The "logic" behind abortion bans.....Sentence mothers to death along with their unborn "child"

Jun 2013
17,626
15,180
Here
Anyone want to talk about how talk of "welfare queens" and the use of hyperbole in politics, provide fodder for "movements" that in many ways, contradict themselves?

"Welfare queen" is a derogatory term used in the United States to refer to women who allegedly misuse or collect excessive welfare payments through fraud, child endangerment, or manipulation. Reporting on welfare fraud began during the early 1960s, appearing in general-interest magazines such as Readers Digest. The term "welfare queen" originates from media reporting in 1974."

"Since then, the phrase "welfare queen" has remained a stigmatizing label and is most often directed toward black, single mothers.[1][2] Although women in the U.S. could no longer stay on welfare indefinitely after the federal government launched the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in 1996,[3] the term remains a trope in the American dialogue on poverty.[2][4]"

" .....focused on female welfare recipients engaged in behavior counter-productive to eventual financial independence such as having children out of wedlock, using AFDC money to buy drugs, or showing little desire to work. These women were understood to be social parasites, draining society of valuable resources while engaging in self damaging behavior.[5] Despite these early appearances of the "Welfare Queen" icon, stories about able-bodied men collecting welfare continued to dominate discourse until the 1970s, at which point women became the main focus of welfare fraud stories.[5] "
Welfare queen - Wikipedia


‘Welfare Queen’ Becomes Issue in Reagan Campaign


We could also discuss how a collection of things have led to a movement where some (who seem to have nothing better to do) spend more time trying to control the autonomy of women (in some cases other women), instead of focusing their time and energies on children who are born to women who desire to have children and desire to keep and raise them, but do not have the resources desired to give those children something more than a subsistence level of existence within a society that includes the very wealthy and among the very wealthy the very greedy and gluttonous who not only aggrandize themselves, but lavish themselves in luxury.......some of the same, calling abortion wrong, even as they argue against welfare that goes to the parents of children in a family where all are in need.

Did a popular movement about motherhood cause offshoots, such as the anti-abortion movement? Are unempowered people empowered by believing they are more moral and righteous than others, even if their beliefs may be unfounded?

"The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women"
Project MUSE - The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women (review)

Even beyond the "idealization of motherhood" are those women that for whatever reasons, cannot bear children of their own, and may or may not want children to raise. Poise them against women being pressure to bear a pregnancy in order to have a child they are talked into giving up for adoption under the premise that abortion is a sin?

Women talked into carrying through with their pregnancies based on the notion abortion is a sin, then also talked into giving up the child that results from birth on the same premise the woman was contemplating abortion (she could not afford to fed, care for and raise the child on her own, as well as saw the condemnation of single women with children and comments about their promiscuity and lack of judgement and being the sole person at fault for their pregnancy), should also be made aware of those who sit to profit from their having the child, then agreeing to give it up for adoption.

"Money and Profit in US Adoptions"
The Truth About the Adoption Industry | Adoption & Birth Mothers*

"The public thought adoption was a benevolent, philanthropic exercise practiced by charitable organizations donating their services to ensure better lives for orphans."
Federal Regulation - American Adoption Congress


All this undermines the notion that there are strictly benevolent reasons behind the "pro-life" anti-abortion "movement", the unscrupulous of whom regarding and behind it, are perhaps all too happy to see others, moved by emotion, not logic, to join their "movement".


Personally, I have run into many pro-choice people, but absolutely none of them have said the choice is or should be an easy one, only that women should have full autonomy over their own bodies and what goes on inside, until such time, via birth (be it surgical or natural) a fully separate individual is born as defined by both the words "birth" and "born" and the entirety of not only human existence, but the existence of all animal life.

In addition, it is somewhat fascinating to see some of those who believe in god(s) and reject science as being at odds with things like godly creation, point to science as "proof" of when a new "life" "begins"........
 
Likes: Panzareta

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,873
42,386
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Not everyone wants to live in the Republic of Gilead.
To be absolutely fair, men's sexual behavior is considered a valid subject for regulation as well. Remember (from the show) the guy who was caught having an affair with his handmaid and, having succumbed to lust, had part of his left arm amputated as punishment?
 
Jul 2013
53,011
56,575
Nashville, TN
To be absolutely fair, men's sexual behavior is considered a valid subject for regulation as well. Remember (from the show) the guy who was caught having an affair with his handmaid and, having succumbed to lust, had part of his left arm amputated as punishment?
Religious intolerance reaches throughout a Theocratic Totalitarian society. A literal hell on earth. And some in the US would welcome that society.
 
Jan 2011
31,125
4,312
Boise, Idaho
Aside from the fact that the "unborn" are not yet alive, your statement is far from true. Liberals are concerned about all kinds of personal choices that conservatives disapprove of. And that is the point - conservatives disapprove of something, and therefore feel it is not a "valid" choice to make and justify government controlling that choice.
When conservatives dont like something, they dont use it, do it or buy it.

When progressives dont like something they try to get the gov to ban it, close it or illegalize it.
 
Mar 2013
73,873
42,386
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
When conservatives dont like something, they dont use it, do it or buy it.

When progressives dont like something they try to get the gov to ban it, close it or illegalize it.
If conservatives do not like abortion, they should not get one. Instead, they try to get the government to ban it, close abortion centers, and criminalize/illegalize them.

Sounds like you have it backwards.
 
Likes: Babba

Similar Discussions