-10 votes

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

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.


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.

I don't have any sexual

I don't have any sexual issues. A person has to have sex to have sexual issues.

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

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.

You finally answered the

You finally answered the question of when is a life a life.


is an easy one. Churches, NP organizations, community, friends, and family.

You cannot force them to give birth as much as you cannot force them to have sex. If they have sex and a baby is created, then having the baby come out of you 9 months later is part of that process. The baby is already created.

There is Plan B for accidents, ie... the condom ripping. At around 6 weeks you can hear a heart beat. In my view, you have a month to decide, and then you are risking the murder of an unborn baby. If you cannot decide in a month, then you must keep the baby you created.

Here is a question for you. Would you be okay with mothers of born babies to kill them if they were crack addicts? And when, in your opinion, does life begin?

-Matthew Good

This post is textbook fallacy

Poster, you're begging the question....The terms of the question posed assume all the aborted children would have been conceived with or without easy abortion and the accompanying deterioration of sane family structure, rise of the welfare state, etc.

What would happen without easy availability of abortion (and the state paying people to have kids they can't take care of) is that men and women, put in the position of taking responsibility for their actions, would alter their behaviors.

A pregnancy that couldn't be easily terminated would be carefully avoided by people who didn't want children. Women "forced" to give birth in unfortunate situations, and men "forced" into fatherhood responsibilities they never wanted, would serve as warnings, and all the people now getting pregnant recklessly would be very focused on birth control, and on real family planning.

The 55 million births you claim would take place is more or less a random guess on your part. Likely, only a tiny fraction of those births would take place if people knew there was no easy out once they got pregnant....And the births of that number that did take place would be far more likely to be to people with realistic and healthy goals.

The rape argument is total bunk too. That's the same as the argument that a pretend terror threat cancels basic rights. You don't name a random crisis and use it to set everyday standards.

How Would We Handle

the Unintended Consequences of Abortion?

Why should women who were born

Get to tell other women in their womb what they can or can't do with their own bodies?

Before Roe V Wade all human murder, born or still in their mothers womb(natural environment!) was murder.

And look at the consequences of allowing Dr.'s to kill babies!

Whatever the consequences to society murder by any other name is still murder.

Abortion murders, in the USA 4000+ EVERY DAY have so desensitized people that this reconstituter 'thing' doesn't even notice them or seem to care, yikes...talk about your consequences to society.

When the WEAKEST among us are allowed to be wantonly slaughtered, nay, forced to be slaughtered, soon the next weakest, and the next weakest, and the next.

Repo Randy: Keeping the DP classy, one post at a time lol

How is your homophobia treating you these days?

Still think the government should outlaw homosexuality too?!

You obviously have a different definition of "less government"...

less government in YOUR LIFE ...but not other peoples'.

recomposter keeping the DP dirty one sylable at a time

I never said homosexuality should be against the law, the constitution honors the right of every American to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It just makes me happy to call homosexuals Sodomizers because I personally loathe homosexuality and believe it deserves to be stigmatized, the PEOPLE not the government should put them all back in the closet where they belong, by re-stigmatizing their behavior, which of course was how homosexuality has always been treated traditionally here in the USA.

Smear the queer was a great way to stigmatize sissification back
when I was a kid. Soon tho, parents will be able to screen out sodomizer propensity while their babies are still in the womb, just tweak their DNA a lil and presto-no fag, now what parent WOULDN'T want to save their baby from such a disgusting and personally destructive lifestyle?

Cyril's picture

I'd argue that a more current & more relevant question might be:

I would argue that a possibly more current and more relevant question might be:

How would we handle the unintended consequences of NOT alerting more people to a looming U.S. economy or global economy collapse before too late?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Baby is a girl .. Kill It

So with the new ultrasound technology is it right to kill a girl cuz you want a boy .. or maybe the kid has brown eyes you want blue so kill it ... This topic is such horseshit Eugenic crap


...hear. Half the abortions in the US are black. Legalised Hitlerism.

