-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.

Good questions deserve a reasoned answer:

No, not necessarily. Some could be cared for by grandparents, (if mom is still at home), others put up for adoption. There is a reason many folks adopt children from overseas, the hurdles here are more suited for horses than people. I have a best friend from high school and a sister in law who both have adopted a child, and this is often what infertile couples are left with. (That said, we need to do this within the confines of the 9th and 10th Amendments)

"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

Not a very thoroughly reasoned answer...

"Put out for adoption" equates to being raised by the government. So you know 2 adopters? That's great, more people should adopt. But I'm guessing you know thousands of people. So that's 2 out of thousands. How many people do you think have abortions?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

More than I would like,

I did not intend to give a thorough answer in a short post, just intended a simple answer with a couple of examples. I know more who have done this than just these two as well, including a youth pastor at one of the churches I attend. Put up for adoption also does not equal being raised by the government, as the adoptive parent(s) provide for the needs of the child. How many women have abortions? IMHO far too many, but at least 1.3 million a year...

but see joeinmo's reply below mine.

"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

actually

there is a huge backlog of adoptions in the US, not enough babies to adopt, Thats why you see people adopting from China, Africa etc. and bring them here, Russia was big until recent ban by that Goverment.

It's sad that so few took the time and think about a solution

instead of screaming to "Read the bible!" "Read the bible!"

Maybe this is way we are in so much trouble these days.

People are unable or unwilling to think for themselves.

The Bible was never meant to be used as a crutch, guess some of y'all didn't get that memo.

Anyway,

Ron Paul would have had an answer, he would never have just judged, preached, and threw insults at me for asking a serious question.

Tell that

to the starving children in China and Africa. Or are they not a blessing or as good as the birds?

-Matthew Good

those children are starving for political reasons, too--

and . . . genocide.

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

That I agree with...

but God does not intervene in these things. My point is that God does not feed children, people do.

-Matthew Good

This may seem radical

but what if we were to open the Constitution and read it.

9th Amendment, 10th Amendment. Problem solved.

you mean not make it a federal issue?

.

My 2 cents

You want Liberty? You want the ultimate responsibility?

Here we go ... If you don't want or can't afford a baby
DON"T HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX

If a baby dose result in your complete carelessness. The baby will be put up for adoption and both parents will be prosecuted for endangering the welfare of a child as they carelessly brought a child they did not want into the world and upon conviction serve a term not less then 10 years and immediate sterilization or if they do abort the baby 1st degree murder.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Perhaps Joseph and Mary

Perhaps Joseph and Mary should have been incarcerated instead of visited by wise men?

Hummm ...

I don't seem to recall them having sex to conceive the Christ child - let me consult my KJV and I'll get back to you.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Having sex has what to do

Having sex has what to do with unplanned or unwanted pregnancy exactly?

I'm no expert but ...

The last time I checked having sex was the leading cause of pregnancy.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Decreeing it's ok to use

Decreeing it's ok to use force against a leading cause of something doesn't seem like the right principle ...

It would be like saying guns are a leading cause of murder so guns ought to be regulated.

Is the goal to legislate morality or remedy injury? If the latter what is the injury?

Hold on here ...

Who is forcing you to have sex ?

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Who is forcing you to

Who is forcing you to shoot?

Reasonable people say shooting in and of itself is not evil. Shooting which causes injury or property damage is evil.

I ask you again ... what is the injury derived from having sex?

I think we are missing each other point here

My singular point here is as follows:

If you don't want or cant afford a baby don't have sex. If you do decide to have sex be prepared for all the repercussions of the act.

Can we agree on this?

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

I understand your assertion.

I understand your assertion. My response is to point out a leap of logic in the argument you are advancing.

You are claiming sex is somehow immoral or wrong. I believe the burden of proof rests with the one claiming it is wrong. If it is immoral or wrong as you say there must be aggression or injury otherwise people can go around claiming anything is immoral or wrong for any reason. Rape is a clear example of a sexual activity involving aggression and/or injury. Clearly consensual sex involves no act of aggression so if you are unable to evidence an injury then consensual sex, whether it results in reproduction or not, can not be immoral or wrong.

