Saturday, January 16, 2016

Lets Pass More Debt to the Kids

It looks like Dayton is excited to borrow and spend even more.  Thoughts?

MP Dayton Bonding Proposal

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, we could make the choice to pass along dirty water instead. Is there a problem if we pass along debt to our kids, if we also pass along what the debt paid for?

A couple of election cycles ago, a radio commercial getting lots of play, said that kids born today were liable for 50000 worth of debt. What the commercial didn't mention that the kid born that day would also benefit from things like roads, schools, hospitals, and the winning of WW II. Of course, he will also pay for the various wars we chose to fight in the middle east which will be presenting new bills to us for the indefinite future. But all that aside, as horrible as the Republicans tell us America is right now, if we offered to the residents of the rest of the world, citizenship in the United States for 50000, payable over their lifetime, do you think we would have many takers?

--Hiram

John said...

I am guessing it is well over $50,000 now.

What do you think it was when you were born?

John said...

By the way, it wasn't just the new kids...

"Today, every taxpayer owes $151,000 as his or her share of this debt. To this ocean of red ink, the CBO estimates that we will add an additional $9.4 trillion over the next ten years. And that’s the good news; after 2024, things really get bad." Link

Laurie said...

I am pretty sure many GOP legislators will be supporting a bonding bill (a smaller one.) I owe a lot of money on my house, this debt doesn't concern me as I need a place to live. Clean, safe water and maintaining state property sound like good, and necessary ideas to me for which to borrow money. I don't know why we are conflating the national debt with a state bonding bill.

jerrye92002 said...

Once again it isn't spending the money or even how much it is spent, it is what the money is spent ON. If you divide that bill into "justifiable capital expenditures" and "the wastrel wish list" there should be no trouble agreeing on the size of it.

As for the $50,000 in debt, that is national debt, and it's approaching the mark of the devil, $66,666. But when you add in the "unfunded liabilities" of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you get a number like $350,000 for every man, woman and child. My question is, where is a newborn going to get that kind of money, when they can't find a job? And why is the State of MN adding to it unnecessarily?

John said...

Laurie,
Debt is debt... Sometimes debt is good, however often it is just a way for people to live above their means until the house of cards falls down.

The DFL would often complain about Pawlenty and crew making the schools short term borrow some money during an economic recession, yet they have no qualms about taking on HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of debt that will need to be paid back later.

It is very odd.

John said...

Look at this list... I think Jerry is correct that many of these don't pass the "good investment". test.

jerrye92002 said...

I think many of them would pass the "throwing good money after bad" test.

Anonymous said...

it is what the money is spent ON

What will drive our spending in the near future is health care. Is that a waste? It's arguable, I suppose, maybe the better alternative is to let people die. That choice is one of the things this election is about.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Healthcare has pretty much nothing to do with bonding debt. What is your point?

And what we spend on has little to do with the National Debt. It has more to do with what are we choosing to spend? And are we paying for it today like responsible adults or putting it on the national mortgage? Like some cash out refinancing addicted household.

jerrye92002 said...

Your analogy is both flawed and apt, DEPENDING entirely on what the tax money is spent ON. If the bonding bill is spent on truly useful capital projects, things that deliver value over the years like roads roads and bridges that move people and goods faster and at lower cost, then it is indeed like a home mortgage. You get a place to live for the twenty years or so it takes to pay it off. There is a return on investment (you own the house at the end) that you do not get paying rent.

But unless this bonding bill goes for a needed public hospital, health care is an expense out of the general budget. There is no "capital" aspect to it and no return on investment. and the usual argument is that when government gives somebody health care they are keeping a citizen productive. Unfortunately if you're so poor you're getting free government health care, you're probably not that "productive" of a citizen. Not only that, but the way in which this care is provided is almost always sub-standard and inefficient (studies prove it), so it cannot do what it is supposed to be doing to "add value" to the exchange.