Possible unintended consequences of prosecuting mothers


Shuai, a 36-year-old Chinese immigrant from Shanghai, was eight months pregnant and heartbroken after a breakup when she ate rat poison in December 2010. She was hospitalized and doctors detected little wrong with the fetus' health for the first few days. Shuai gave birth to Angel Shuai on Dec. 31. Three days later, the baby died from bleeding in the brain. Medical staff reported her to the police; her lawyers said it was a suicide attempt.

Prosecutors charged her in March 2011 with murder and feticide, saying her suicide note showed she intended to kill herself and her unborn baby.

As concerns the evidence against Shuai, Carlisle ruled in January that the doctor who performed the autopsy on Angel can't testify that rat poison was the cause of her death because she didn't consider other possibilities, including a drug Shuai received in the hospital.


My point in posting this is that when a baby would die (or there is a miscarriage) mothers could be investigated for fetacide. This could quickly get out of hand. How can a jury decide that she intended to kill the baby as well as herself? How could a pregnant woman expect to kill herself WITHOUT killing her baby? Wacky world.

lets ban murder...

... snd see what the unintended consequences of no murder are.

Believe it or not, the actual purpose of sex is to procreate.

We are not overpopulated. Every person on earth could fit into your smallest state shoulder to shoulder; and into Australia with about a quarter acre.

The world is disorganised because there are special interests who want it all and use their power to keep the vast, vast majority in disarray.

It seems in the USA abortion is a continuation of Hitler's work. Black people are kept under control by it mainly. Probably because someone considers them of "less than pure" races. Go and get the stats if you don't believe me. They are staggering. I someone went at them with a well-equipped army they could not do a more efficient job of it than is being done by abortion. And its probably well in excess of Hitler's disputed 6 mil already. If you have ever complained about Hitler, then should you not only be quiet about that but still, on top of that, encourage people to consider the unintended consequences of murder?

By your theories, Hitler was right to keep the population under check. If you were about to be born, would you volunteer to be a reduced statistic through abortion?

People don't want to educate

People don't want to educate themselves on anything. Even if they were to read the writings of Margaret Sanger, they would just dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. They think they own the life growing inside of them just because it relies on their resources.

People are just too happy having a few seconds of tingling with someone they don't know instead of practicing being a moral person. They will abstain from smoking cigarettes and eating bad food, but how dare a person treat the body with respect by not being a slut. People use the excuse of progression for all kinds of hedonist behavior while backhandedly talking about how animals do what they are doing. Doesn't anyone see the backwards logic there? Progression is not moving towards animalistic behavior. This kind of crap is what comes from the mouths of those who worship the creation and blaspheme the creator.

And guess what? It takes sperm to conceive, so men do have a say in this.

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

same could be said about war

if we stopped all war, what would we do with all those people?

But there is a good chance then next cure for cancer, or a new cheap fuel source creation, or maybe a new way to travel through space has been aborted.

But if you want to use abortion as birth control that's a little sick, so inconsequential sex has no limits, but it's okay to snip the spines of babies or have them crushed and sucked out through a vacuum instead of simply getting birth control or wearing protection.

Wow we have really went backwards in this country.

What statistics show is that after Roe v Wade, people have been more careless about having sex and getting pregnant. It use to be rare to see an unwed mother before the 1970's, now it's common place. Abortions were rare and back alley then, now they are common place and it's estimated that 30'times more woman die from getting abortions than when it was illegal, strictly mass number of abortions in that stat.

The old coat hanger days are gone forever, with the advent of the RU486, and similar drugs used for abortion a few weeks later rather than just days which can be purchased on the net in private.

The radical left would have you believe it's a freedom to abort, but freedom to exist once a person is created is the highest possible freedom.

Society and the law shouldn't make abortion legal or pay for it with tax dollars, a woman has birth control, can say no to sex. A woman also has the power of life and death with today's laws, that doesn't make it right, but it's the law.

Changing the law would not stop abortion, just like making murder illegal doesn't stop murders, but it would slow it to a trickle and get the United States out of the culture of death that it's in now, with endless wars, mass suicides, mass shootings etc. When we cherish life we cherish all life and that's starts from protecting the most innocent in the unborn.

nobody knows, because it hasn't been tried, yet--

nobody knows what would happen if people stopped killing babies (born and unborn; infanticide has been a HUGE problem for millenniam, and abortion has been around since the beginning, almost)--

war has destroyed many young people; manmade famines have devastated and killed many more, especially children--

nobody has ever tried living in peace and without greed--


There are always a few evil manipulators who want power and want everything for themselves, so the innocent ones will suffer--

and we won't know what it might be like if:

every baby were wanted
nobody ever wanted to kill another human being (or would allow themselves to be used as instruments of death by crazy/evil people, if such people exist)
everyone worked hard and at something that didn't destroy other humans

There would be no deserts; there would be no hunger--

but nobody knows, because it hasn't been tried, yet.

And does anyone every really use harmful drugs, because they think it would be fun (unless they have been brainwashed)?--

No, those drugs are used out of desperation and because human beings have unhealthy bodies and minds, because of . . .

evil manipulators--

I've never known a person who had enough good food to eat and good work to do who . . . used drugs--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

First lets look at the unintended consiquence of abortion

In a society where the current generation pays into a thing called social security so that the previous generation can retire in their old age, an unintended consequence of abortion is that the children you did not take care of will not be able to take care of you, furthermore, it is highly likely that if things get worse economically that the government will euthanize the generation of people that started this abortion mess. there is no telling how many innovators we have killed.

If you ended abortion today, the consequences would be that the men would have to work more hours, and likely many many men would have to pay child support for a child they never wanted, and have to keep in contact with women that they only planned to use and abuse. Men in general have to take a lot more responsibility for their action, which should lead to more liberty in time. Women would have to take responsibility for their child or give them over to adoption, I know a child right now where his mom is a crack whore, she had him and never knew she was pregnant, she immediately called up her old pastor and he has adopted her baby, as far as I know she has not seen her child since, she is far too addicted to drugs. Things would in short order work out, as people quickly realize they will have to be responsible for their actions.

in the long term parents who end up having several more children due to an inability to snuff theirs out will likely have their children take care of them in their old age, as long as they are not complete morons. Every older couple that I know of that has 5 or more children, their children go out of their way to pay their parents way through life. just saying.

Maybe you and everyone else

Maybe you and everyone else should be responsible for your own retirement instead of society telling me I have to give a large chunk of my earnings to run this whole corrupt system. I never asked anything of government and I wouldn't want anything from it, so why should it have the right to steal my money? I am taking care of my own retirement.

There is no need for any income tax. Period. If my house is burning down I could pay them for putting out the fire. Why can the ambulance system work like this but not the fire service? It's called a "fire company," so why isn't it a private entity that is in charge of making its own money?

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

So abortion effs up the Ponzi Scheme

Called Social Security?

Big deal.

People really do prefer to be coddled rather than face life as Adults.

Not to the extent that pokiticians..

... mess it up by taking pay to produce an inefficient system that is designed to benefit a top few per cent; and which leads them to raid things like SS when thin-air dollars are being created too slowly for them to obey their masters' orders.

it would have given it

at least 30 more years. Frankly social security must have more people to tax because theirs no savings.

but I think everyone on here must see the irony that for our ponzi, paper money, empire to go strong it needs as many people as possible but instead of pushing for more people to be born it pushes for population control. What is it about evil that makes people do crazy things.

How about

start with a honest monetary system that allows sufficient time for raising a family. Then rebuild the family unit and kick the bastards out who've tried their damnedest to destroy it.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5