Your argument is akin to asserting if you can't create a society which does not result in homelessness ... don't establish a society. If you do establish a society which results in some homelessness be prepared for the consequences of being stolen from to shelter and feed the homeless.

No

Sex is not wrong or immoral

I'm saying if your going to engage in the act except the consequences of the act ie : pregnancy, disease ect.
Liberty = Responsibility

maybe this will help:
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!

"Sex is not wrong or

"Sex is not wrong or immoral"

Ok, sex is not wrong or immoral therefore one can engage in consensual sex with impunity. If there is no agreement, contract, or advertised terms all sales are final without warranty, refund, or return.

I find the comment liberty = responsibility ironic. Who has the responsibility to protect their own body? What is the injury derived from a successful pregnancy? Is a fetus a parasite which causes injury?

In consensual matters if there is no agreement, contract, or advertised terms and you are the recipient of a disease ... your fault for not protecting your own body.

In consensual matters if there is no agreement, contract, or advertised terms and you are the recipient of an unwanted pregnancy ... your fault for not protecting your own body.

What you argue is one has zero responsibility to protect their own body.

I feel that ...

you are arguing just to argue

I don't see myself able to make my point any clearer to you.

Abortion is murder
Actions have consequences
If you make a mistake you have to deal with it without violating LIBERTY and Liberty = Responsibility

furthermore I don't see myself getting the last word in on this so feel free to respond knowing I will not.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

I am not arguing to argue.

I am not arguing to argue. I keep asking the same question in an attempt to obtain an on point response. I have asserted the concepts immoral and wrong involve aggression or injury.

You have not offered any different definition or pointed out any inconsistency with the definition I asserted.

I have repeatedly asked for you to define the injury.

Despite that you have done neither you keep making the same point one is not responsible for protecting their own body but proselytize responsibility. You admit consensual sex is not immoral but somehow pregnancy is? It is a leap in logic so vast there is a black hole in the middle of it.

I have no desire to live in a society of arbitrary rules or legislated morality where anyone can claim anything is wrong with no evidence of aggression or injury. There is enough victimless crime already being prosecuted. In order for something to be wrong there ought to be some consistency not just someone saying something is wrong. What kind of dealio is that?

Another thing... woe to he

Another thing... woe to he who calls evil good and good evil. This nation will be Judged by almighty God. It has already started. One of the judgments is LOSS of Liberty. some of you are to damn dumb to see it.

So God

is taking away our liberty with God's judgement? I'm sorry, I do not understand.

-Matthew Good

Yes, it has already started.

Loss of liberty is one manifestation. Abortion IS God's judgement. When a people don't want to acknowledge right from wrong, God gives them over to their stupidity, and they become dense in their minds which results in them killing off their own children, their own future.

I don't think

God is a factor in this. I believe people will do what they want when they want whether or not "God gives them over to their stupidity." Many young people were not taught right from wrong when it comes to even the most basic of human rights, life. Luckily I was, and I am not a Christian, my parents are. They do not want to admit that a beating heart means life because once they do they will know that what they will or have committed is murder.

They become dense in their minds from being content with their current knowledge. It is a safe knowledge that frees them from responsibility. Young people hate responsibility. I should know, I am fairly young, and I see people around me saying, "there are no more consequences for sex."

My brother did the right thing when he got his girlfriend pregnant 13 years ago. He married her, and did the right thing. He is a man who has conviction. Where is the integrity anymore? It is scarce.

-Matthew Good

stupid, dumb, what if

stupid, dumb, what if reasoning. What happens if the 1968 gun control act were abolished so anyone could buy a firearm anywhere no matter what. No back ground check. no paper. Same damn dumb stupid reasoning.

If 55 million people were still alive and working and producing, what would the Social Security trust fund look like? There would not be only 2 workers for every 1 dependent. How many of those 55 million would be contributing, hard working Americans? How many of them would be Lovers of Liberty? Maybe one of them could have been the second Ron Paul? what about all their children who were not born?

I get so tired of all the liberal, leftist BS on the daily paul anymore. Some people have an agenda and they push it.