And, Hiram, "what will drive our spending" is BOTH spending and paying off all of these bonds. That is why the DFL throws everything they can into bonding bills, so they can lock in greater spending down the road without having to vote for that foolishness every year.

Anonymous said...

Healthcare has pretty much nothing to do with bonding debt. What is your point?

It has to do with debt, not bonding debt. What's appropriate for bonding debt are long term capital projects. We can choose to pay for them upfront, or over time. And how we make that choice depends on a lot of things. In Minnesota, bonding tends to be a less polarized issue, because Republicans want stuff for their districts too.

--Hiram

John said...

"We can choose to pay for them upfront, or over time."

My point exactly. And yes I agree that politicians and citizens are all guilty of being selfish and passing the burden on to our children. Remember one of my favorite articles

jerrye92002 said...

how about deciding that most of these things do not need to be paid for at all, because they do not need to be done with taxpayer dollars? Isn't the dirty little truth here that most of these things are only "needed" because we can spend "other people's money" to get them?

Anonymous said...


Isn't the dirty little truth here that most of these things are only "needed" because we can spend "other people's money" to get them?

Do we think this is true? When I child gets sick, do we believe the child only needs care because it will be paid for with "other people's money"?

--Hiram

John said...

I assume that would not be part of "most of these things"...

Though Jerry and you may be right. It would be more cost effective if the child's family or a charity covered the cost of their care. However why should they if they can get the government slush fund that is paid for by other tax payers to do it.

Anonymous said...

Why should someone have to trust that another person's 'good nature' will help them when being and staying alive should be considered a right?

jerrye92002 said...

"Why should someone have to trust that another person's 'good nature' will help them when being and staying alive should be considered a right?"

I am willing to concede that right to everyone. What I do not concede is their right to take part of someone else's life and livelihood to do it. The "benefit" of having the government take from me and give to someone else is that the politicians lay claim to all the self-importance that comes from spending someone else's money. If they had to spend their OWN money, they wouldn't do it. I think that's a useful test, here.

John said...

"being and staying alive should be considered a right?"

Personally I think this is way too open ended. It seems to make "society" responsible for feeding, housing, healthcare, safety regulations, etc anyone standing on US soil with no bound. That is not something I am willing to sign up for, no wonder our welfare and healthcare costs are increasing at an alarming unsustainable rate.

It seems to let individuals off the hook regarding the responsibility to be a good citizen who lives healthy, learns, takes only reasonable risks, works hard and tries to contribute to the well being of our society.

Maybe we could change it to "responsible contributing legal citizens have the right to stay alive within an allocated budget..."

jerrye92002 said...

NO, John. A "right" is something that one can exercise without permission or expense to others. I can keep and bear any arms that I can afford to buy; you don't have to supply me with guns. I can speak freely and it doesn't cost you a dime, and you don't even have to listen. The whole notion of rights enshrined in our Constitution is that they are God-given, not granted by government. Neither should government take them away.

Things like health care can NOT be rights because, to get health care generally you require the services of another person--physician, drug company, etc.-- and you have zero right to trample on THEIR right to charge whatever for their work. Now of course you could go back to running your own herbal medicine shop and set your own broken bones, as would be your right, but again, that's not what we're talking about.

How about this, how about everyone having the "right to contract"? It isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but it is fundamental to a free people. So how is it that government can write a "contract" obligating every citizen, of every age and those yet unborn, to paying off that $350,000 debt over their lifetime? Or even the interest payments on it?

Anonymous said...

"What I do not concede is their right to take part of someone else's life and livelihood to do it."

Fascinating. I thought you were against abortion. Guess I was wrong.

jerrye92002 said...

Seems perfectly consistent to me.

John said...

Jerry,
I assume they are inferring that baby's "right to life" is apparently an undue "burden on the Mother"... Even though she willingly entered into the arrangement by getting pregnant in the first place.

Now you know what "Right" means in Liberal Speak... It means that people should get it for free. Maybe we should start asking for free guns...

jerrye92002 said...

