Pages: 1 2

 

2006-12-14 21:02:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina
Ok, I know I've just opened up a huge can of worms here, but let's tackle the big ugly issue of abortion, ok?

This isn't a thread about why it's right or wrong to have an abortion...  My question is....  If an abortion ban is passed on a national level in America and Roe vs. Wade is overturned, what system do you propose to handle all of the additional children that will be put up for adoption as a result?

Think long and hard about this one (even those of you that are pro-choice).  If the pro-life movement actually gets what it wants, it will need to come up with some kind of social system to deal with the repercussions of an abortion ban.

So, what are your thoughts?  Keep in mind that spending a significantly larger amount on social services for orphanages and the like will require either less spending in other areas, or a raise in taxes.  Please elaborate on the budgeting side of this if possible as well.....
2006-12-14 21:05:37
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6980|Global Command
Tough one.
Maybe military or civil engineering corps on a massive scale.
2006-12-14 21:08:03
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria
Soylent Green anyone?
2006-12-14 21:11:29
san4
The Mas
+311|7139|NYC, a place to live
I'm sure the people who want abortion banned don't think it will increase the number of unwanted children. They hope it will stop people from having sex.
2006-12-14 21:11:41
Point&Shoot
Tank Whore
+52|6997|Canada
Another point to consider is all the women who could require an abortion as a medical necessity where carrying the pregnancy to term could be fatal.  Then of course there is rape and incest pregnancies to consider.  The repercussions of an abortion ban would also have further social impact other than more babies put up for adoption.
2006-12-14 21:12:52
Point&Shoot
Tank Whore
+52|6997|Canada

Elamdri wrote:

Soylent Green anyone?
And you know the young ones would have the tenderest meat.
2006-12-14 21:15:46
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6845|The Gem Saloon
i really dont think that if they ban abortions people are going to stop having sex.....theyll just pull the infamous "oh shit" 3 months later when she starts puking her guts out every morning.
i dont know what the ramifications would be if such a ban were to be passed, however i do see considerable more difficulties with a ban instead of leaving things the way they are.
i hope that doesnt add to the future flame war thats unfortunatly going to happen to this thread.
2006-12-14 21:16:43
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria

Point&Shoot wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Soylent Green anyone?
And you know the young ones would have the tenderest meat.
Exactly.
2006-12-14 21:18:31
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria

Point&Shoot wrote:

Another point to consider is all the women who could require an abortion as a medical necessity where carrying the pregnancy to term could be fatal.  Then of course there is rape and incest pregnancies to consider.  The repercussions of an abortion ban would also have further social impact other than more babies put up for adoption.
I think he's talking about abortion of convienince. Abortions as a result of rape, incecst and triage will never be outlawed. Theres always an exception to the rules.
2006-12-14 21:19:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina

Point&Shoot wrote:

Another point to consider is all the women who could require an abortion as a medical necessity where carrying the pregnancy to term could be fatal.  Then of course there is rape and incest pregnancies to consider.  The repercussions of an abortion ban would also have further social impact other than more babies put up for adoption.
True...  There seems to be an internal debate among pro-lifers concerning what exceptions must be made.

The 3 most commonly discussed exceptions are....

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Mother stands a high chance of dying during childbirth

So yeah, you already covered the main 3.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of the pro-life movement supports making an exception to all 3, and what percentage supports no exceptions whatsoever.

Whatever the case, I agree that the effects would be far-reaching, but the adoption thing seems to hit most close to home when I discuss this topic with the pro-life friends I have.
2006-12-14 21:23:29
Point&Shoot
Tank Whore
+52|6997|Canada
Another aspect would also be the same as any other practice that was made illegal.

It would still be done, maybe by a few doctors in secret, but mostly by those who were not in any way qualified, using god-knows-what to rip apart a woman's insides.

Just because you pass a law, doesn't mean that it stops.  If that were true we'd still have prohibition and the Kennedy's would never have gotten rich...but that's another thread.
2006-12-14 21:28:16
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria

Turquoise wrote:

Point&Shoot wrote:

Another point to consider is all the women who could require an abortion as a medical necessity where carrying the pregnancy to term could be fatal.  Then of course there is rape and incest pregnancies to consider.  The repercussions of an abortion ban would also have further social impact other than more babies put up for adoption.
True...  There seems to be an internal debate among pro-lifers concerning what exceptions must be made.

The 3 most commonly discussed exceptions are....

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Mother stands a high chance of dying during childbirth

So yeah, you already covered the main 3.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of the pro-life movement supports making an exception to all 3, and what percentage supports no exceptions whatsoever.

