Do white people oppose abortion because it's a threat to white supremacy? My first impression - What a bizarre perspective, if there's supremacy in numbers then there can be no doubt about it, we're living in a Chinese world! Have been for a while. So what do you think? You know first impression kind of thing.
That's just some academic cardigan wearing arsehole trying to introduce additional factors into the debate to try and intellectualise it to a level beyond that which it needs.
It's a little wacky, but the founder of Planned Parenthood was a progressive / Eugenics type, who's stated goal was to abort as many babies of color as possible.
While he's probably right that there are some folks panicked by the idea of white decline, I doubt more than a handful of wingnuts oppose abortion for that specific reason.
Aren't abortions disproportionately performed on black women anyway? That makes the whole idea of white racism behind the opposition to abortion ridiculous.
I thought the opposition to abortion was because Christians want to swamp the earth with as many Christians as possible.
reminds me of something that nutbar Bryan Fisher said lately. Apparently in his view liberals tend to have less children than conservatives (mostly true) and the "Biblical standard" is for a Christian family to have at least three kids SOOOO in order to "take back America" Christians need only out-breed liberals... Nevermind that not ever child of conservatiuves ends up conservative... Nevermind that this is a strategy with a 40-50 year timeline to implement (if it were going to work)... Has he not noticed that conservatives have been outbreeding liberals for at least 40-50 years already and things are getting WORSE for his wackaloon ideas? Here's the thing Bryan, being conservative is one thing - believing YOUR fruit-loop bullshit is quite another.
WTF? Conservatives out breeding liberals? Well, maybe snob "limosine liberals" but a drive through Section 8 housing would say otherwise.
Seems me that's always been the not-so-secret agenda. They're "saving the souls of the unborn"...until they're actually born, and then they're somebody else's problem. It's also a control thing. "We think sex should be just for making babies, and it burns our butts to think anyone else is actually having fun." And yet how many times has some WFer burbled the opposite? "More abortions means fewer liberals"...as if political philosophy were encoded at the genetic level. Thank you, Bill O'Reilly. If you don't like the actual definitions of words, just Make Shit Up.
I don't know of any conservative person or person opposed to abortion that believes "sex is just for producing babies". In fact, Christian author Tim LaHaye in the book he and his wife wrote about sex "The Act of Marriage" I believe it was called specifically refute that idea through and through. http://www.amazon.com/Act-Marriage-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371660241&sr=1-1
So then we're back to "saving the souls of the unborn." Period, full stop. Nothing in there about pre- and post-natal care, decent schools, etc. "They gotta be born!!!"...then, nothing.
This is so, but it would be better for everyone if sex was just used for producing babies. I myself have never had sex for any other reason and have asked my wife to leave me alone when making any unsavoury advances towards me. I have an article in my chicken coop from 1974 which gives irrefutable backing to this view.
If you're not religious (and I'm not), what's the difference between "souls" and "lives?" "You saved that guy from dying in a burning car, but where's he going to get his next meal? What if he can't afford a roof over his head?" Preventing someone from dying does not obligate you to take responsibility for them for the rest of their/your life.
Riddle me this: What's the difference between the guy driving the car and a newborn? Take your time. Then ask yourself why the "right to life" doesn't include at least essential prenatal care. The "not my problem" mentality suggests you don't care about quality of life (yanno, reducing the likelihood of birth defects, low birth weight, that kind of thing), just that they by God be born! If you're the father, you've got a right to an opinion. Otherwise, mind your own.
"Quality of Life" is an intellectually dishonest argument by people who do not want to take the moral responsibility of passing a moral judgment.
The newborn has parents who are obligated to take care of him? If it's truly essential--i.e., the baby will likely die without it--I have no problem with picking up the cost. I wouldn't, for instance, advocate turning a pregnant woman away from an emergency room "Quality of life" is the concern of the individual. You may as well tell me I don't really care about people because, although I support murder being a crime, I won't pay to feed and house every person. When you're a baby, it's your PARENTS job to care for you. If they fail to do that, the state steps in. If you're an adult, it's YOUR job to care for you. If you fail to do so, I'm content to let you lie in the bed you've made for yourself. You've always got a right to an opinion no matter who you are.
No, it's a quantifiable health issue. I meant things like regular prenatal checkups, proper nutrition, absence of toxins or hazardous conditions in the workplace, that kind of thing. The people howling outside abortion clinics don't give a shit about any of that. They just feel obligated to intervene in the decisions of women they don't know, don't care about until they cross the picket line, and cease to care about thereafter. And you certainly won't pay for someone else's prenatal checkups, much less anything she might need if she chooses to give birth, but you'll by God tell her she doesn't have the right to "kill her baby." So you'd be all for letting smokers and alcoholics and Big Mac addicts die instead of sucking off all that extra medical care that raises costs for the rest of us. Conceded. But your right to an opinion ends where someone else's legally-protected choice begins.
In the same way I think murder should be illegal and yet I don't feel obligated to pay to keep people alive. Making murder illegal is a restraint on one person violating the rights of the VICTIM. Making me pay to sustain someone is a violation of MY rights. I'm for letting smokers, alcoholics, and Big Mac addicts pay for the relative risks of their behavior. Just as if you've had a lot of tickets or a DUI, you should pay more for car insurance. If you're looking for some kind of consistency in my position, let me spell it out for you: your choices should not impose costs on others without their consent. People exist for their own purposes, not to pay for others. But my opinion can also extend to what should be legal.
^Well, then, I tell you what: After you've seen to it that the smokers, alcoholics, and Big Mac addicts are no longer draining the healthcare system, you can go to work on Roe v Wade.