I long ago gave up trying to interpret Liberal Speak. I was referring to the fact that health care must be provided to you by SOMEBODY with the knowledge, etc. to do so, and that you take up their time (a part of their life) to do so and threaten their livelihood if you don't pay. Sure, we can give free health care to everybody, no problem. All we do is order all doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug manufacturers, etc. to work for no pay. Yep, that's the ticket. Anything else is just half-measures.

Here's another concern. Before this debt is paid off, the Chinese will simply own us, lock, stock and barrel. It's already started.

Anonymous said...

The right of which I speak is the right of an autonomous person (the mother) to decide who has access to her body. You apparently think it is okay for a human to have uncontrolled access to another human's body. You must also be okay with marital rape, because, you know, the woman once gave permission to another person, so she now has no control over that person's access to her body.

jerrye92002 said...

The right of which I speak is the supposed "right" to health care, which cannot be enjoyed without encroaching the rights of others. The right of a woman "to decide who has access to her body" starts at the point of conception and the health consequences-- STDs or pregnancy-- are the natural consequence of that decision. If her life or health is endangered by the pregnancy, she can have an abortion but SHE must pay for it-- she has no right to demand it of someone else. If her health is NOT endangered, she may not take the life of another person, and must provide basic life-sustaining care like food and "housing." That's a special case brought on by the "right to life." It still doesn't create a "right" for the mother (or child) to any other health care, like prenatal checkups or vitamins or delivery. Why would anyone think it does?

Anonymous said...

And a woman's husband raping her is a natural consequence of being married.

Either a person is autonomous or they are not.

jerrye92002 said...

Wrong. It is the result of a bad choice, or choices. She has the right to live with whom she will. She has the privilege of making it legal, if she meets the qualifications set down by the State. She has the right to have sex with her partner; he does NOT have the right to force sex on her. I really like your simplistic statements about "autonomous or not." It allows us to pontificate on almost anything with no rational discernment whatsoever. For example, either a person is autonomous and can buy a gun and fire it anywhere they want, or they're not. Is that what you mean? Do I have that right?

Anonymous said...

"Wrong. It is the result of a bad choice, or choices. She has the right to live with whom she will. She has the privilege of making it legal, if she meets the qualifications set down by the State. She has the right to have sex with her partner; he does NOT have the right to force sex on her."

In other words...She has the right to become pregnant, with a fetus growing inside her; the fetus does NOT have the right to force her to give birth to it.

Your other example is not in the same ballpark.

John said...

"The right of which I speak is the right of an autonomous person (the mother) to decide who has access to her body. You apparently think it is okay for a human to have uncontrolled access to another human's body.You must also be okay with marital rape, because, you know, the woman once gave permission to another person, so she now has no control over that person's access to her body."

I find this interesting. The big difference here is that the fetus never left after the Mother invited it in through consensual sex.

Where as I assume the husband left and would have to re-enter. And I agree that permission needs to be granted before re-entry otherwise it is rape.

Whereas I think baby born of consensual sex has the right to be given food, housing, safety, etc until it is capable of leaving safely. I mean the Mother did invite baby in of her own free will.

Anonymous said...

Essentially, what you're saying is that a woman can't be allowed to change her mind. If in the middle of sex the woman decides she no longer wants to continue, she's SOL? No, it's rape if the man continues.

You want women to be limited in how they can respond to the results of their decisions, whereas you get to decide on your own how you deal with the results of a bad choice.

If you made a decision that cost your company millions of dollars, would you not try to mitigate the results of that terrible decision?

Why does a woman who makes a mistake not have that liberty?

jerrye92002 said...

Let's go back to the topic at hand. What is the moral/ethical justification for passing an impossible debt to the next generation?

John said...

Most of us here are ok (if not happy) with <20 week abortions if the woman or a charity pays for it. (ie not tax payers)

"Why does a woman who makes a mistake not have that liberty?"

