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
OK I'm reposting ...
Here we go ... If you don't want or can't afford a baby
DON"T HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX
Don't down vote without a explanation
You need to get off that bad?
Keep flap A out of slot B and these things won't happen !!!
Are you people nothing but a bunch of apes that can't control your animal urges ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwN7fxA0A-c
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Thank You Fishy !!!
there is no such thing as 'protected' sex--
I know a lot of people who would not have children at all if 'protection' worked--
sometimes it does; for some people it does, but for others it does not--
and in those cases it is a good thing those people did not believe in abortion--
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
I'd like to know
the consequences of increased PUP. (prevent unwanted pregnancy) How would that be handled since it could possibly double or triple the number of prevented unwanted pregnancies already out there?
Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists
that's not what this thread is about. period.
this is a complicated issue (just like RAND and RON have said, but I guess they are apes too?)
when you make glib, uber simplified statements, you come across a bit foolish.
My advice?
read the post *objectively* without emotion, try and think about the question, come up with a reasoned response based on facts and reality.
My guess?
you will get mad and/or say something rude and/or blow off everything I just typed with some glib answer.
Except that it's not complicated.
Sex is for reproduction. The only way to 100% make sure that there is no conception is by either not having sex or having your body mutilated. Tying tubes is still not 100%, so you would need to have organs removed...mutilation. When conception occurs it is a human life. All that would have to happen is for the government to define abortion as murder. It really wouldn't be hard to shut down all of the legal clinics. There will always be a black market, and that's just a fact of life. If you don't want children, keep your legs closed or put up the kid for adoption. If you're raped, take a morning after pill. The problem is society. Until society gets its head out of its ass and stops glamorizing sex as something trendy and something you have to do with random people to be normal, things will not change. Our culture is just a culture of death, so it's no surprise that abortion is cool.
OK, I am very much pro-life
And a woman, but this argument (which you continue below) is just ridiculous.
Sex is NOT ONLY for reproduction. I agree that people should protect themselves but to say that that's the only reason for sex is insane. I've had a (medically necessary) "mutilation." Does that mean if I choose to continue to be sexually active (which I do) that I am behaving as an "animal?" Seriously?? Come on... that's crazy talk!
Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie
Angie, I'm not piping in on the rest of the comment, but if you
choose to be sexually active, you are responsible for that action. Abortion is not taking responsibility, it's abdicating it.
It therefore turns the "right" to enjoy your own body into the "license" to do whatever you please.
If you don't want kids, there is only one sure fire way to prevent that which is consistent with any theory of rights. Outside of that, one would be acting in a licentious and "libertine" manner, not a "libertarian" one.
Oh, I agree with that
I just don't agree that it's *only* for reproduction and doing it for other reasons makes you an "animal."
People are responsible for their actions but the comment I replied to came across as saying it was a dirty thing. It's not. Well, not unless you're into that kind of thing.
Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie
I don't know what mutilation
I don't know what mutilation has to do with being "sexually active," but sleeping around is indeed acting like an animal.
You
Are who made that connection... not me.
You have not stated that "sleeping around" is acting like an animal. Your argument has consistently been that having sex for pleasure instead of procreation is acting like an animal , and you are wrong. In fact, only one other mammal has sex for pleasure... dolphins. All other mammals do it only for procreation. So, if you want to get technical, if you think it is only for reproduction purposes, then it's actually you who is acting like an animal.
Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie
So people can read the
So people can read the thoughts of dolphins now? Using animals as an excuse for human behavior is what is wrong with this world.
I can't but I'm sure the gov't wasted lots of $ on that study
Who is using animals as an excuse for human behavior? Give me an example?
Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie
Sex is NOT just for pro-creation! lol
I feel sorry for anyone that thinks that.
I feel sorry for you that
I feel sorry for you that because there are tingly feelings from it that you think it's alright to just treat your body like a trash can.
Um did GOD create my sexual organs or did SATAN?
nothing evil or wrong about sex buddy!
it's a part of a healthy lifestyle when done properly.
