• BoscoBear
    link
    154 months ago

    And the government has an obligation to every child born to make sure it is healthy and happy from then on.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      -23
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Um, no? Parents have the obligation to make sure their kids are healthy and happy, and the state should only step in if parents either give up that responsibility or fail to uphold it. That’s why we have child protection services, public schools, Medicaid, etc.

      But at the end of the day, it’s not the governments job to take care of you or your children, that’s your responsibility. The government should only step in if you’re incapable or unwilling to do it yourself. It’s a safety net, it’s there to catch you.

      • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If you are going to force women to give birth, you damn well better plan for and support with your votes a robust social support system for them and their children. Lengthy maternity leave, income assistance/UBI, job placement, and oh yeah - pay for their education through college.

        These are all factors that may lead responsible prospective parents to choose abortion. If you are going for force women to give birth, you are now responsible for ensuring they have everything they could need to raise that child.

        Otherwise it’s the standard conservative position that a fetus is precious until it’s a delivered baby. No concern at that point whether it lives, dies, or lives in poverty. (Unless it’s your baby, of course.)

        • Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to, they can give the baby up for adoption, at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.

          If the woman chooses to keep the baby, they are subject to means testing for any assistance like anyone else.

          UBI

          I agree with UBI (my personal preferred structure is a Negative Income Tax, which is similar), but that’s completely separate from taking care of yourself and dependents.

          The difference is the government should ensure everyone has access to what they need, but it shouldn’t ensure the everyone is using what they need. So I’m against things like universal healthcare because whether to pay for insurance should be an individual decision, but something like Medicare for all is acceptable because it preserves that choice. Likewise for free college, though I’m absolutely supportive of reforming K-12 schools so kids have better prospects after high school (e.g. spend the last two years in some kind of apprenticeship program). I’m also vehemently against federal student loans, but I’m in favor of grants for students (collecting payments is morally incompatible with maintaining a monopoly on force).

          So I think you’ll find I’m not a conservative, at least not in the sense most people seem to mean. I’m in favor of radical individual freedoms (i.e. drug legalization/decriminalization beyond marijuana), to the point where victimless crimes should not exist (i.e. porn, gambling, prostitution, etc should never be banned, but may be restricted somewhat to prevent harm).

          • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.

            Again a woefully underfunded current circumstance. But also:

            Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to,

            Ah, so we’ll only force her to HAVE the baby, then endure the guilt, shame, and pain of having her newborn (who she has at that point carried for nine months and bonded with) taken from her for adoption.

            Getting closer and closer to Gilead the further the conversation goes.

            My suggestion would be that I’m going to drop out of this discussion right about here.

            • Yes, if a woman choose not to get an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy, we then need to respect the rights of the fetus. That’s about as fair if a balance (slanted toward the woman’s rights) as possible. And she’d only be obligated to carry the baby until it can be safely delivered, not necessarily to full term.

              In short, for the first half of the pregnancy, she has complete freedom to choose. For the second half, the fetus gets protection. That seems fair.

      • @Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        104 months ago

        Great! So glad I’m responsible for building schools, teaching, paving roads, making baby formula, developing vaccines, providing neonatal care, being a pediatrician, providing daycare, being a dentist, being a pharmacist, growing food, being a bus driver, and more!

        Or does the word ‘infrastructure’ not exist in your vocabulary?

        • When did I say infrastructure isn’t a good thing? We’re all responsible for contributing, that’s what a society is. I’m merely saying it’s not someone else’s job to take care of you, that’s your job, though there should be safety net to make sure everyone has a fallback plan.

      • BoscoBear
        link
        -54 months ago

        But every life is a blessing. I don’t have any parents to punish. I am unwilling. Buy me a jet you selfish hypocrite.