The simple answer though you likely will disagree with it. Because to do so after 20 weeks she needs to stop another human heart and destroy a human brain.

Therefore her choice is ending someone else's life and infringing on their rights.

By the way, please sign your comments with a real or made up consistent name so we can get a feel for your views in case you join us again. Thanks

John said...

What is the moral/ethical justification for passing an impossible debt to the next generation?

I don't have one...

A slight mortgage that is aligned to the remaining value of roads, bridges, etc. may make some sense. (ie like bonding) However I think we are way beyond that currently.

Anonymous said...

"The simple answer though you likely will disagree with it."

The simple answer is that you don't like the decision someone is making to correct a previous bad choice or unexpected outcome.

"Therefore her choice is ending someone else's life and infringing on their rights."

If you insist that that "someone else" is a person, please describe another instance in our laws where we allow someone to force another person into servitude against their wishes. Why are the woman's rights not infringed upon by the "someone else" if she no longer wants that "someone else" using her for their own means?

Anon

John said...

The simple answer is I don't like the idea of a healthy 20 week human fetus being removed from a warm nurturing womb prematurely, her heart and central nervous system being prematurely stopped and her body placed in a trash can or on a research table just because the mother was irresponsible in her sexual activities and in not having the abortion in the first trimester.

I don't know if you are a Parent, however we parents are legally responsible for feeding, caring for and keeping our children safe... And if we do not do so we go to jail.
Neglect Stats

I have been working and slaving for decades now to provide for my lovely children. It is a commitment I made when I chose to let my wife ravage me...

Oh come now, you can come up with something better than Anon. How about ProChoice, or PC for short.

jerrye92002 said...

"Why are the woman's rights not infringed upon by the "someone else" if she no longer wants that "someone else" using her for their own means?"-- Anon

Sorry, but the courts have already ruled (brilliantly, IMHO) that at the point of viability (5 months), the woman has made an implicit contract with another person to care for that person until birth.

What you are suggesting is that a woman can "change her mind" and murder her way out of a contract. Sort of like killing the banker because you don't want to make the loan payments.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, but the courts have already ruled (brilliantly, IMHO) that at the point of viability (5 months), the woman has made an implicit contract with another person to care for that person until birth."

Ahhh, but that's not good enough for most of your ilk. The endless work of "Pro-Life" folks to deny women any choice at all once they've decided to have sex...it's really just about punishing women for daring to have sex without a man's permission.

Still Anon

John said...

"your ilk" Now that is some serious stereotypical labeling...

And this is laughable... "without a man's permission"

I have a Wife, 3 daughters and a female dog... I am usually the one who needs to get permission in my house. :-)

Thankfully at least the dog listens to me... Well at least when she chooses to. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

"but that's not good enough for most of your ilk." I am irked to be labelled an "ilk." If there is an ilk here, it is those who will not recognize that a person exists in the womb at 5 months, and that murder of it must at best be a constrained choice. After all, in some states murder of a pregnant woman gets charged as two murders. Why would it not be just because of the identity of the perpetrator? And again, what does any of this have to do with the morality of killing our children with an impossibly large debt?

John said...

Personally I am fine being in that ILK if it means I understand that a real live healthy human heart and brain are being stopped when they scoop out or cut up that fetus and put it in the trash.

And me being the pragmatic farm boy, I would have no problem "mercy killing" deformed living infants who are in pain. However the idea of killing a healthy fetus "just because" is silly...

Next these folks will want to let Mom's drown their children. I mean the woman should not be forced to care for them... :-)

jerrye92002 said...

From a PBS special the other day: "Human infants have the longest period of dependency in the animal kingdom." It's what gives us our intelligence and adaptability. And since we can CHOOSE to take on the responsibility it isn't something we can just discard.

And the question, again, Does a 3-year-old have the right to renege on his share of the national debt, since he didn't and can't legally contract?

