the case for government sanctioned abortion

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Slothrop

 

I too am a little confused by you. Aren't Satanist anti establishment? What if this new Government you propose decides to heavily "tax" individuals for not being Christian? Would it be any more ridiculous then taxing for having children?

[edit on 9-8-2008 by harvib]

Satanist are not an organization and do no have an ideology, set of rules or dogmas. Every Satanists thinks for himself, decides for himself and is ultimately responsible for his own opinions and actions. The word "Satanist" is only used in an abstract concept because the human species can only function threw the use of labels. The only thing Satanists agree on is that they are profoundly anti institutionalized though and against any form of dogmas or majority assumed points of view. As for the rest, you will have to take each Satanist's opinions as his/her own an cannot assume they represent other Satanist's opinions...

Sorry for the off topic response...

reply to post by Slothrop


I'm with you to a point, but I have what I think would be a better idea than the government interfering in our procreation, which I believe should be a fully open choice for a person or family.

If we worked toward removing all the negative judgments around abortion AND one's own choice for death, I believe the problem might take care of itself.

So many people don't have an abortion because they are made to feel guilty about "killing a baby" instead of removing a blob of reproducing cells from their body. They take on parenthood when they're not prepared because of the supposed moral issues.

I think abortion and death with dignity should be totally up to the person and paid for by insurance. If an old person is miserable and wants to go, I don't think it's anyone's business to tell them that it's their responsibility and obligation to live in a miserable body for as long as absolutely possible.

I would even go so far as to include suicide of physically healthy adults who are otherwise miserable and wish to end it. If people don't want to be here, who are we to say they MUST stay? It's their life... They should be able to legally decide what to do with it, without guilt or pressure.

If all the negative social mores were stripped from abortion and human euthanasia, I think the population issue would take care of itself. A sixteen-year-old who got pregnant would have no problem telling her mom and they would handle it just like any other medical procedure.

That's what I think.

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
reply to post by Slothrop

 

-Religion shouldn't even be an issue. Religious people have a right to be heard, and the right to not have abortions, if that is their will, but they have no right to impose there ideas on the State.

I agree, religious morality shouldn't be the sole basis for law, unfortunately for those that disagree with them this is not the case in many third world countries where religions have imposed their morals into laws.

In the West they certainly have a right to be heard but they and the Bush administration have managed to place roadblocks all along the way to accessing abortion. From mandatory ultra sounds, "informed consent" and Catholic hospitals refusing to give rape victims Emergency Contraception because "life starts at conception" etc. the seperation of church and state doesn't stand for much as they wedge their agenda into every opportunity. Reminds me of the case in Poland which has a heavy Catholic presence where a woman was refused an abortion despite serious risk to her eyesight. She went blind.

As far as I know there is a clear separation between State and Religions in every Western State (with the exception of the Vatican).

Ironically with Italy, home of the Vatican, abortion is legal there with little radical movement to change the law. It's ARR (Anti Reproductive Rights) doctrine extends all over the world. It's stern stance against abortion even when children are concerned or where a womans health is at risk have nothing worthy to them as seen in South America, Africa and the Poland example. Yet Italy has a population of which 96% is Catholic yet abortion is legal there.

I guess the tyranny of forced birth is ok, except when it's not on your own populace. Conspiracy?

Most of them don't even have a Moral Right to speak, there daughters just disappear for a few months, then come back, from their "trip", as good as new...

Indeed. For example the Catholic Church still holds great influence over Ireland now where abortion is illegal. In the Irish constitution article 40 3 3 states:

The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Yet the Irish Supreme Court has consistently asserted a woman's right to travel to another country - even if her purpose is to "procure an abortion".

I mention this as an example of the hypocrisy you're talking about. In regards to Ireland, somebody speaks with a forked tongue here because if the protection of the "person's" life was of any serious genuine moral concern, then transportation across state line to "murder" it would be legally prohibited - but the ISC recognizes the pragmatic reality of the "right to life". Useless words.

Their very text:

Anyone aiding or procuring an abortion will be liable for up to 12 years' imprisonment. The right to information and freedom to travel for an abortion are restated in the Bill.

-As for the Third World Countries, where the problem truly exits, I see no viable solution for most, mainly due to the hypocrisy of the West:
*We need their labor, illegal or not, because we have a negative population work rate, because we refuse to do most of the jobs they come here to do and, mainly, because, with our growing aged society, they are the ones who will pay for our pensions.