Whatever the case, I agree that the effects would be far-reaching, but the adoption thing seems to hit most close to home when I discuss this topic with the pro-life friends I have.
#3 is reffered to Triage, the process of prioritizing patients, in which the mother allways comes first.

I can agree with pro-lifers on cases of abortion for convenience. However, I have met in my life some who are against abortions for 1 and 2. I have actually met a man who said that women who have been raped and become pregnant of that rape should take responsibility for what has been done, and carry the pregnancy to term. Which really makes me want to punch them in the face.

as for Triage, that will ALWAYS be around, even before Roe Vs. Wade, Triage was preformed.

I use Triage to lay foundation that the right of the mother trump the rights of the fetus (if the fetus has rights to begin with). When it comes down to life vs life, it is determined that the life of the mother takes prescendence over the life of the fetus.

I am however of the opinion that abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't take place after the second trimester.
2006-12-14 21:36:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina

Elamdri wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Point&Shoot wrote:

Another point to consider is all the women who could require an abortion as a medical necessity where carrying the pregnancy to term could be fatal.  Then of course there is rape and incest pregnancies to consider.  The repercussions of an abortion ban would also have further social impact other than more babies put up for adoption.
True...  There seems to be an internal debate among pro-lifers concerning what exceptions must be made.

The 3 most commonly discussed exceptions are....

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Mother stands a high chance of dying during childbirth

So yeah, you already covered the main 3.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of the pro-life movement supports making an exception to all 3, and what percentage supports no exceptions whatsoever.

Whatever the case, I agree that the effects would be far-reaching, but the adoption thing seems to hit most close to home when I discuss this topic with the pro-life friends I have.
#3 is reffered to Triage, the process of prioritizing patients, in which the mother allways comes first.

I can agree with pro-lifers on cases of abortion for convenience. However, I have met in my life some who are against abortions for 1 and 2. I have actually met a man who said that women who have been raped and become pregnant of that rape should take responsibility for what has been done, and carry the pregnancy to term. Which really makes me want to punch them in the face.

as for Triage, that will ALWAYS be around, even before Roe Vs. Wade, Triage was preformed.

I use Triage to lay foundation that the right of the mother trump the rights of the fetus (if the fetus has rights to begin with). When it comes down to life vs life, it is determined that the life of the mother takes prescendence over the life of the fetus.

I am however of the opinion that abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't take place after the second trimester.
Interesting...  I didn't know that it was called Triage.  I'll have to remember that for my next discussion about abortion IRL.

And yeah, I've met people (women included) that take the same position as that guy you mentioned.  I have a feeling they'd see things differently if they or someone close to them was raped.
2006-12-14 21:36:23
san4
The Mas
+311|7139|NYC, a place to live
Foster care and social services for children are underfunded now. There's no way the general public would be willing to increase funding even after an abortion ban.
2006-12-14 21:37:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina

Point&Shoot wrote:

Another aspect would also be the same as any other practice that was made illegal.

It would still be done, maybe by a few doctors in secret, but mostly by those who were not in any way qualified, using god-knows-what to rip apart a woman's insides.

Just because you pass a law, doesn't mean that it stops.  If that were true we'd still have prohibition and the Kennedy's would never have gotten rich...but that's another thread.
What you've stated is one of the many reasons why I'm pro-choice.

This goes back to the original question in that there will be increases in the cost of enforcing this ban, prosecuting the doctors that still perform it illegally, and of course, increases in the cost of caring for the women that injure themselves by trying to get a back-alley abortion.
2006-12-14 21:38:15
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|7110|BC, Canada
sell them to rich celeberties... oh wait, they only want exotic babies...
on the serious side... i have no idea what to do with them.
2006-12-14 21:42:51
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria

Turquoise wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


True...  There seems to be an internal debate among pro-lifers concerning what exceptions must be made.

The 3 most commonly discussed exceptions are....

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Mother stands a high chance of dying during childbirth

So yeah, you already covered the main 3.  It would be interesting to know what percentage of the pro-life movement supports making an exception to all 3, and what percentage supports no exceptions whatsoever.

Whatever the case, I agree that the effects would be far-reaching, but the adoption thing seems to hit most close to home when I discuss this topic with the pro-life friends I have.
#3 is reffered to Triage, the process of prioritizing patients, in which the mother allways comes first.

I can agree with pro-lifers on cases of abortion for convenience. However, I have met in my life some who are against abortions for 1 and 2. I have actually met a man who said that women who have been raped and become pregnant of that rape should take responsibility for what has been done, and carry the pregnancy to term. Which really makes me want to punch them in the face.

as for Triage, that will ALWAYS be around, even before Roe Vs. Wade, Triage was preformed.

