- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 17,993
- Reaction score
- 8,123
No shit. We don’t do nearly enough, imo. People are afraid to have kids and be stuck with a major financial burden before they can get their shit together. Who’s picking up the kids from school at 2:40 when both parents have to work? How are they going to afford daycare or after care? What if a kid is sick and your job doesn’t let you work from home? We. Don’t. Do. Enough. Not even close. People more and more want to be financially stable first, which is totally understandable and responsible if you ask me. You want to reduce the number of abortions? Improve the social safety net.
That's not the only issue. The right wants to force people that made a mistake to care for children they're ill equipped to care for. Which is bad for those parents, and society as a whole because they often have poor outcomes and unpleasant lives. The same people trying to force others to live bytheir moral code want nothing to do with caring for these children, or providing sufficient resources to help these parents care for them. They stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the valid complaints that it's infringing on people's liberties, the foster care system is riddled with abusers, there aren't enough people willing to adopt.
They flat out ignore these problems and say just force them to have these kids and it'll work out somehow. We tried that. It doesn't magically work out somehow. If the same people trying to control other people's reproduction also wanted to offer more social aid, this would be a very different conversation.
Instead they just want to say people should magically just be better on their own and willfully ignore the data we have that shows that they will not.
Again, a trillion dollars in welfare.
You're saying "give more money" but the foundation of your argument seems to be that government doesn't know how to spend money (which, to be fair, is a very reasonable position).
But it's also very rare to find an American on the left who argues from the position or perspective of the unborn. There seems to be a lack compassion that isn't written down on a pre-existing civil rights script - so, rarely is value of any perspective but the mother's considered.
The foster care system being riddled with abusers is hardly a surprise - monsters like that will always be attracted to positions of authority over kids. But that's not the sort of position that the left takes on almost any other issue.
I mean, think about the logic here. Allowing these children to exist would be "bad for those parents, and society as a whole because they often have poor outcomes and unpleasant lives."
But consider that position when you're arguing with someone who understands the unborn as human life.
I saw someone mention illegal immigration earlier, so imagine the conservative argument against illegal immigration was "illegal immigrants often have poor outcomes and unpleasant lives - it's better for everyone if we kill them as soon as we catch them".
Now, I'm sure there are those who make that argument, but it's hardly a mainstream right-wing position.
Or, to take it to an even more absurd extreme, "Mexico's a pretty shitty place, most people there have poor outcomes and unpleasant lives. Plus, Mexicans keep illegally immigrating here - let's just nuke them now and save everyone the suffering later".
"The American white supremacist justice system is riddled with racist cops and tilted courts. So, black people are going to have poor outcomes and unpleasant lives - might as well just make it legal to gun them down in the streets."
It's a really sticky conversation, because one group of people doesn't seem to view abortion as the termination of genuine life, and without the motivation implicit in that perspective, they're going to have trouble finding a compromise with anyone from the group that does see it as the termination of genuine life.