(March 27, 2025 at 4:39 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Can you explain why pre-natal care is not the job of the state, but forced birth is?
Government-mandated maternal leave is favoured by a sizable majority of Americans.
I was unaware that auto insurance companies issue loans.
The numbers of abortions per year pales beside the number of infant/child deaths per year due to malnutrition, disease, etc. This is why you aren't pro-life, but merely pro-birth.
'If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked.' - George Carlin.
Boru
Absolutely; pre-natal care is an act that is going to require the government to take by force resources from one group of citizens and redistribute it to another group of citizens... that is to say, you are actively harming someone else without their consent to help others.
What's wrong for the state is wrong for the individual, and there is no greater form of "active harm" than the termination of a life. This is no more a "forced birth" position than enforcing murder laws would make you "anti-choice."
----
Perhaps a majority of Americans do support it; I understand this might not apply to our European brothers and sisters and it's where we just have to agree to disagree, but one of the beautiful things about America is that we realized "rule of the majority" (democracy) just means a mob enforcing their will on others and why we established a republic instead, with multiple checks and balances not just on different branches of government but also on the citizenry as well. Institutions like slavery and eugenics (30 states legally practiced it in 1934 and several until the 1970s) were well beloved and supported by Americans... but I don't think that is in itself a good argument in favor of either.
Explain where the money is going to come from - sell bonds, increase tariffs on certain products that cause reproductive harm, stuff like this - and I am 100% on board and think it would be wonderful to see the community care for one another like that. It just cannot come at the expense of other citizens without their consent.
----
Insurance policies are on a technicality a loan, but that was a poor choice of words on my part.
----
"The number of people killed over the last two centuries in the name of secular ideologies has dwarfed by magnitudes those killed in the name of religion, so you aren't anti-theist you are just pro-execution of civilians."
Do these fallacies get us anywhere?
-----
