UPDATE: How Would We Handle the Unintended Consequences of Banning Abortion?
Submitted by Reconstituter001 on Tue, 03/19/2013 - 12:51UPDATE:
I'm done defending facts and asking questions on this thread. Unfortunately, very few facts were given by the "pro-lifers" who want government intervention into people's private lives. It's obvious that people are just too *comfortable* with their own beliefs and are unable or unwilling to think beyond them. This was a very valid question framed in the context of reality, any reasonable person can see that. My last point would be this...not only would Banning Abortion create MORE GOVERNMENT and MORE GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY it would also INCREASE CRIME. These are the *facts* regardless of how uncomfortable they make you feel.
__________________________________________________________________
This thread is not about the morality of abortion, there's another thread for that.
http://www.dailypaul.com/278723/rand-paul-introduces-life-at...
Since Roe v. Wade there have been an estimated 55 million abortions.
If all of those babies were "saved" ...
Who would take care of them if the families couldn't?
Should crack addicts and unfit mothers be forced by the state to give birth?
Basically, in the long run, aren't we just creating more government dependency if we force mothers to have babies that they can't take care of?
- Login to post comments
its a medical procedure:
no different than life-extending or do-not-resuscitate medical procedures that alter the outcome of life and death events.
the decision to alter or allow the outcome of life and death events should be a safe, affordable and private decision.
Well, we could lock up young women more
I've never seen a group of women cleaning up the side of the road so it would be good for them. Alternately, we could execute them and end the killing. Right or wrong, we have a prison industry to support and more laws mean more revenue. Do your part, demand more laws.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Demanding more laws is not the answer, I agree
and a personhood law may have unintended consequences: Late miscarriages are a fact of life. Would we charge a lady who had this happen with abuse or neglect, or worse, murder? I understand your point here. My personal bent is that those of use who believe that life begins at conception may need to take a look at what would be the least intrusive of the options.
Personally, I'd like to start with not being forced by statists to pay for the abortions (or abortafaciets). Planned (un)Parenthood should have to do their deed as Crisis Pregnancy centers do: Raise money from willing supporters, or close down! They should not be a ward of the State, nor should I have to pay for a morally repugnant (to me) choice, as I do now.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
McCain has the wrong type of birds in sight: Angry Birds are the type!
www.dailypaul.com/277441/mccain-calls-paul-cruz
you could also consider ...
...refusing to have them subsidised by the unwilling at the behest of organized eugenicists some of whom have been around for decades and have ties back to people who were made forever unpopular for openly murdering only a fraction of what they have done.
That's a start. But what happens when they do it anyway?
I say road cleanup or death. I don't agree with abortion in any way. I just don't think legislating morality works. I like taking away subsidies for everything and I hate that eugenicists have orchestrated the whole abortion culture, but I equally hate the idea of putting the force of the law on confused teenage girls for conforming to a sick society.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Actually most of the stuff on here is wasted talk.
It has value in making all aware that they are part of a POTENTIAL movement; but it does not leas anywhere fast enuf.
But, we are staring war 3 in the face.
This discussion pales before what your mil. has done to future generations of children in Iraq; but their masters are the people who write the laws your congress is paid to sign for without reading; and theirs are the bankers and their buddies.
And that pales before war 3 we are staring at.
The best potential for arresting that is the libertarian movement in your country. Problem is, they allow themselves to be dispersed and will almost impossibly have a leader. You let the PTB disperse you from a leader by showing where he opines on some factor like abortion or consideration of homosexuals or some other emotional issue in a way that will divide you. These have importance but are secondary to things like toppling the Fed, having congress read the laws they sign, staying within a budget, fighting only declared wars, enforcing the 4 th amendment, and such -- which you could do if you aligned yourselves.
The PTB disperse you easily and you refuse steadfastly to nominate 5 or 10 goals that could stop the rot and save the planet; and to get behind a leader who will push those thru -- no matter what he or you think about the secondary issues. You would rather have the luxury of "free thinking" than enforce a handful of violated basics by having a leader.
So you have a status quo that is worsening by the month; and the planet's best resource is nullified by the PTB and so war 3 creeps closer weekly.
Sorry, but it's not legislating morality
If it is, then ensuring free speech is legislating morality as is gun ownership, the right to privacy and due process.
The founders said that, like life, they are inalieable rights.
