-10 votes

UPDATE: How Would We Handle the Unintended Consequences of Banning Abortion?

UPDATE:
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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The are also economic consequences to permiting abortion.

For example, those 55 million, many of whom would have paid Social Security taxes, would have helped sustain this Ponzi Scheme's viability. But, enough of this.

Truth is, NOBODY knows when human life begins. Christians argue that human life begins at conception (utter nonsense, when one realizes even strict Catholics and fundamentalists do not perform last rights on miscarriages). Jews argue human life begins when a child takes the first breath (which also seems far-fetched, given the emotional bond that frequently develops between mother and child while the child is still in utero}. Finally, Buddhists believe the child's soul enters the mother's womb BEFORE conception and first cellular formation. Given science cannot verify ANY of these beliefs (and they are just "beliefs"), the most logical solution for the state is to use "viability" as the determinant. That is, IF the child is likely to survive OUTSIDE the womb, then, and only then does a fetus deserve legal protection.

In any event, if one believes in eternal life, death is of no consequence, and the taking of an innocent life only hurts those involved, be the murderer or the survivors.

I realize the topic is old but I have replies to your arguments

First of all, the moral question is of paramount import. A system premised on immorality, regardless of any perceived positive externality, is a negative and immoral system and thus inferior to any moral system governing the same set of activities.

Ignoring that however to respond to the specific arguments in question -

Insofar as the legalization of abortion might make one more willing to have intercourse, and to exercise fewer precautions when doing so,

and insofar as the use of abortion enables a subsequent pregnancy at a much sooner time than had one seen pregnancy to its natural end of child birth, therefor enabling a rapid, subsequent abortion,

and insofar as a person who is morally reconciled with abortions might receive several,

and insofar as the birth and care of a child is a significant event requiring greater attention and therefor allotting less time and availability for intercourse, let alone another child birth, than that of a person who has aborted and is free of such responsibilities,

the potential for population growth is stunted in the presence of permitted abortion compared to that of prohibited abortion.

It seems all but certain that while there might have been some fifty-five million abortions, there would not have alternately been fifty-five million child births were abortion prohibited.

Furthermore, of those purported fifty-five million abortions, in a number of those cases the child could not possibly have been saved and abortion was used as a last resort to save the life of the mother.

Therefor it is a farce to beg the question, "What if those babies were "saved"?"

We can, however, assume that some number of those abortions, in an alternate reality which prohibited abortion, would have been birthed and thus subject to your consequential catechism, so I will address your other questions as well.

"Who would take care of them if the families couldn't?"

Michelle Bachmann, for example.

I am aware personally of three families with adopted children, and I myself, as well as my sister, were adopted into a loving family.

I understand that you want to avoid any moral quagmires but is your argument truly that those who cannot be properly cared for - whatever that standard may constitute - should instead be killed, and that this is the proper solution? I find that notion to be utterly repugnant, repulsive and disgusting.

I would personally rather live a poor life than none at all.

"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?"

This question seems a ruse.
The fault in your line of reasoning is that you suppose that either "us," or the state, have any control whatsoever over whether or not a crack addict or unfit mother gives birth. That responsibility rests with the two (and in the case of rape, one) parties who willfully initiated the act of procreation.

In reality, the only agent which could properly be said to 'force mothers to have babes' is nature. The natural result of intercourse between two humans, wherein her egg is fertilized by his sperm, and that co-creation attaches to her womb and derives nutrients, is a human baby. It is not the body of the woman, as some might say. It is a distinct entity which is composed of both parents' makeup. To illuminate this certainty, imagine that during the course of tongue kissing your spouse, a number of your own cells come unattached from your tongue and remain inside the mouth of your spouse. Are these cells now officially the body of your spouse? To say such would be disingenuous and flatly false.

