on the Roe v. Wade Leak

[ken_sylvania]

A single mother who fornicates and has a child out of wedlock made a sinful, wicked decision.

as did the man who impregnated her. do not let him off the hook.

I suggested to someone, only party serious, that perhaps abortion could be legal for the mother but treated like manslaughter for the father. We have the technology to prove paternity. For every abortion, a biological father would stand trial.

What part of that were you serious about? The current system allows the biological father no say in whether or not the child may be aborted. And why-ever would you want it to be legal for the "mother"?

[ken_sylvania]

Require mandatory paid maternity leave of 6-9 months for all pregnant women so women can take time off to have babies
Provide universal free childcare so that women can afford to go back to work after having children if the choose to or need to
Provide universal free healthcare so that people aren't burdened with the costs of maternity care, child birth, and infant care.

I find it difficult to take seriously any proposal (or proposer) that calls for "universal free" anything. Make the case that it's worth the higher taxes and higher prices to fund those things. It might well be, but we won't get to a serious discussion on the subject by being dishonest about who is going to be paying for the mandatory maternity leave and how it impacts the employment opportunities of women.

Yes it will cost more but this is a wealthy country and we can easily afford it. Many countries with far fewer resources do the same thing already. Pay for maternity leave like most countries do through business and payroll taxes so that the cost to employers is the same whether they hire men or women.

Judging from the comments here, people are immediately gravitating towards punishment for women rather than helping families and children. That is a strikingly un-Christian sentiment and the opposite of a just society. If you want to reduce the numbers of unwanted children then take steps to make motherhood more affordable in this country rather than the one-way ticket to poverty that it represents for so many.

The attitude here seems to be criminalization of pregnancy and forced childbirth followed by abandoning women and their children to a life of poverty. That is the opposite of Christian. Note that I didn't propose a single dime of welfare be passed directly to women. Only that we make it affordable for them to raise their children as productive members of society.

I find it hard to take people seriously who advocate that society take away reproductive choice from women but then turn around and say that society has no obligation for those same children once they are born.

Interesting...
As far as I can tell you are the only person who suggested anything about criminalization of pregnancy or forced childbirth. And, if I recall correctly, you were quite strenuously insisting quite recently that there is no practical difference between tax breaks, giving government benefits such as free schooling, or other forms of government subsidies. How can you possibly say that your proposal for mandatory paid maternity leave is not "welfare ... passed directly to women"? Because you're making the employer handle the money?

Your last implication about people supposedly advocating that society force women to get pregnant, and then refusing to care for these children after they are born, is absurd. I haven't seen any posts in this thread suggesting that women should be forced to get pregnant. The "reproductive choice" that Josh seems to propose be taken away, is the choice for unmarried women to get pregnant. If women don't get pregnant society won't have the opportunity to refuse to care for the children as they won't exist.

I am a strong proponent of a society consisting of strong, stable homes that can afford to raise their own children, as well as contributing physically and monetarily to ensure that children born in less fortunate circumstances are able to enjoy the blessings of family and a strong community, and that single parents receive the assistance they need to raise their children. I believe this can and should be done without condoning fornication, divorce, adultery, rape, infidelity, or any of the other common causes of single-parent homes.

Providing free childcare, paid maternity leave, paid healthcare, etc is, in my opinion, something like a band-aid trying to cover up two great evils - employers not paying a living wage, and the rejection of God resulting in failing family, church, and community structures.

[Ken]

I find it difficult to take seriously any proposal (or proposer) that calls for "universal free" anything. Make the case that it's worth the higher taxes and higher prices to fund those things. It might well be, but we won't get to a serious discussion on the subject by being dishonest about who is going to be paying for the mandatory maternity leave and how it impacts the employment opportunities of women.

Yes it will cost more but this is a wealthy country and we can easily afford it. Many countries with far fewer resources do the same thing already. Pay for maternity leave like most countries do through business and payroll taxes so that the cost to employers is the same whether they hire men or women.

Judging from the comments here, people are immediately gravitating towards punishment for women rather than helping families and children. That is a strikingly un-Christian sentiment and the opposite of a just society. If you want to reduce the numbers of unwanted children then take steps to make motherhood more affordable in this country rather than the one-way ticket to poverty that it represents for so many.

The attitude here seems to be criminalization of pregnancy and forced childbirth followed by abandoning women and their children to a life of poverty. That is the opposite of Christian. Note that I didn't propose a single dime of welfare be passed directly to women. Only that we make it affordable for them to raise their children as productive members of society.

I find it hard to take people seriously who advocate that society take away reproductive choice from women but then turn around and say that society has no obligation for those same children once they are born.

Interesting...
As far as I can tell you are the only person who suggested anything about criminalization of pregnancy or forced childbirth. And, if I recall correctly, you were quite strenuously insisting quite recently that there is no practical difference between tax breaks, giving government benefits such as free schooling, or other forms of government subsidies. How can you possibly say that your proposal for mandatory paid maternity leave is not "welfare ... passed directly to women"? Because you're making the employer handle the money?

