So, engage with that assertion instead of acting like a case study is a refutation of the argument.
So it's a more unique problem than "there was a ban on abortion and it led to a lot of abandoned children", isn't it?
I never said it wasn't lol. My entire point is that banning abortion is not a problem in of itself, it is a problem when it comes packaged with dumbass natalist policies:
If it were just a ban on abortion I wouldn't be so fussed because its nothing to do with me but abortion bans are always, always accompanied by retarded prolifers doing retarded shit.
In a vacuum, an abortion ban would be a good thing because it gives the law an avenue to prosecute people for committing another form of murder. Let's be clear: abortions are absolutely murder and ideally there should be legal ways to prosecute murder.
However, when we look at nations that do ban abortions, they find ways to make it not JUST an abortion ban but also to do retarded shit that leads to women fleeing nations or refusing to breed/women breeding too much and increasing the child population to the point that leads to social collapse. So I am against banning abortions for that reason, as abortion banners rarely think through the consequences of their actions. This isn't a strawman as we actually have historical and current cases to point to, that have happened and are happening right now.
You attempt to preempt critical thinking about what actually happened by creating a strawman for a likely response, i.e. "it couldn't happen here", except that the Romanian government actively encouraged the uptick in childbirth without the means to actually support it. Meanwhile, the extent of concern for the average pro-life proponent is "don't kill your children", not "don't kill your children and have more babies than you can conceivably take care of properly for the motherland".
See above for my thoughts on this, I wish to add that the Romanian model seems like the ultimate end goal of hyper rigid retards like Erischan. Erischan doesn't understand the community participation required to properly raise children and encourage bonds between families in order to create communities. The fact that Erischan refuses to address the Romanian model in this thread is also very damning in that respect.
The Romanian model is exactly what Erischan, and people like Erischan, want. Production of children no matter what the cost is to them personally and no matter what the cost is to the nation and families that bear them.
If it's justified, it isn't murder, by definition.
This is moralfagging kikery. Killing a human being is always wrong, trying to twist it with "justification" is a lawyer's attempt at shifting blame away. It is also an expedient way to alleviate the guilt a normal person feels when they take a life. Justified or not, murder is a sin.
However we live in a fallen world where self defense is necessary for continued survival. Just in order to live we must sin. Murder is murder, no matter how justified, and sometimes it is necessary. At least imo.
Sidebar, I think this is actually the heart of the abortion debate. What is the nature of murder, when is murder justified, can you alleviate the sin of murder, should you feel guilty for committing sin, and if not, why not?
Not that I disagree with the sentiment-- there are circumstances wherein abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, such as with ectopic pregnancies. By and large, however, people are not getting abortions for that genre of reason, so by and large it is murder.
I actually agree with this. I have a great aunt who suffered an ectopic pregnancy, the abortion to save her life was very traumatic but apparently the Fallopian tube had burst or something inside of her? I don't understand the details of ectopic pregnancies desu. I do know that her church completely kicked her out and called her a murderer for having an abortion and that she should have been ready to die to save her baby or something even though ectopic pregnancies aren't sustainable. When she died I helped my mom clear out her house and we found a lot of furious letters she had kept from her former church where all they did was send her insults and scream about her being a babykiller etc. They were from the 60s. Her ex-husband insisted that the ectopic pregnancy was viable and left her for being a "babykiller."
As a matter of fact I do think there should be restrictions placed on abortions, the late term abortions they tried to legalize in NY were obviously more about murdering live babies then they were about protecting women's health. It's also very clear that the majority of abortions in the US are purely elective and the pregnancies don't actually threaten anyone. But I just can't side with prolifers because I've seen the damage that prolifers do, how they destroy families and communities with their moralistic bullshit.
As I have said in my previous post, Romania is a perfect example of "correlation is not causation".
Ceausescu did not just "outlaw abortion". He outlawed abortion, banned sex education, banned all contraception, taxed women who didn't "provide babies", financially punished doctors who couldn't save kids (even though they had no medicine or milk to provide) and implemented other bizarre policies because he wanted more Romanians.
He did all these things on nationalist grounds, not on moral grounds. This becomes clearer when you realize that women past the age of 40 could still get abortions. And all of this happened whilst Romania was a dirt poor country.
Now take Chile as an example. Chile outlawed abortion in 1989. Did a Romania-style catastrophe happen in the country? No.
In fact, the Chilean government improved maternal health in general, women's education, promoted contraceptive methods, etc. The maternity mortality ratio decreased from 41.3 (in 1989) to 12.7 (in 2003) per 100000 live births.
So can I claim that outlawing abortion diminishes a country's MMR? No, I can't. That factor alone played no role in yielding those positive results. Likewise, what caused that shitfest in Romania was not outlawing abortion in itself.
That's good to know about Chile, if more countries did that then banning abortion would not be a problem. But again, prolifers don't see it that way at least in the US. So I don't think the Chilean model would be applicable here. Prolifers in the US also (largely anyway) want to get rid of sex ed and contraception.
The Chilean model is not normal I suspect, considering how badly abortion bans are fucked up by governments. Banning abortions would be fine on its own but it always gets tied up in other dumb bullshit that natalists love to tout. And let's face it, if the US did ban abortions the US government would absolutely be stupid enough to follow the Romanian model and not the Chilean one lol.