Anonymous said...

"Next these folks will want to let Mom's [sic] drown their children."

Ahhh, but now you're talking about a person, not a fetus. A person has inalienable rights. A fetus does not.

John said...

Same heart is a pumping and brain is a thinking at 20 weeks, 36 weeks pre-delivery, 32 weeks post delivery (ie preemie), 40 weeks post delivery, 2 years old in the tub...

On the upside, viability keeps getting earlier and earlier with improvements in medical technology. Soon that little fetus will have full rights at 20 weeks.

jerrye92002 said...

That little fetus at 20 weeks has full rights, it's just that some want to allow government to quash the most fundamental of those, the right to life. Now, there are rare cases in which the fetus' life threatens the life of the mother, and a woman shouldn't have to take her "child" to court to preserve her own life, nor does the fetus have the right to murder its mommie. The pro-life folks always keep asking, if it's not a human being, what is it?

And wouldn't the national debt be easier to manage if we had MORE people paying taxes rather than filling litter bins with their tiny, dismembered carcasses?

Anonymous said...

"The pro-life folks always keep asking, if it's not a human being, what is it?"

Who is saying a fetus isn't human?

John said...

Accepting the reality that many Americans cost the US far more than they pay in over their life time, I think you may be incorrect.

John said...

"Who is saying a fetus isn't human?

After a quick google search it seems that many pro-choicers do. Here is one who makes light of it.

Anonymous said...

So it comes down to the ultimate question:

When does a fertilized egg become a "person"?

There is no consensus among Religion.
Perhaps Science can tell us
...but that won't matter to Believers.

Does it make you happy that fewer abortions are being performed every year because people are becoming better educated? Or does it make you sad that abortion is still legal?

Anon

John said...

Both...

Anonymous said...

Do you believe that banning things makes them go away?

jerrye92002 said...

Why, yes, it does. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, "banning" deficits, would make them go away. It wouldn't do anything for the debt, but at least we would quit adding to it and increasing it as a percent of GDP. So what is the moral case for NOT banning deficits?

John said...

It depends... This may require a post of it's own.

By the way, please note that I am not lobbying to make abortion go away. I just want them to be minimized and to ensure all occur before 14 weeks. The exception are later abortions that are practical because the fetus is significantly defective or if the fetus poses a significant risk to the Mother's life.

Nothing extremist to rail against here...

jerrye92002 said...

Heck, even I can agree with that, and I can get my church doctrine to back me up. Only a pro-choice extremist would disagree.

jerrye92002 said...

By the way, I would include in the term "minimized" the notions that abortion should not be used as the only means of birth control or for sex selection.

Anonymous said...

Then it appears neither of you are in step with the Pro-Life movement...for which you will certainly go to hell, if what I've been told by them is correct.

Good for you.

And jerry, I'm glad to read that you think banning things works. For instance, we should ban drugs...they will certainly go away. We should ban legal recognition of same sex couples...that will keep them from forming families. We should ban the owning of firearms by those not part of the national militia...that will make things much better.

Anonymous said...

"Only a pro-choice extremist would disagree."

I'm not in favor of abortions, I'm just not naïve enough to think that banning late-term abortions will make them stop happening or keep women safe.

John said...

Maybe we should make murder legal since one will never completely stop it...

Silly comparisons...

Anonymous said...

Yes...completely silly.

Very well.

If the State can force a woman to give birth, then the State should support the child.

Sounds fair to me.

jerrye92002 said...

John, I would not have said " silly," but that is a pretty good shorthand description.

It clearly indicates the problems with liberal "thinking." Most importantly it shows that their belief in government power is absolute, and that government law can override the laws of physics, chemistry, economics, human nature and, presumably, general relativity if they see the "need." It also clearly illustrates the truth of Rush Limbaugh's frequent plaint that "words mean things." Here, a "ban" on murder and a "ban" on cigarette sales to minors are equally desirable and effective, or undesirable and ineffective, depending upon which one the liberal starts from. Contrary to liberal Sen. John Kerry, it is the left who lacks all "nuance." Of course, on the right we call that "wisdom and discernment."

jerrye92002 said...

