-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?

Comment viewing options

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

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.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

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.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

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.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

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.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

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.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

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.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

: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