Do not suppose from my counter-arguments here that I am in favor of any sort of government solution or mandate regarding abortion. I am not. I prefer to approach the question from the philosophic rather than legal and political perspectives.

abortion is legal

The roe vs wade ruling was based on doctor-patient confidentiality. Either this or doctors having to disclose patient info to the govt under nationalized romney care has to go. It's completely contradicts this ruling. One has to go. Id prefer both, but its a start.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
-Benjamin Franklin

Don't play God

It doesn't suit you well.

You have NO idea how people are going to turn out and its not your responsibility to determine that ahead of time.

This is completely anti-liberty and the founders would not stand for it.

Following this logic you could say, well if we end the wars overseas those soldiers are going to get bored and come back here and shoot up our malls and movie theaters because they have pent up aggression they need to get out. You cannot assume that. You can't assume all babies born in urban neighborhoods are going to turn out criminals.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

There would only be negative outcomes?

What about the lost opportunity of this 55 million?

Can you quantify the lost creativity, problem solving, and vision for a better tomorrow?

Damn it - we cannot agree that killing human beings is wrong - we are a pathetic.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

disagree

The questioner asks, what we do with the 55 million babies that have been aborted if we hadn't aborted them and the families couldn't take care of them? This argument doesn't work because it assumes there is only one answer.

1) We don't know that those kids couldn't have been cared for. In fact many, if not the majority would have been taken care of by their family or extended family. So lets knock that number down to 25 million or so.

2) Who knows how many of these pregnancies simply wouldn't have happened if people knew they were going to have to be responsible for themselves and that abortion wasn't there as an easy out! Let's knock that number down another few million to 10 million.

3) This questioner acts like ONLY crack heads have abortions and not the 25 year old working woman who doesn't want to get married and slow down her career. But the reality is that though the poor disproportionately being also poorly educated have sex unprotected quite often, the working class does it too. But still everyone is someone's child and most have a support system that could help them. That goes back to my first point, but strengthens my point.

4) Add to that education to strengthen my second point, that if people were being taught that it was against the law, and you would face jail time if you had an abortion and that it might actually be morally wrong to kill a baby and the numbers creep even lower.

Plug up the influx of illegal immigrants and we have a pretty normal rate of population growth.

Would there need to be some government aid, sure, but at what level? Why not local community, we're the daily paul for goodness sake, think of what the local community can do for people! It's not like big government is the only answer right??

Great response

This is all so crazy.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

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.

So, I can sign a do not

So, I can sign a do not resuscitate waiver for you? Seems a strange philosophy that your life would be a private decision for me to make.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

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.

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.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

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.

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.

Right on

Right on! It's sad to see people that pretend they care about liberty also not wanting personal responsibility. The questioner asks, what we do with the 55 million babies that have been aborted if we hadn't aborted them and the families couldn't take care of them? That is a ridiculous left wing argument.

1) We don't know that those kids couldn't have been cared for. In fact many, if not the majority would have been taken care of by their family or extended family. So lets knock that number down to 25 million or so.

2) Who knows how many of these pregnancies simply wouldn't have happened if people knew they were going to have to be responsible for themselves and that abortion wasn't there as an easy out! Let's knock that number down another few million to 10 million.

3) This questioner acts like ONLY crack heads have abortions and not the 25 year old working woman who doesn't want to get married and slow down her career. But the reality is that though the poor disproportionately being also poorly educated have sex unprotected quite often, the working class does it too. But still everyone is someone's child and most have a support system that could help them. That goes back to my first point, but strengthens my point.

4) Add to that education to strengthen my second point, that if people were being taught that it was against the law, and you would face jail time if you had an abortion and that it might actually be morally wrong to kill a baby and the numbers creep even lower.

Plug up the influx of illegal immigrants and we have a pretty normal rate of population growth.

Would there need to be some government aid, sure, but at what level? Why not local community, we're the daily paul for goodness sake, think of what the local community can do for people! It's not like big government is the only answer right??

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).

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.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

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.

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