"If the State can force a woman to give birth, then the State should support the child."

I will give you one better. If the woman CHOOSES to give birth, then she and the father should support the child. All that remains is to determine at what point in the pregnancy that choice was made, explicitly or implicitly. The courts have ruled that with abortion legal up until the fifth month, failure to choose at that point creates an implicit contract – a choice. Others would argue that the choice occurs at the point of consent to have sex.

John said...

"State can force a woman to give birth"

I find this even more amusing... I am envisioning a government bureaucrat standing next to a woman's bed ordering her to have inadequately protected sex with some man...

He is saying... "You will give birth, get to it!!!"

John said...

I am thinking of many things the government makes us do and pay for once we have committed ourselves by making a choice or taking some action:

- we must feed and care for the pets we choose to buy.
- we must insure the cars we choose to buy and drive.
- we must pay taxes if we choose to earn money or buy something.
- we must pay property taxes if we choose to buy property.

and

- we must care for and nurture our children or give them up for adoption if we do not end their short lives before the point of viability.

Anonymous said...

"If the woman CHOOSES to give birth..."

But Pro-Lifers want this to be the ONLY option, so in reality, there would be no choice at all.

"The courts have ruled that with abortion legal up until the fifth month, failure to choose at that point creates an implicit contract – a choice."

I think this is a reasonable middle ground. Unfortunately, Pro-Lifers aren't happy with any legal option for abortion. And Pro-Choicers are not happy with any restrictions on a woman's choice to do what she wants with her body.

The problem is that the burden is ALWAYS placed on the woman, but she can't create that baby by herself, so I think we should be placing a LOT more burden on the men in these scenarios, but how do you allow a man to have a say when all of the physical and emotional and hormonal burden in on the woman? Even if he WANTS the baby, can he force the woman to bear the burden? It seems irreconcilable.

Look, I want people to have an honest conversation about this, but unless the Pro-Life movement gives up (which they CAN'T do, because it's a religious issue for most) on trying to make all abortion and abortifacients illegal then nothing can change, because that position is at odds with real life in all its complexity.

Should getting pregnant really be a mistake that we don't allow people to correct? Pro-Lifers will say yes, and it always comes with a heaping helping of shame thrown on the woman for her decision to have sex.

Anon

Anonymous said...

"I find this even more amusing... I am envisioning a government bureaucrat standing next to a woman's bed ordering her to have inadequately protected sex with some man..."

Interesting that you think that having sex is the same as getting pregnant. Also interesting that you don't know that protection sometimes fails.

John said...

Not all people who drink too much and drive home cause horrible accidents, however we legislate, set very low blood alcohol content limits, enforce and punish to no end to prevent tragedies that may occur involving innocent victims when they do so.

Having sex is similar in that it is a risky behavior that puts the participants and an innocent life at risk.

Now it has been ~2016 years since the last virgin got pregnant, so I think that birth control method is pretty fool proof. Now if a woman chooses to have sex, she owns her consequences just as the driver does who drank heavily and drove into on coming traffic.

John said...

By the way, Jerry and I both agree that all women should be required to name the father and prove paternity before she can receive welfare payments. Then the government can go after the Father's wages.

Is that enough in the way of "Fatherly Consequences"?

Anonymous said...

"Having sex is similar in that it is a risky behavior that puts the participants and an innocent life at risk."

Which is exactly why we should legislate that people cannot have sex unless they are married and want children...or is that not what you meant by your drunk-driving example?

How about we force the father to raise the child if the mother didn't want it in the first place?

Anon

John said...

That would be interesting to try to enforce. I think natural consequences are adequate.

I think a mother could do that if she is willing to prove paternity and give legal rights to him.

jerrye92002 said...

