Marco Rubio: Women with Zika Should not be Allowed to have Abortions

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Aug 8, 2016

You can't be against abortion and against family planning - it makes no sense.

ipaman · Aug 8, 2016

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

If you're looking just at the one factor of voting power for a particular group yes you're correct that having more votes would be a good thing. The problem though is that having a lot of children also comes with a lot of other issues.

Many studies have shown that there is a link between large population growth and poverty.
http://www.unfpa.org/resources/population-and-poverty
[rquoter]Reproductive health and poverty reduction
Access to sexual and reproductive health, including family planning, can affect population dynamics through voluntary fertility reduction and reductions in infant and maternal mortality. Improved reproductive health also helps individuals, particularly young women, break out of intergenerational cycles of poverty. When women and couples are empowered to plan whether and when to have children, women are better enabled to complete their education; women’s autonomy within their households is increased; and their earning power is improved. This strengthens their economic security and well-being and that of their families. Cumulatively, this contributes to development progress and poverty reduction.

In addition to improving general health and well-being, analysis shows that meeting the reproductive health and contraceptive needs of all women in the developing world more than pays for itself. For every dollar invested in contraception, the cost of pregnancy-related care is reduced by $1.43. The lifetime opportunity cost related to adolescent pregnancy – a measure of the annual income a young mother misses out on over her lifetime – ranges from 1 per cent of annual gross domestic product in a large country such as China to 30 per cent of annual gross domestic product in a small economy such as Uganda. If adolescent girls in Brazil and India were able to wait until their early twenties to have children, the increased economic productivity would equal more than $3.5 billion and $7.7 billion, respectively.
[/rquoter]

As noted in the piece giving women better ability to control their reproduction gives them more education and employment opportunities. Through those opportunities they can improve their economic standing and since money is power also increase their political standing.

The problem with just looking at sheer numbers ignores that without greater achievement the political power of just sheer numbers is diminished.
Click to expand...

Is there a moral/ethical/legal difference between aborting a fetus and having the child as a ward of the state? But that ward that is boarded, educated, and join a state labor force or military force, etc... for a period of time (until 17-19 y/o) before graduating and entering society with experience, education, skills, etc...

You could argue my "Orwellian Orphanage" does better for our society and the individual because at least the individual gets to live a life, a contributing one at that. It does so without removing woman's power and while only temporarily removing the orphans but while giving them other assets in return like education, skills, experience, etc...

So I ask again, is there really any difference? Be open minded before answering.

Deckard · Aug 8, 2016

ipaman said: ↑

I am pro science and pro choice but I cannot deny that I think legal abortion can impact black and latino suffrage for generations. In extreme cases (black woman) it can almost be like self inflicted genocide. How can a minority group gain any power under those conditions? Pro choice should not be as simple as it is right now, pro or anti abortion essentially. I guess you could say I'm pro-choice(s) with different ways to alleviate the I don't want this child for whatever reason choice. Easy abortion could wipe out minority suffrage and power for generations and that scares me.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that's one of the most bizarre and wildly inaccurate statements I've read in a long time.

sirbaihu · Aug 8, 2016

Don't worry: I'm sure Rubio and his friends intend to adopt some of these zika babies and use their wealth to raise them as God's children deserve.

rocketsjudoka · Aug 9, 2016

ipaman said: ↑

Is there a moral/ethical/legal difference between aborting a fetus and having the child as a ward of the state? But that ward that is boarded, educated, and join a state labor force or military force, etc... for a period of time (until 17-19 y/o) before graduating and entering society with experience, education, skills, etc...

You could argue my "Orwellian Orphanage" does better for our society and the individual because at least the individual gets to live a life, a contributing one at that. It does so without removing woman's power and while only temporarily removing the orphans but while giving them other assets in return like education, skills, experience, etc...

So I ask again, is there really any difference? Be open minded before answering.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a lot of difference. The first is the basic question underlying the issue of abortion is that most of those on the pro-choice side don't consider a fetus to be a life. So at most we're talking about potential life.

Leaving that argument aside it's frankly a bad idea to have the state raise children. Given that there are political and ideological divides in this country the state raising millions of children will spark massive political and cultural turmoil. Consider the debates about should we raise the children with a religion and if so which religion and even which denomination? Further as wards of the state raised by the state there is always going to be suspicion by the party of out of power that these children are being indoctrinated with the ideology of the majority party.

Also that you will require them to serve a term on a state labor force or the military consider what it means to have people who only by accident of birth are forced into service with no choice of their own.

Even without those philosophical issues there are still a host of practical problems such as how are these orphanages paid for, where are the located (there is going to be a lot NIMBY over having wards of the state living next door) and etc..

ipaman · Aug 9, 2016

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

Yes there is a lot of difference. The first is the basic question underlying the issue of abortion is that most of those on the pro-choice side don't consider a fetus to be a life. So at most we're talking about potential life.

Leaving that argument aside it's frankly a bad idea to have the state raise children. Given that there are political and ideological divides in this country the state raising millions of children will spark massive political and cultural turmoil. Consider the debates about should we raise the children with a religion and if so which religion and even which denomination? Further as wards of the state raised by the state there is always going to be suspicion by the party of out of power that these children are being indoctrinated with the ideology of the majority party.

Also that you will require them to serve a term on a state labor force or the military consider what it means to have people who only by accident of birth are forced into service with no choice of their own.

Even without those philosophical issues there are still a host of practical problems such as how are these orphanages paid for, where are the located (there is going to be a lot NIMBY over having wards of the state living next door) and etc..
Click to expand...

fair points you raise but it reinforces my point. look at the challenges you listed, political/ideology divide, political/cultural turmoil, potential corruption, lack of choice, who pays, etc...

every single on of those challenges/arguments you listed are no different than the topics discussed right now on pro-choice. there literally is no difference in the challenges faced. let's examine,

political/ideology divide - obvious check across the board
political/cultural turmoil - obvious check too, including some domestic terrorism
potential corruption - check both sides from selling body parts to punishing legal clinics
lack of choice - the sticking point check. huge disagreement on who's choice it is.
who pays = check, PP is federal/state funded but who pays for pro-choice is hotly debated. more opportunity for corruption as well.

and that was exactly my point. change the subject matter and we're still arguing the same points. so why not find the common ground. one side says, we don't want you all killing babies, the other side says it's my choice if i want a kid or not. middle ground, no killing but not your responsibility. rebuild segments of society that are undeserved while creating an amazing, diverse, contributing, labor & society force that will pay in way more than they took out. an option like this shouldn't be taboo because there really is no difference (superficial if there are) and that's my point.

Forums

Marco Rubio: Women with Zika Should not be Allowed to have Abortions

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

ipaman Contributing Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

ipaman Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Marco Rubio: Women with Zika Should not be Allowed to have Abortions

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

ipaman Contributing Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

sirbaihu Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

ipaman Contributing Member

Share This Page

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member