Protecting inalieable rights is different from legislating morality.
The usual use of the term "unitended consequences" is ...
... for meddling in a natural cycle. You are stretching it to apply it to reinstating a natural process that was subjected to meddling. You are applying it to meddling in abortion, which implies that abortion is a natural process. It really is stretching things.
When anyone talks about facts about abortion
The only fact that matters is a medical fact and is this: "is the fetus a human being?"
If it is, then the idea that crime would decrease is a nonsensical fact. This "crime" as you say, is crime as defined and prescribed by the government. That's like criminalising marijauana and the government saying "we have become a horrible nation, look at how crime has increased!" It is only a crime because government has defined it as a crime. Similarly, the government has argued inflation is stable, this is an undeniable fact according to the government, but that is because the government changes what constitutes inflation.
Where am i going with this? The only reason why murder has not been 55 million higher than it is is because the government has defined it not to be murder.
The point is, facts such as crime and the like are irrelevant. The only fact that matters is if the fetus is a human being.
Because if we are to take the approach that abortion is good because it reduces crime, then why stop with those type of abortions. Why not institute a child bearing policy that says "you are only allowed to have children if you surpass an income threshold because the *facts* tell us that only your children are less like to commit *crimes*?
Believe it or not, this is the logic of the society you are subscibing to. You may not go as extreme yet, or ever, but a logic that dictates its civil law based on utilitarian outcomes will inevitably lead to such laws.
It is by this same logic that anti-gun advocates are pushing anti-gun laws - because the facts say that reduced guns result in reduced gun crimes.
So forget about what this individual will do in the future, forget about how productive they will be, forget about anything and everything they will do in their life, because all these *facts* are irrelevant. The only relevant fact is are they are human being, because if they are, then they have the same right to exist as you do.
The solution is not easy, but rather than being contempt with evil over another evil (abortions over increased crime), society must seek to achieve good (the right for a human to exist while providing them with the right conditions to fulfill being a good individual).
Research shows: Abortion increases crime rate
http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/...
jhon
personhood
Here is the way it would work. If it was discovered that the baby was a threat to the mother, than she could defend herself in court. If not then at the trial she would be accused of murder.
Every woman has the right to live her life without having her privacy rights infringed a warrant for the investigation for murder. In order to get a warrant, you need a damn good reason(remember, this is all theoretical). Innocent until proven guilty. This does not infringe upon the privacy rights of the woman. But if she is suspected by someone, (husband, family, etc...) then they can tip off the contract enforcers, and an investigation can be done in accordance with the law.
As for what will happen to unwanted children? I have never heard of one.
Séamusín
You are an ASSHAT
Yeah and you have no facts just BS .. So i suppose you believe the FACT the stimulus saved or created 10 million jobs. So we should have forced ta ation so people don't rob us .. that is e tortion .. and you have no fucking facts .. just for the ONE fact you hate Christians ... grow the FUCK up
take some deep breaths buddy, don't get bent out of shape
I have offered facts, I don't know what you are talking about. You obviously have a problem with me, but I don't understand all your rage.
I am personally anti-abortion, I just do not want to impose my will on others.
I want to end all abortions voluntarily rather than ban them.
Either way, there is nothing wrong with discussing how to handle these situations that come up with abortion.
I don't "hate christians" if you are one, good for you!
that's your right. It's none of my business unless you make it my business. Personally I think it's like drinking diet coke, I think it's bad for you, but I'm not going to take away your right to it.
take care
Do you read what you post
How can you predict future "facts" this is BS
I am personally anti-murder but don't want to impose my will on others .. more BS
Yeah i have seen you post all kinds of anti-Christian topics .. so stop talking out of both sides of your mouth
Why would you bring this topic up? We are 16 trillion in debt .. so tell me how this grows government?, how does outlawing abortion affect me?, how does it affect you?
You bring up inflammatory BS constantly that does in know way advance the cause of liberty .. so therefore you are an ASSHAT
So as long as someone kills you "privately" you are fair game.
Your so-called analysis looks only at the costs, not the benefits, of maintaining a culture of life. If those 55 million innocent souls had been allowed to life Social Security would not be headed for bankruptcy, we would not have had an invasion of illegal aliens to fill out the work force, and the LIBERTY MOVEMENT would be MUCH MUCH stronger.
