Low-income women/Texas pulls planned parenthood/abortion rights/evolutionary thoughts

Leave it to Texas to prove its manliness by taking away some women’s rights.

From the Burlington Free Press:

“Texas officials are vowing to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood after a federal court sided with the state in a challenge over a new law that bans clinics affiliated with abortion providers from getting money through a health program for low-income women.”

From NYmag.com:

“Texas’ authority to directly regulate the content of its own program necessarily includes the power to limit the identifying marks that program grantees are authorized to use. Identifying marks represent messages,” the judges wrote. “If the organizations participating in the WHP are authorized to use marks associated with the pro-abortion point of view — like the Planned Parenthood mark — Texas’ choice to disfavor abortion is eviscerated, just as it would be if the organizations promoted abortion through pamphlets or video presentations.”

Now apart from the abortion issue itself, it seems that this specifically targets low-income women, AND is an idiotic move by Texas from a financial standpoint.

The normal cost of a first-trimester abortion runs between $350 and $550, depending on subsidies, the method used, and other variables such as cost of living. That’s without insurance paying for any of it.

If a low-income woman needs welfare, cash AND food stamps benefits (this info may be outdated by a year or two), a family of four gets about $930./month. HANDED TO THEM. Multiply that by 18 years, and you’ve spent over 16k. Additional children are also a greater burden for low-income families. It’s also not the best way to raise a child. They’re more likely to be disadvantaged.

Long term, Texas is being stupid/bull-headed/ignorant. Short term, they’re a bunch of dudes who don’t believe women should have any rights.

Now, into the abortion issue.

We’re animals, through-and-through. The only thing separating us from the animals in the wild is our ability to reason.

Infanticide has been found in many species, including humans and other primates, cats, dogs, whales, rodents, insects and fish. http://www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm gives the following reasons for infanticide: to gain food; to gain increased access to physical resources like food, nesting sites or space; to avoid caring for unrelated offspring; to bias the sex ratio of the litter. Adult males may kill a female’s young to increase his chances of mating. Infanticide may also be due to aggression or to disturbances in the physical or social environment. For example when female voles, mink and other mammals are in a state of psychological stress, they may eat their young.

It’s pretty much natural and normal to kill your offspring if you can’t properly care for it, or if it would excessively burden the quality of life of the “tribe”. It’s definitely your right to do with your body what you chose. I know I’m opening a can of worms here, but to deny our nature and where we came from, to ignore the evolutionary perspective, is pretty much to deny the fact that you are human.

If you want to get into our rights to kill, you’ll have to dig into whether or not it’s our right to kill other animals, for sport or any other reason, including preparing land for farming, building things, etc.

We kill to eat. We kill to survive, to sustain our quality of living. It’s natural. Meat: it’s what gave us big brains, and gave us the ability to reason at all. Killing made us Homo sapiens.

Is it any different to kill a baby cow than it is to kill a baby human? At what point can you say “this animal has a certain cognitive ability, therefore we ought not to kill it”? Does that mean dolphins or chimps are off-limits? Does their cognitive ability measure up close enough to ours where we can impose laws on them, to prevent them from killing their offspring? Where do you draw the line? Why are we different?

Related to and in support of this topic: Ethics of meat eating.

At what point can it be said that behavior wholly subsumed in the nature of a species of animal can be wrong, unethical to practice? To even ask the question requires an introspective, intelligent conscience—the qualitative aspect of our being that differentiates us from other animals. Because otherwise, the question we’re asking demands first that we identify and explain how ethics could arise external to our own natural experience, from some super-existent realm sporting an external authority that trumps our own individual authority over our own behavior. In simpler terms: we are ethical beings. Ethics, a sense of right and wrong, is as much a part of what makes us human as the consumption of other animals along the way made us human. It’s all baked into the cake: meat gave us the nutritional density to evolve big brains, big brains gave us the intelligence to introspect, and conscious introspection gave us ethics. Eating meat made us ethical beings. As such, eating the flesh of non-ethical beings can’t logically be unethical.

Read the whole essay [here]

So have at it in the comments section…

Tell me what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s