BTW when you get that "tingly feeling" that you get when you need to pee...do you give in to THAT urge?
WTF are you talking about?
WTF are you talking about? Are you an animal now? You're basically saying "it's there, so I have to use it." No. It's for reproduction.
If you are having a tingling akin to an orgasm when you have to pee you should get yourself checked out.
I'm a mammal with an extremely powerful brain, just like you
So yes, I am a type of animal.
I second this..
There is nothing wrong with having sex as long as you deal with the consequences. If my girl got pregnant I would man up, get a second job, and deal with it. Sex is an important aspect in any relationship. Whether it is for procreation or not. It releases hormones that make you attached to the person you are having sex with. It binds you physically by your emotional memory. Yes, memory is physical! :-)
-Matthew Good
Congratulations that you lump
Congratulations that you lump yourself in with animals. That truly does excuse all kinds of hedonist behavior. Seagulls are usually lesbians, so it must be OK for humans to just blame their DNA instead of having an ounce of self-control.
I, on the other hand, am a human being and I was created. I was not evolved from an apish mammal. I don't worship creation and I don't cry like a little bitch when some frog species goes extinct from human activity.
:o(
a little tense?
πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα
Well that's special! Im happy for you, enjoy your life
...or don't enjoy your life if that's "gods plan".
Sadly, you obviously seem to have some sexual issues... I mean,
Whats wrong with being a Seagull??? lol
I don't have any sexual
I don't have any sexual issues. A person has to have sex to have sexual issues.
His point is that, the
His point is that, the government is not "forcing" anyone to have babies, as so many people on this thread claim. In order to have a baby, you must first get pregnant. Therefore, in order for the government to force you to have a baby, they would also have had to force you to get pregnant. Somehow people are leaving out this step.
They question is, when is a life a life? Everyone seems to be ignoring it.
but it IS government force. sex is a part of human nature
and the government is telling people how they need to behave.
I think,too many people on here have "issues with sex" and think it's immoral to begin with unless it's for pro-creation.
sex isn't just for "sluts" and "whores", married couples have it too and the fact is that condoms, etc, aren't always 100%
I want Zero abortions AND Less Government...but we need to deal with REALITY before we find that solution.
I don't see where the force
I don't see where the force comes in. No one forced you to get pregnant.
The argument is about protecting a life. If you think government protecting life equates to the use of force then the discussion is over. Some people think life starts at conception. Whoever believes this must also think it is murder to take that life. Just as it would be to murder a baby.
I've heard that argument before
We are "forced" to pay taxes either by your point...
Saying people can "voluntarily" not have sex is silly, it's human nature between individuals, it's not the government's business in the 1st place!
You are not understanding my
You are not understanding my point. People on here are saying the government is forcing them to have babies. I reject that statement on the fact that it is not true that government is forcing people to get pregnant. Where in this proposed law does it say that you will be required to get pregnant (and thus have a baby)?
Murder has always been illegal. The argument is whether or not murder is just as illegal inside of the womb as it is on the outside. For example, if someone shoots a pregnant woman, and kills the fetus and mother, the state considers this a double homicide. However, if the woman decides to kill that same fetus, no homicide has been committed.
I honestly don't know where I stand on the overall issue, I just find the above stated hypocrisy/double standard quite odd.
Who owns you?
You do right?
Well, who owns a fetus?
You seem to say the government while I say it's the mother.
Why give the government power to intrude into peoples private matters?
It is a womans body/property. -She is the one that has to eat extra food to support the child for 9 months, carry it around, get swollen feet, etc etc.
It's not the governments role to tell a women what to do with her body.
After the child is born, then it becomes part of society and is protected because then it's the parent's and it's own property.
Personally, I wish the "Morning after pill" was available over the counter. Women would then have the power to be more pro-active instead of having to wait until the baby is further along to find out.
According to your logic, it
According to your logic, it is then OK for a woman to kill a 3 day old newborn because it is her "property" and she is the one who feeds it, takes care of it, supports it, etc.
nope because the baby has rights of it's own when it's born
but not before because it is an extension of the women herself.