If abortion were illegal

[robtex]

I cannot see a realistic prevention of the 1.25 million. At least not immediately.

Than we are in congruence on the theory that there is no alternative to abortion at this time. However you as a rep of the abortion ban group wants to ban it anyway.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does anyone actually care that whether its in a hospital overseas or in a back alley, a human life is being murdered because in most cases its inconvenient to let it live?

I think that it does matter if it is in a hospital overseas or in a back alley. If you value the lives of the unborn, you should place at least the same value upon an adult or the one who carries the unborn baby. By your reasoning, it looks like you want unborn to be born, but care little about the woman.

I think that women deserve excellent healthcare, despite their choices. We need to keep women out of the back alleys. Now I don't know if you mean bad overseas hospitals, but we have the ability to perform healthy abortions here in the US - there is no reason to force women to seek healthcare in Mexico or Canada.

 

[Quiddity]

Than we are in congruence on the theory that there is no alternative to abortion at this time. However you as a rep of the abortion ban group wants to ban it anyway.

Was that why you created this thread? To prove that there is no solution? I would think a thread was hardly something you needed to see that. You should know that grabbing something as large as abortion is something that is very difficult to make a 360 degree on.

~Victor

 

[Abrar]

abortion should not be made illegal.the mother should be given the choice.

 

[Fascist Christ]

I do not think that this is a black and white issue, so here would be my plan:

1) Ban abortions after 24 weeks from conception (the approximate time when mental activity commences).

2) Abortions should be free. The same goes for vasectomies and tubal ligations.

These will not only protect the lives of unborn children who are medically alive, but also help prevent unwanted births. I do realize that this does not protect all unborns based on what is theologically alive, but we do not live in a theocracy. This also does not protect what is biologically alive, as that would be rediculous. (Sperm and eggs are biologically alive). So, the medical disctinction of life is the best choice for legal purposes.

 

[robtex]

Was that why you created this thread? To prove that there is no solution? I would think a thread was hardly something you needed to see that. You should know that grabbing something as large as abortion is something that is very difficult to make a 360 degree on.
~Victor

Motive for the thread was to explore alternatives to abortion. However, before making the thread I was skeptical that any reasonable alternatives existed. So far the thread has reinforced my skeptism and futher validated for me, the need for abortion.

 

[jamaesi]

*also interviews with the millions of women who have had abortions. The after affects and such...

You're fishing for women who regret their abortion- and that usually happens when they are not supported and are told by loved ones and complete strangers who pry into their lives where they have no right to be that they are horrible baby killing monsters.



I still want to see a plan about what to do with all those unwanted children besides flowery talk of the beauty of life and family and little babies.

 

[robtex]

FC the thread is a hypothical in response to the pressure to reverse Roe V Wade. So pretend abortion was banned completely as advocated by the Chrisitan camp. What are some laws and practices you see as feasible to deal with the new contingency of 1.25 million unwanted children per year?

 

[Quiddity]

Motive for the thread was to explore alternatives to abortion. However, before making the thread I was skeptical that any reasonable alternatives existed. So far the thread has reinforced my skeptism and futher validated for me, the need for abortion.

That doesn't prove the need for abortion. It only proves abortion should remain. But in your 1.25 million unwanted children, many assumptions are concluded:

1. The children will remain unwanted by the mother after it's born.
2. Even if unwanted the mother will not provide any financial support.

Is this what you are assuming?

~Victor

 

[robtex]

The only assumption on here Victor is that if abortion is banned "things will work themselves out" That is ethically unacceptable. I know that many theists are likely thinking God will resolve and I don't need a plan. To that notion for whom it exists, I say if you abortion-banning God cared one way or the other trust me he would intercede. His non intercession is a testiment to his personal apathy. Abortion is a man/society issue not a God one.

A lack of a contingency plan for the 1.25 million unwanted children does prove the need for abortion. There is no alternative that is being proposed which means there is nothing to debate. When anti-abortionsists come up with a plan only than can it be ethically responsible to EVEN DISCUSS a ban much less vote on one.

It doesn't matter if the mother wants the child or not after a unwanted birth. What matters is you and many others of the abortion ban camp are advocating them to keep them anyway.

 

[Fascist Christ]

FC the thread is a hypothical in response to the pressure to reverse Roe V Wade. So pretend abortion was banned completely as advocated by the Chrisitan camp. What are some laws and practices you see as feasible to deal with the new contingency of 1.25 million unwanted children per year?

I think the vasectomies and tubal ligations would drop the figure dramatically.

As for the others, I guess any anti-abortion person should be on a permentant adoption list. If you want to force children into the world, then you should take care of them.

Or, something less fascist, actually provide the social programs that would help people take care of babies that they otherwise cannot afford. We're talking healthcare, dare care, and stuff like that. Too bad the Republicans oppose those things. More babies, but make them take care of themselves? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Quiddity]

The only assumption on here Victor is that if abortion is banned "things will work themselves out" That is ethically unacceptable. I know that many theists are likely thinking God will resolve and I don't need a plan.

Huge assumption based on nothing I said.

To that notion for whom it exists, I say if you abortion-banning God cared one way or the other trust me he would intercede. His non intercession is a testiment to his personal apathy. Abortion is a man/society issue not a God one.

It changes nothing in my view of abortion really. But thanks for letting me know about the ancient objection of "where's God?".

A lack of a contingency plan for the 1.25 million unwanted children does prove the need for abortion. There is no alternative that is being proposed which means there is nothing to debate. When anti-abortionsists come up with a plan only than can it be ethically responsible to EVEN DISCUSS a ban much less vote on one.

Are you really seeking an ethical plan robtex? It baffles me how you would ask for an alternative only in hopes of rejecting it. Not unless you are against abortion?

It doesn't matter if the mother wants the child or not after a unwanted birth. What matters is you and many others of the abortion ban camp are advocating them to keep them anyway.

Since you have not rejected the two points I made, I will conclude those are assumptions you are making.

~Victor

 

[Fascist Christ]

A lack of a contingency plan for the 1.25 million unwanted children does prove the need for abortion.

Are you asking for a contingency plan from the Republican party? Is that even possible?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

If abortion were illegal that would be absolutely fantastic!!!
I would vote for that anyday. The rich can fly their daughters and poor are gonna do what they are gonna do. But the alternative is worse.

~Victor

Do you not realise that the illegality of abortion doesn't stop them happening? Look at Ireland. I'm not sure of what the situation is there now, but when a 14 year old rape victim can't get an abortion - which has been the case in the past - then that's a little bit too much.
Though of course, destroy a child's life to save the life of another child that's the unwelcome result of a violent violation of the former child is fair trade I guess.

 

[robtex]

Victor "faith in God will solve man's problems" is rallying cry well advertised by your church and other christian institutions. Weather you subscribe to it or not I don't know but I wanted it on the table too since all reasons against abortions I have ever heard have been theocratic in nature.

Yes I am looking for an ethical goverment and as such realize that a proposition of abortion without a plan to deal with the birth influx is not ethical.

in response to your questions of

"1. The children will remain unwanted by the mother after it's born.
2. Even if unwanted the mother will not provide any financial support."

I don't know the anwer to # 1. It is an unknowable question however if they didn't want the child in the first place, it seems more likely they will not want it after birth more often than not.

2) Same answer as number one.

Are you are advocating forced pregenancies and forced motherhood from a mother who didn't want to concieve?

 

[Quiddity]

Do you not realise that the illegality of abortion doesn't stop them happening? Look at Ireland. I'm not sure of what the situation is there now, but when a 14 year old rape victim can't get an abortion - which has been the case in the past - then that's a little bit too much.

If you would of read my post, you would see that I am aware of this.

Though of course, destroy a child's life to save the life of another child that's the unwelcome result of a violent violation of the former child is fair trade I guess.

As I said, I don't wish for either.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Victor "faith in God will solve man's problems" is rallying cry well advertised by your church and other christian institutions. Weather you subscribe to it or not I don't know but I wanted it on the table too since all reasons against abortions I have ever heard have been theocratic in nature.

Your understanding is imperfect in what you quoted. Topic for another day.

Yes I am looking for an ethical goverment and as such realize that a proposition of abortion without a plan to deal with the birth influx is not ethical.

So you consider banning it if there was a solution to unwanted children?

in response to your questions of

"1. The children will remain unwanted by the mother after it's born.
2. Even if unwanted the mother will not provide any financial support."

I don't know the anwer to # 1. It is an unknowable question however if they didn't want the child in the first place, it seems more likely they will not want it after birth more often than not.

2) Same answer as number one.

This makes me think you have not read many stories of women who have done just that. My cousin works in a medical clinic where women thinking of having abortion go for medical attention or counceling. Planned parenthood supports abortions and they hardly talk about alternatives. But hey, she's 16, she knows what she is doing..

Are you are advocating forced pregenancies and forced motherhood from a mother who didn't want to concieve?

Forced motherhood yes. Forced pregnancies no.

 

[nutshell]

If a woman doesn't want to conceive she should not have sex or get her tubes tied. There's her choice. If she doesn't make either of those choices than she knows she may get pregnant and must take responsibility for being irresponsible in the first place. Taking responsbility includes giving the child up for adoption to a loving family that will take care of the child.

 

[robtex]

Forced motherhood yes. Forced pregnancies no.

abortion ban = forced pregancies. They were inpregnated during copulation and you are adovocating they keep the pregnacy despite avaliable technology to remove the pregnacy. And that being on the notion that you admit not having a solution to dealing with an influx of children if an abortion ban was legislated in the USA.

 

[Quiddity]

abortion ban = forced pregancies. They were inpregnated during copulation and you are adovocating they keep the pregnacy despite avaliable technology to remove the pregnacy. And that being on the notion that you admit not having a solution to dealing with an influx of children if an abortion ban was legislated in the USA.

I took it literally as if I forced them to get pregnant in the first place. I see what you mean now. In that case, I advocate both. Are you gonna answer my question:

So you consider banning it if there was a solution to unwanted children?

~Victor