Your last implication about people supposedly advocating that society force women to get pregnant, and then refusing to care for these children after they are born, is absurd. I haven't seen any posts in this thread suggesting that women should be forced to get pregnant. The "reproductive choice" that Josh seems to propose be taken away, is the choice for unmarried women to get pregnant. If women don't get pregnant society won't have the opportunity to refuse to care for the children as they won't exist.

I am a strong proponent of a society consisting of strong, stable homes that can afford to raise their own children, as well as contributing physically and monetarily to ensure that children born in less fortunate circumstances are able to enjoy the blessings of family and a strong community, and that single parents receive the assistance they need to raise their children. I believe this can and should be done without condoning fornication, divorce, adultery, rape, infidelity, or any of the other common causes of single-parent homes.

Providing free childcare, paid maternity leave, paid healthcare, etc is, in my opinion, something like a band-aid trying to cover up two great evils - employers not paying a living wage, and the rejection of God resulting in failing family, church, and community structures.

We don't live in a Norman Rockwell fantasy world. Banning all abortions results in the criminalization of pregnancy and forced childbirth. That is the consequence. In countries where this has been done, women have often been prosecuted and jailed for things like ordinary miscarriages. And hospitals often deny necessary medical care for fear of prosecution. That is the criminalization of pregnancy.

Depending on which statistics you look at there are upwards of 400,000 rapes and sexual assaults reported in this country each year and perhaps twice that number that don't get reported. Many of which generate pregnancies.

Reliable birth control is not cheap or easy to get in many instances which further increases the number of unwanted pregnancies in the US relative to many other countries.

And like it or not, there are tens of millions of sexually active men and women who are unmarried. Many of them in or from "good Christian homes". So the notion that all men and women are going to remain celibate until marriage is an absurd fantasy regardless of what your opinion is.

The world in which we actually live in is one in which many young unmarried women do, in fact, get pregnant. Often through no fault of their own. And the choice to keep that child often means a live of poverty at the margins of our society because we do very little to support such women who do choose to keep their babies. The lack of affordable childcare makes it difficult or impossible to go to school or work. The lack of paid maternity leave means that women are forced to choose between their income and their child. And it isn't even really about the women. It is more about the children who often themselves fall into the same cycle of poverty because we just let it happen and as a society don't really care.

[GaryK]

Banning all abortions results in the criminalization of pregnancy and forced childbirth.

You seem to be in favor of abortion in some instances. How is that Christian?

[temporal1]

The U.S. is so far from “banning all abortions” it’s not in any way a credible question.

Nothing is sadder than seeing women outside the Supreme Court, campaigning for the right to kill their children.

The vast economic+political commitment toward this deadly global goal is ghoulish.

ghoulish
2. morbidly interested in death or disaster.
"she told the story with ghoulish relish"

[JimFoxvog]

After thinking about this bit, I wonder how likely a Roe overturn actually is. My memory is that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent and are not looking to undo this type of ruling. Barrette was less committed. I guess we will see.

Yes, this is a test of their honesty during Congressional questioning. While I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I don't like lying before Congress in order to promote one's agenda, which I suspect here.

Exactly how did they lie?

I'm not going to look at transcripts and make a case, but according to my memory, Barnhart is correct in stating that these two "clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent". I will just stay with what I previously wrote, that I suspect they lied.

[temporal1]

JFV:
I'm not going to look at transcripts and make a case, but according to my memory, Barnhart is correct in stating that these two "clearly stated they accept Roe as established precedent". I will just stay with what I previously wrote,

that I suspect they lied.

yes. while your opinion sheds no light on the justices, it sheds light.

[JimFoxvog]

Banning all abortions results in the criminalization of pregnancy and forced childbirth.

You seem to be in favor of abortion in some instances. How is that Christian?

Christians in recent centuries have had many different opinions about abortion. We can argue our case without suggesting the other's point of view isn't Christian.

[barnhart]

I suggested to someone, only party serious, that perhaps abortion could be legal for the mother but treated like manslaughter for the father. We have the technology to prove paternity. For every abortion, a biological father would stand trial.

What part of that were you serious about? The current system allows the biological father no say in whether or not the child may be aborted. And why-ever would you want it to be legal for the "mother"?

It's a thought experiment to see how people respond if the burden of unwanted pregnancy would be shifted away from women and onto men. It's not hard to find people who want to shift it off women onto no one, or rather onto the unborn, but I find few are comfortable holding men to account.

[Bootstrap]

In so many discussions, a lot of the energy revolves around particular stereotypes we have. For abortion, we usually think of teenagers who have never had a child. But as far as I can tell, the median woman seeking an abortion:

• Is Already a Mother.
• Is in Her Late 20s.
• Attended Some College.
• Has a Low Income.
• Is Unmarried.
• Is in Her First 6 Weeks of Pregnancy.
• Is Having Her First Abortion.
• Lives in a Blue State.

So if most women getting an abortion already have a child, wouldn't we have fewer abortions if these mothers had been better supported in raising their existing children? For some reason, unmarried women who have already decided to go ahead with a pregnancy the first time are deciding not to later.

And disapproving of these women doesn't solve any useful problems. Not for their children, at any rate. If we really care about these children, how should we help?