I use Triage to lay foundation that the right of the mother trump the rights of the fetus (if the fetus has rights to begin with). When it comes down to life vs life, it is determined that the life of the mother takes prescendence over the life of the fetus.

I am however of the opinion that abortions for the sake of convenience shouldn't take place after the second trimester.
Interesting...  I didn't know that it was called Triage.  I'll have to remember that for my next discussion about abortion IRL.

And yeah, I've met people (women included) that take the same position as that guy you mentioned.  I have a feeling they'd see things differently if they or someone close to them was raped.
I know 2 people very close to me that have been raped and lived to tell, neither of them became pregnant, but I know neither of them would want to keep the baby.

Triage isn't exactly the name for aborting a baby if the pregnancy threatens the mother. Triage reffers to the medical prescedence of utility. You prioritize the patients that are in the most immediate danger and you have the greatest chance of living.

Triage when reffered to abortion means that since both the baby's life and mother's life are on the line, and since the mother is easier to save than the baby, the choice is made to abort the baby and save the mother.
2006-12-14 21:43:51
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7173|Eastern PA
Another issue that comes with a ban is what to do with those that violate the ban.
2006-12-14 21:43:55
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria
On a side note, has anyone else heard anymore on Kevorkian gettin out of jail?
2006-12-14 21:51:14
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7123|Colorado
How's about safe sex or at least responsible sex, worked for me, no kids & I'm in my 30's.
No baby = no abortion, problem solved.
It's an individual choice to have sex, why is abortion any different.
Religious arguments are null & void.
2006-12-14 21:52:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina
Haven't heard anything about Dr. K, but.... 

ATG wrote:

Tough one.
Maybe military or civil engineering corps on a massive scale.
ATG, would you care to elaborate on this one?  I'm not sure I follow you.  Are you suggesting we create an army out of these orphans?  That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if it's cost effective.  How would you go about that?
2006-12-14 21:55:30
soldevilla13
SuperFly
+21|7172|oregon
First of all,  i'm democrat (bite me), Second of all, i do believe that most democrats believe that abortion should not be outlawed. Third of all, my parents were both doctors, and they have seen many 13-18 year olds that, if they had children, would have the rest of thier life destroyed. Thier life would be physically, socially, and psychologically scarred if they didnt have an abortion. I feel that it is the choice of the girl and the doctor to decide whether the girl should have an abortion. We have given up enough freedoms already, that if we don't draw a line somewhere, the government will get farther and farther out of control. As one of the smartest men once said, "A nation that gives up a little freedom to gain a little security will deserve niether, and lose both." (benjamin franklin); our counrty has already given up a little freedom... is it safe to say that we will lose both security and freedom? is it safe to say that a funny little quip thought up around 200 years ago will actaully come true (reminiscent of the guy who foretold 9/11,sry blanking on that name).



MY POINT IS THAT IF WE GIVE UP THIS FREEDOM, HOW MANY FREEDOMS WILL THEN BE TAKEN FROM US?
2006-12-14 21:55:52
Point&Shoot
Tank Whore
+52|6997|Canada

TrollmeaT wrote:

How's about safe sex or at least responsible sex, worked for me, no kids & I'm in my 30's.
No baby = no abortion, problem solved.
It's an individual choice to have sex, why is abortion any different.
Religious arguments are null & void.
I don't think anyone is arguing that.  But not everyone is responsible and many, many people make bad choices.
So what should they do with their unwanted children.
It's hard to say how society would be shaped if a huge section of the population was raised by parents who resented their children because they were not allowed to get an abortion.  Not to mention how well kids who are raised by foster homes turn out.
2006-12-14 21:56:20
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7097|Peoria

Turquoise wrote:

Haven't heard anything about Dr. K, but.... 

ATG wrote:

Tough one.
Maybe military or civil engineering corps on a massive scale.
ATG, would you care to elaborate on this one?  I'm not sure I follow you.  Are you suggesting we create an army out of these orphans?  That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if it's cost effective.  How would you go about that?
Taking the risk of sounding like a complete boob, the idea of a child army of orphans is SO MGS:2 its awesome.
2006-12-14 21:57:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6856|North Carolina

Elamdri wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Haven't heard anything about Dr. K, but.... 

ATG wrote:

Tough one.
Maybe military or civil engineering corps on a massive scale.
ATG, would you care to elaborate on this one?  I'm not sure I follow you.  Are you suggesting we create an army out of these orphans?  That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure if it's cost effective.  How would you go about that?
Taking the risk of sounding like a complete boob, the idea of a child army of orphans is SO MGS:2 its awesome.
LOL..  I didn't think about that....

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard