If abortion were illegal

[jonny]

What laws would need to be established to deal with the influx babies and or curb them?

Before I start proposing laws, I'd like to know a little about who is having abortions. The demographics may be very telling about whether or not this would be a large problem. There are people who have abortions because they cannot afford a child, but there are also people who have abortions because they are simply selfish and don't want to spend their money on children. For others the timing just isn't right. They want to wait a few years before having a child. The country existed for years without abortion being legal. We can manage again.

Also, I have friends who have been waiting years to adopt a child because they cannot have one of their own. They thought that they were going to be able to adopt some foster children that they had taken in, but the mother decided to take them back so now they are back waiting.

I have lots of people who were "accidents" or had "accidents." Just because you were not planning on having a child does not mean that you couldn't support it and love it just as much as any child you had planned on.

I want to make it clear that I support abortion if a mother's life is in danger or in cases or rape and incest. I also have from a very good source that this was on of the main purposes of legalizing abortion in the first place. It wasn't about a "right to choose" it was about protecting mothers.

 

[Fluffy]

Surely expecting there to be 1.25 million abortions after a ban on it is not logical. The culture shock will inevitably force people to be more careful meaning that this number will be reduced and we cannot predict how signigicant the reduction will be.

However, if we assume a worst case scenario with zero reduction, I would be in favour of mass foster homes that are funded by taxes. Additionally, having to put children in these foster homes will increase the tax band of the parents by 1 and possibly higher with repeat. I feel that this shouldn't cripple anyone financially (if they have no money or job they don't pay) and will be a sufficient incentive to cut down unwanted children to a level where the situation is more manageable.

 

[Quiddity]

Surely expecting there to be 1.25 million abortions after a ban on it is not logical.

This is what I was getting at, but robtex perceives it as real.

~Victor

 

[robtex]

This is what I was getting at, but robtex perceives it as real.

~Victor

The number is real until such time a proposition is forumlated to reduce it. If abortions are banned approximately 1.25 million unwanted children will be born a year. Some will be cared for by their biological parents anyway and others will be adopted. But you and Jonny put your money where your mouth is. Formulate a structure of laws to positively work on reducing the number of orphans. FC is thrown some on the table. What do you think of his ideas? Any of your own?

 

[jonny]

But you and Jonny put your money where your mouth is. Formulate a structure of laws to positively work on reducing the number of orphans. FC is thrown some on the table. What do you think of his ideas? Any of your own?

Prove to me that there will really be a problem. I gave you what I would like to know above. We survived without legalized abortion, and we can do it again.

 

[robtex]

Johnny I did in the first post. I listed the number of abortions which would be forced births under an abortion ban and adoption numbers. Than I asked for a solution to reduce the number of unwanted births. Adoption is not a solver due to the overhead of abortions to adoptions....your solution if abortion is banned is.....

 

[jonny]

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

• 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
• 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
• 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
• 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
• 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
• 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
• 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
• 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

Of these I would only say that the last two should remain legal. So, of your 1.2 million babies you can still kill 73200 of them. The only other one here that I think would cause the problems that you are talking about is those who cannot afford to have babies (which may be subjective). So about 255,000 babies are being killed right now that the mothers claim they would not be able to afford. Some of them could be adopted out. As for the rest of them, if the mother really cannot afford them the government should have some programs to help them out. Everyone else is going to have to learn to deal with life.

 

[Fluffy]

The number is real until such time a proposition is forumlated to reduce it. If abortions are banned approximately 1.25 million unwanted children will be born a year. Some will be cared for by their biological parents anyway and others will be adopted. But you and Jonny put your money where your mouth is. Formulate a structure of laws to positively work on reducing the number of orphans. FC is thrown some on the table. What do you think of his ideas? Any of your own?

No I disagree with you robtex. It is not rational to assume that the figures won't change according to a banning of abortion. There will still be a large problem and I agree with that, but you are still dealing with an incredibly unlikely scenario. I do not know whether the reduction will be significant or not, but it will occur to some extent if abortion were banned. If you take away a person's options then they will be more careful.

Plus other things need to be considered before we have a working statistic. These would include:
1) Whether there is a current, unmet demand for adoption, either in the US or in other countries that will be able to take some of the babies that would have otherwise been aborted.
2) Whether there is any slack in the current foster care system that would again reduce the figure of babies that are still unaccounted for.
3) Whether more people will consider adoption based on the influx of children and therefore increase demand for adoption

These factors might only have a small effect on their own but together might take away a sizeable enough chunk so that the contingency plan would have to be reconsidered.

 

[Quiddity]

The number is real until such time a proposition is forumlated to reduce it. If abortions are banned approximately 1.25 million unwanted children will be born a year. Some will be cared for by their biological parents anyway and others will be adopted. But you and Jonny put your money where your mouth is. Formulate a structure of laws to positively work on reducing the number of orphans. FC is thrown some on the table. What do you think of his ideas? Any of your own?

Ok here you go:
1. Anyone who gets pregnant should put it up for adoption
2. The person that puts a child for adoption should pay child support (or atleast the guradians if under age).
3. Encourage adoption nationally to those who wish to adopt.

Now answer my question...

~Victor

 

[robtex]

Jonny of the stats you listed 100 percent don't want the kid hence the term "unwanted pregnancy" Some may change their mind after birth but to move for an abortion ban and not work on the contingency of the unwanted births is not a reasonable proposition and certainly not a solution.

Fluffy,

Deporting babies to other countries seems like horrible idea. For starters they are american citizens being deported and second other counteries have their own population issues without having to deal with ours.

The fosters system is currently not set-up for a annual population spike. Part of a prosposed abortion ban solution would be to address that. How would you address it and where would the USA (or your country) cut spending to compenstate for this new expense?

Foster care exists because adoption isn't a total solution to the current # of unwanted babies. A birth rate spike is going to make it even less feasible than it is today.

 

[Fluffy]

Deporting babies to other countries seems like horrible idea. For starters they are american citizens being deported and second other counteries have their own population issues without having to deal with ours.

I'm sorry I am unable to comprehend why this is a horrible idea. Countries with population issues will not have anybody wishing to adopt and so will not be a factor.

The fosters system is currently not set-up for a annual population spike. Part of a prosposed abortion ban solution would be to address that. How would you address it and where would the USA (or your country) cut spending to compenstate for this new expense?

I agree. However, it doesn't have to be yet. Firstly it would be unfair to set a date upon which abortions could not be performed after. It would more likely to be something along the lines of pregnancies dated after a certain point could no longer be aborted. This would make the spike staggered allowing a greater time for foster homes to keep up with demand better.

Additionally, that is not the point of what I was saying. I was suggesting that if there is any slack in the current foster system then this will reduce the figure you are quoting and thereby solving a part of the problem even if it is small. Especially when considered with the other factors.

If through similar factors a 20-40% reduction can occure then this is a much better situation and a much more manageable situation under which a ban of abortions might be feasible in the practical sense. Mass foster homes would have to be created on a large scale still but the cost reduction of this will be significant.

 

[Pah]

Ok here you go:
1. Anyone who gets pregnant should put it up for adoption
2. The person that puts a child for adoption should pay child support (or atleast the guradians if under age).
3. Encourage adoption nationally to those who wish to adopt.

Now answer my question...

~Victor

How about compensation for the time and risk the pregnancy entrails?

 

[Quiddity]

How about compensation for the time and risk the pregnancy entrails?

Absolutely nothing..perhaps those that were raped yes, but not the others no.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Absolutely nothing..perhaps those that were raped yes, but not the others no.

~Victor

Why not? - you are asking a women to be a "worker" for the state.

 

[jonny]

Jonny of the stats you listed 100 percent don't want the kid hence the term "unwanted pregnancy" Some may change their mind after birth but to move for an abortion ban and not work on the contingency of the unwanted births is not a reasonable proposition and certainly not a solution.

Is they don't want babies they shouldn't make them. Once they have created a life I really don't care what they want anymore.

 

[Quiddity]

Why not? - you are asking a women to be a "worker" for the state.

She got herself in that situation. I'm not following?

~Victor

 

[Fascist Christ]

Is they don't want babies they shouldn't make them. Once they have created a life I really don't care what they want anymore.

Think of the children! You are suggesting that you force them to live with parents who don't want them so that you can punish the parents for being irresponsible. I say if a woman does not want children, we should pay her to get her tubes snipped, at least for the children's sake.

Listen. I don't want any more children. My baby making days are over as far as I'm conscerned. My wife has the same opinion. Unfortunately, we can't afford to get ourselves fixed. So what do I do? Stop having sex with my wife? (I'm not saying that I would want to abort a child of my own, I am just using this as an example of a problem in our health care system.)

Now don't talk to me about protection. I have one condom child and one pill child. Just imagine what it would be like if I didn't love them all.

 

[jonny]

It's a sad reflection on the state of our society when people argue that it is better for someone to die than to live. Perhaps we can judge the love of parents annually. If the parents do not feel like they love or want their children they can be given the option to take the child out of its misery.

 

[Fascist Christ]

It's a sad reflection on the state of our society when people argue that it is better for someone to die than to live. Perhaps we can judge the love of parents annually. If the parents do not feel like they love or want their children they can be given the option to take the child out of its misery.

Just remember, pro-choice advocates don't consider an unborn child to be alive, and so they don't consider abortion to be putting someone to death. The sad thing is how hard it is for people to come to an agreement on things, like when life begins.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Well now latest research shows that fetuses' central nerve-system isn't linked with the brain until six and a half months into pregnancy. I would say it is moral abort pregnancy during that time period. Although might be more painful for the women to do so near that limit than in the embryonic stage.