"But Pro-Lifers want this to be the ONLY option"

Anon posits a not unreasonable "compromise" up until this total mischaracterization. It turns out that somewhere between 65 and 85% of people call themselves "pro-life" when you start adding in "exceptions," and there are more people who are absolutist pro-life (and even they recognize at least one exception – life of the mother) then there are people who are absolutist pro-choice – any abortion any time for any reason.

I find the drunk driving metaphor reasonably apt. I've always wondered why the police don't sit outside of random bars and when somebody walks out, alone, and starts a car, arrest them before they have the opportunity to hurt somebody. My theory is that when you drive to the bar, you should have planned a way to get home later. In the sexual situation, one should consider the possibility of pregnancy (or STDs) before engaging. If that sensible caution happens to align with somebody' moral code it is not the fault of the person with the moral code. It is like that old saying, "pro-choice before conception, pro-life after."

John said...

Remember how I like to label myself.

"Pro-Choice Anti Abortion"

Seems like the logical position.

jerrye92002 said...

I like shorthand notations, but that one doesn't make sense to me. I think you can be "pro-life with exceptions" including some combination of: reproductive health and life of the mother, rape, incest, gross fetal deformity, or reduction of multiple birth. Or you can be "pro-choice with exceptions" including no abortions as primary birth control, no partial birth abortions, no abortions after 20 weeks except for life and health of the mother, no abortion for the purpose of sex selection. I think you arrive at pretty much the same place. Find a certain phrase for that, if you can.

John said...

My logic should resonate with you most of all.

Pro-choice: I do not want the government, bureaucrat or Bible thumper getting betweeen a citizen and their Doctor.

Anti-abortion: I think abortion should be the LAST resort for Mothers. To only be chosen when the adoption alternative is not available, the child is deformed/dying or the Mother's life is at risk.

Anonymous said...

'Remember how I like to label myself.

"Pro-Choice Anti Abortion"

Seems like the logical position.'

Funny. That's how I label myself, too.

Anon

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting argument. I would enjoy hearing/reading it debated.

http://www.jimchines.com/2013/06/abortion-and-bodily-autonomy/

Anon

jerrye92002 said...

Seems to me like the same old argument from a different direction. The state cannot coerce you to donate a kidney, nor will they allow you to sell one, but they are more than happy to allow you to donate one. The state will not compel a woman to give birth, and generally frowns upon "womb rental," but nothing prevents a woman from voluntarily taking on that responsibility. And at the age of viability, it becomes an implicit contract. Some of us would prefer that the contract be made explicit much earlier, but that, too, is voluntary.

jerrye92002 said...

John, I find no logic there at all, since by your definitions I am both more pro-choice and more pro-life (antiabortion) than you are.

Your definition of pro-choice would permit far more abortions than I would. I believe that government has a place in setting down laws that protect the common good, and many of those laws are actually based in some sort of morality. Laws against murder, for example, are common to many religions, and could reasonably apply here. Also, I would hope that the woman herself would recognize some moral code that would give her pause before seeking an abortion. That is, she herself might be the "Bible thumper," or at least be willing to listen to one.

And while I like your definition of anti-abortion, I don't think it includes enough exceptions to cover all reasonable cases. For example, it appears you would not allow abortion even in the first trimester unless it met one of your stringent exemptions. The "adoption option" is always available, so that is not an out. And even the most ardent pro-lifer allows for the other two exemptions.

John said...

Jerry,
Pro-choice: I have no desire to open things up more than they are, and hopefully viability will drop to 14 weeks someday. Though I am happy letting Parents abort right up to delivery a severely unhealthy fetus or one that may kill it's mother.

Anti-abortion: I have no intention to legislate "should be the LAST resort for Mothers". That is why the should is in the sentence.

jerrye92002 said...

So, all of us "reasonable" pro-lifers here seem to agree with Roe v. Wade, and it is the radical pro-abortion folks that fight it every step of the way?