Could this be why the Vatican is not so keen in getting Italy to criminilize abortion, but will rule with an Iron fist in countries like Brazil?

The problem is not the world being over populated. The problem is the world being greedy. The wants of all the people are out numbering the needs of the people. If we didn't want stuff, food, cars... etc... all the time then the world would not be in the mess it is in.

Unfortunately we have forgotten how to help and share with each other. Oh I am not saying everyone is like this, but think about it for a minute or two how you and I play a part in this. We have more than enough food on this planet and resources to keep it going forever. But our greed out weighs reality.

One hundred years ago we would have sat down to maybe and egg and toast for breakfast. Now its eggs, and toast, and bacon, and pancakes, and milk, and juice, and coffee. We are over doing it. We don't settle for the 20 dollar jeans any more we want the 95 dollar jeans for the sake of the name of them, or no offense, but the $800.00 shoes some buy? If we were more conservative and realistic about things everyone would be doing fine.

This effects all aspects of our lives. A TV is not good enough, it has to be five foot wide. A candle at night would never do, we put on enough light that it would take 100 candle to get to it. We don't walk to the store that is half a mile away, we drive there. We can't just learn the three R's in school anymore, what kids are learning now (in pre-college schooling) I wouldn't have learned (in my time) till I had graduated from college.

The problem of over population had been stated often through out time, but it has never been the problem. The problem is with our greed and selfishness. Next time you go out for dinner, or lunch, would you be willing to eat a tuna sandwich instead of a hamburger with all the fixings, fries with ketchup and your soda? Think about it...

Would you be willing to live in a house with no heating or cooling? Would you be willing to rent an apartment instead of owning a house with all the fixings? Would you be willing to mow your own grass?

Originally posted by Slothrop
first cut all welfare programs. if you don't have the money to raise kids, then raising kids should be very difficult. discomfort and sacrifice will discourage the unwashed from having more children than they can handle.

I agree with your proposal, but I have to point out that even if we take away the underclass' welfare checks and tax credits for each dependent they squeeze out, they'll never stop reproducing voluntarily. The poor are generally an unintelligent bunch (hence the reason they remain poor). Just look at the underclasses of nations that do not have the extra resources that allow them to throw "free" money and services away to non-producers. Universally, these poor people are still the ones producing the biggest litters of children - whether they can afford to raise them properly or not.

Why is this? Well, there are a variety of reasons. First off, the poor aren't responsible. They don't even realize the need for family planning procedures. The women tend to be more promiscuous while also being more reckless. They rarely even bother to use birth control, either because of their backward religions (which the poor are more likely to subscribe to), lack of funds, ignorance to the necessity of such measures or pure stupidity.

Also, poor people are not self-reliant. If they can't rely on the government to provide them with free goods and services, they don't make any attempt to take care of themselves but instead turn to other people to serve as their crutch. What better provider than your children, since they are born indebted to you by blood? Using this faulty logic, the poor have as many children as they can, figuring those kids will prove to be useful workers and breadwinners as they grow up.

What we need to do is keep these government social programs in place. Not to provide for the poor out of some humanitarian sense of duty, certainly not that at all - but as the vehicle by which we can sterilize the underclass. Under the facade of socialized health care and free school lunch programs, we ought to be able to indroduce infertility agents into the poorest populations within as little as one or two generations. Coupled with stronger borders (in order to keep the rest of the world's poor from simply replenishing those I propose to eliminate), this plan could solve our overpopulation crisis and eliminate the need for any welfare programs at all in a matter of decades.

Originally posted by harvib

I too am a little confused by you. Aren't Satanist anti establishment? What if this new Government you propose decides to heavily "tax" individuals for not being Christian? Would it be any more ridiculous then taxing for having children?

It would be much more "ridiculous", because such action would be in direct violation of the first amendment to our constitution.

Anyway, what does the original poster's religion have to do with this subject?

I don't know everything sounds a little one-sided about the whole suicide portion. Well, if ever decide to legalize suicide we should do it like Futurama then. Set out booths for the masses and let the government reap the rewards. Or the government could hand out guns to everybody and see how many would actually attempt suicide. Wouldn't be too much trouble seeing at the same time they could pry the gun from your cold corpse.

Then we could put those FEMA coffins to good use.