I am with Dr. Paul. Government should not do much, but defending innocent human life is one function I am OK with!
Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)
Benjamin Franklin once said.....
Democracy is when two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb protesting the vote.
.
Abortionist Joked: 'This Baby Is Big Enough to Walk Around With Me or Walk Me to the Bus Stop'
see more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/abortionist-joked-baby-big-e...
.
Warning - graphic pictures
.
Another good example of democracy in action: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood...
.
Read Snow's response to Rep. Oliva's question to see how the issue of abortion is addressed by Franklin's bit of wisdom.
What can be said of a people who would sell their own children into slavery, using the rationale that it is to protect their freedom?
abortion
Bill Gates said at a ted conference in 2010 that : “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!” (About 1 Billion People!) Here is a 3 minute clip from the ted conference in 2010 of Bill Gates saying this: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=a155d113455fac882a32905365... Of course the overpopulation is just that propaganda. You can fit the whole population of the world twice with everyone having a backyard and a house easily in a state the size of Texas.
jhon
:o(
eugenics
πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα
WTH?
Since 1973, the family has disintrigrated because the cement in its unit, the child has become expendable. Also since that time, government dependency has also shot up. People used to depend on their strong families for help, but the government/Elite - through population bomb propagada, quickie divorce laws, and redefining what human sexuality is all about -has in effect slashed many of the strong bonds that used to be what Americans were dependent upon and replace them with the "corps is mother the corps is father" (Babylon 5 ref.)
So I dispute your "facts", because I know 55 million Americans who still had the self-sufficient training of our ancestors, untainted by a communist education, would totally whip the fire out of these collectivists running over our country like roaches.
http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com
Are you kidding?
"Also since that time, government dependency has also shot up"
And you don't think that another 55 million poor people in the US would create even more government dependency???
Some of you seem to be living in a fairy tail!
BTW what is it that you are quoting there? Sounds like garbage propaganda to promote a christian government.
You obviously...
do not care to debate this issue as you claim. Whenever anyone says anything that you disagree with you throw a tantrum, just as an immature child would do. If you think that ramming your position down someone's throat will force them to realize how tasty it is, you are no different than the statists that most of us are fighting against. To assume that all of those pregnancies would have occured without the abortion bailout being available is just plain nonsense. People act irresponsibly because the government encourages it.
I guess I'm not alone
Why do you assume they would be poor?
I was below the poverty line when I got pregnant - way below. But today my kids are "middle class".
I don't try to collectivize the futures of all the people who have been aborted to justify their deaths.
I'm not living in a fairy tale, it's called stable demographics and all though recorded history you have evidence of Romans and other conquerors trying to manipulate it on the subjugated groups. Cleaving the family up is central to total domination. That's not a "christian thing" - that's a real world thing accepted by all thing.
I didn't quote anything, except a small excerpt from the sci fi show Babylon 5, hardly a bastion of sound fundamentalist dogma, but a darn fine tale of tyranny run amok.
http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com
I question your assertion
I question your assertion because one of the reasons people used to depend on strong families was children were expected to work for the family to survive. Furthermore, children could also be sold into slavery at various points in history.
I think its more like this ... police departments arose because people preferred to pay someone else to do policing and delegated their responsibility. People prefer to pay someone to educate and raise their kids. People prefer to pay into social security than rely on kids for elderly aid.
I think the reason for any problem is much more likely to be found in a mirror than blaming government or elite. Neither government or elite have any inherent power unless given by express or tacit consent.
Let's face it ... human energy (ie. work) is like electricity in that it seems to prefer the least path of resistance.
I take your point
that humans take the path of least resistance. As a mom of five, I see it every minute of my day. The point I'm making is that the psychological planners have turned that around to get the masses to flow in the direction they wanted them to--straight into a dependent mentality.
I reject the notion that human beings are resources to be utilized. This thinking is taken today and projected on the American family of yesteryear. The dominant protestant, pioneer culture saw institutional schooling as a danger for the first part of this republic and fought it tooth and nail. Only in the late 1800s did the idea get a foothold and begin wearing down that self-sufficient culture claiming scientific and proven methods of instruction. And remember, the US had a high literacy rate before compulsory schooling. We are now at a point where yes, people would rather hand over everything to the government to do for them, but that was not what America originally was about. Because the American family was made of sterner stuff and was more suspicious of meddling by do-gooders. All the services you mentioned were not asked for by the people, but foisted on them by progressives, who conditioned the people to accept them.
http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com
Good points.
