If we go with your analogy, abortion would be banned in most circumstances after the capability of consciousness, which would be no earlier than 20 weeks. This would give a clear, and easily achieved deadline in most cases. Harder cases would be genetic anomolies that are discovered late. But overall I'd be okay with that, some here wouldn't be because they emphasize the privacy argument. But when rights collide, you have to consider all persons' rights. Before fetal consciousness, there is no other person. Stupid standards like when there is a heartbeat misses the point entirely. The heart is just a pump.
The down-to-earth reality, Rod, is that if "We, the People" (TAXPAYERS) don't pay the cost for poor women to have abortions, then we'll almost certainly have "Mama", and her offspring (ALL of them... as many as she can disgorge over the years) on limitless, unending WELFARE for decades to come! Think: there have been some families in this country where everyone in the 'immediate' family has been on WELFARE of many different kinds for the past FOUR GENERATIONS! How much more of that crap can we afford when we're already as "broke as a whore's heart"?! Afterthought: Who do you think that those "four generations" vote for in every single election that comes up? Conservatives?! . "I named her, 'Annuity'...."
I agree with the sentiment, but abortion should not be condoned or allowed for either population control or to save downstream government expenditures, i.e. to save money.
So, beliefs about dependency can have real and tangible implications for the poor and the protections they need. But what if those beliefs are wrong? For example, far from creating dependency, it is possible that welfare programs actually give people the necessary tools to achieve financial independence, provided that the assistance is dependable rather than sporadic and temporary. In that case, the provision of government assistance over an extended period of time could yield high social and economic returns, not least by allowing low-income families to make longer-term investments for the future. https://epod.cid.harvard.edu/article/dispelling-myth-welfare-dependency
While your reference has an element of truth, it gets wrapped around its own axle and misses the point. It seems axiomatic that some out of wedlock mothers want good things for their offspring and work hard to make them independent responsible citizens. It is also axiomatic that some other out of wedlock mothers like their situation and like getting the additional welfare cash for additional offspring and don't worry too much on how their offspring will fare. Your reference ignores the latter and focuses in on the former but takes it to the extreme by implying that maybe the best system we could have is everyone on welfare (LBJ's war on poverty disproved that in spades -- at a cost of trillions), or at least we should all be grateful to pay more welfare because it does such a good job. That implication is a bridge way too far.. The other main point is that in either case we the people are forced to pay for it, and there is a clear distaste with that.
It's an interesting, and rather hopeful article, Lee, perhaps more applicable to foreign populations than to our own in the U. S., but rather than just throw a 'blanket criticism' at it and turn away, I'll try to pinpoint that while "welfare-to-workfare' can, in theory, work well for quite a few individuals, for many indigent mothers, where "Mama" is the head of a a single-parent household, she can't work much, if at all, because she's got kid(s) to care for... and "Daddy" is long gone, drunk, drugged-out, in prison, or on welfare himself somewhere else.... Now, roughly back on topic, if we assume that the pregnant woman does not (NOT) want to have a baby, and, she wants to abort it, why or how is it the business of the government or "We, the People" to tell her that she is forbidden to do so?! In my view, it is overbearing tyranny to forbid her to do anything, so long as it (whatever 'it' is) is confined to the limits of her own anatomy! I do hate the whole idea of the government doling out welfare to anyone who is capable of supporting himself, but, even if the woman in question were as rich as Croesus, and could afford everything she wanted in life, she should not (and MUST not) be denied the ability to exercise total control over her own body and everything in it... in my not-too-humble opinion. Lastly, yes, it is political SUICIDE for any political faction (mostly mine -- CONSERVATIVES) to try to take this right away from American women in any state, 'Red' or 'Blue', after it is has been settled law since 1973! We have come so close to diminishing the stranglehold that these 'woke' radicals have inflicted on our country after the installation of the Biden regime -- why did Alito decide to screw the whole thing up NOW...?!
Sorry for being picky, but it has been settled opinion since 1973, not settled law. Granted very powerful, authoritative, and controlling opinion but opinion none the less.
All right, Rod... then, the issue has been "settled" since 1973.... I'll just let it go at that rather than quibble over something so small. Meanwhile, by all means, let all of us Conservatives on the Right go right on 'loading the gun' that we're going to use to blow our own brains out in upcoming November elections.... Damn it! The colossal stupidity and ineptness of the Biden regime was fully on display, and the hammer was all set to come down hard on the whole rotten 'woke', America-hating circus in November -- but then Alito had to go and pull THIS! Needless to say, I may end up becoming an alcoholic after all! ."Trust me -- he's every bit as smart as I am...!" .
First there has never been a non partisan justice ever. All justices are a partisan of one set of ideas or the other.
So why can't poor women SAVE MONEY by not having another kid....an abortion is so much cheaper....don't you think poor people should save money??
I understand and empathize with the concern, but I'm not sure your assessment is correct. Your presumption is that the vast majority of voters are strongly in favor of a federal law allowing abortion on demand. I don't think that is true, but what do I know.
That is a good plan but should not disallow local volunteer charities from helping out those struggling mightily to stay afloat.. However that idea was given a death sentence when the feds decided in the 60s IIRC that aid to dependent children could not be given if a father lived with them. So the dads moved out.
FoxHastings said: ↑ So why can't poor women SAVE MONEY by not having another kid....an abortion is so much cheaper....don't you think poor people should save money?? So just make the kids suffer from poverty ? Gee, don't you like CHILDREN ? YES, an abortion saves hundreds in medical bills and about $250,000 in raising a kid....it's smart , and thoughtful, not to bring a kid into the world that you can't afford.
The SCOTUS would let the 50 individual states decide, but as far as the radical mobs are concerned, doing that would be the equivalent of enslaving ALL American women and forcing them to be "barefoot, pregnant, and chained in the kitchen" forever! Of course that's total bullshit, but the hysteria of it will heavily affect the November elections and provide great support to Democrats! We should leave Roe v Wade completely ALONE and deal with other matters that affect us all much more.
Yes, it will lead to more people dependent on welfare. It will also lead to more crime, homelessness, drug use, unplanned pregnancies and poverty. And it will lead to more people with Downs Syndrome or other disabilities, which are diagnosed during pregnancy (70% Downs Syndrome babies are aborted). IMO the issue belongs to the States, but this is the reality of it. I wouldn't worry too much about Nov. Dems don't seem interested in winning in mid-terms. Here in Florida they actually cut fundraising for candidates. Maybe they are planning to let GOP deal with the issues next 2 years, which includes Federal ban on abortion, and then Dems try to win it back in 2024.
I hope you're right, but Democrats are buzzing on a kind of sugar-high from all the 'abortion' hysteria right now. They're all amped-up with 'woke'-zeal, and when their agenda is threatened by an election they have the tenacity of lobsters! We were all set to flush this big 'woke' Democrat toilet once and for all, but then Alito had to go and pull THIS sh*t! Damn it!
The abortion situation has nothing to do with "woke". The woke thing is a new GOP boogieman so they throw it into every conversation (relevant or not).