May I add a few more?
I heard a lecture by a man who grew up in Tennessee. He related how, in the mid 60's or so, during the early days of the War on Poverty, federal employees went through town after town, knocking on everyone's doors to ask them if they would like to sign up for welfare. That is called a moral hazard. Some people will cave, lose their self-respect, and take government money. When that starts, no good can come of it. What the feds did was deliberate.
The sexual revolution in the 60's, which went hand in hand with recreational drugs, also changed society for the worse. I lived 90 minutes from San Francisco and Haight Ashbury and the hippies. The notion of marriage and sex started becoming cheapened, and along with that, children and family. Abortion came out of all that as naturally as summer follows spring. The slippery slope was on, and we are probably going to ride it all the way to the bottom.
Countless millions of babies were slaughtered for convenience, the convenience of the middle class. It was the middle class that jumped in and started aborting babies. Our culture was embracing sex with no responsibility. The Supreme Court lied, and people died. This is not history book stuff for me; I lived through the change in our country. It's not like only ghetto babies were killed, or crack babies, so that now, 40 years later we can excuse all the killing by saying, oh it was the dregs of society anyway and no one wanted them so it's better that they were all killed. No, millions of those babies were wanted, but convenience, boyfriend/husband/parental pressure won. Millions of young women were lied to about what abortion is, and millions of women today live with deep regrets and trauma. There were Planned Parenthood clinics that dispensed free birth control pills that were deliberately of such a low dose that the high school girls taking them would get pregnant and then have to pay a lot of money to the same clinic to get an abortion.
It's not like we aborted all of these children to save our society from black crack babies.
"All the services you
"All the services you mentioned were not asked for by the people, but foisted on them by progressives, who conditioned the people to accept them."
In every cycle there comes a point where it is no longer possible to blame any other party but self.
An appropriate :07 second clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ow4X8tiMI
I agree
That's why I denied food stamps while in college, and live without car payments and credit cards.
The time has definitely come when young people need to understand the trap laid for them. I understood that daycare sucked when I was in daycare. Ditto for public school, etc. Once you see the devices set up to ensare you, the more agile you can be at avoiding them.
However, as long as there is a handout program, you'll have those there with their hands out.
http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com
Harry Browne and Ron Paul have it right ...
... abortion is one of the few areas where libertarians disagree. Ask a bunch of libertarians what to do about minimum wage, and 99%+ will say eliminate it. Ask what to do about marijuana, and 99%+ will say legalize it (or, better yet, just repeal prohibition laws).
But abortion is different. Pro-life people think abortion is murder. OK, then should a woman who has an abortion be executed? Most would say, no, that's a little extreme. Likewise, most pro-choice people do not think it is OK to have an abortion 5 seconds before birth. That does seem like murder.
Both Harry Browne and Ron Paul have said that they personally do not like abortion, but if you outlaw it, you will not stop it, any more than you stop drug use with prohibition, or illegal immigration with immigration laws, or anything else.
First, it is not a federal issue at all. It is a state issue. Second, whatever each state decides, any absolute prohibition will lead to unintended and bad consequences. If people want to stop abortions, they should not look to the government to do it.
As for the liberty movement, there are so many other things that are important that abortion should not be a litmus test. If it is for any individual, then that individual is missing the bigger picture.
BTW, to OP: You will get nowhere debating the merits of a pragmatic argument with people who view the argument from a moral perspective.
So because some will always commit "crimes of passion" and kill
someone in a fit of rage, we shouldn't have laws against murder either because "we can't stop them."
Having a law against something isn't about stopping a behaviour.
It's about justice for those who are injured. It's about securing the rights of the injured, or in the case of murder, securing the rights of those still alive from further harm by this same person.
Stopping the activity entirely isn't the point.
No, a woman who has an abortion and the doctor who performs it should not be executed in my opinion, because I don't favor the death penalty. (I'm 100% pro-life)
But they should be prosecuted and imprisoned for their crime.
They took the life of an innocent human being, at it's most vulnerable and innocent stage. There's little else more sick than that. (some, but not much)
you make some good points, thanks
there ARE bigger issues but Rand brought this up, so it's being discussed