-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 jail near me is filled with fathers who don't support their

kids. Someone told me the figure is over 50%,

regardless think of all the kids growing up without dads and all the $$ spent on jail instead of the kids!

that $$ goes to the prison industrial complex...which helps no one

what about the 10 year old girl that is pregnant due to incest

or rape or ignorance. will you force her to deliver a baby? believe me, that trauma has consequences. do you know the size of a 6 wk pregnancy? what about natural abortions? we cannot judge others on our belief systems, there are lots of people that don't share your beliefs. if you believe in freedom you have to allow people to do what they believe is right for them, even if you disagree with them. every one has to face the consequences of their actions with their creator. no one on this earth has the right to judge others. i think that invading other countries, killing and maiming their people is more important than abortions. who is to say that the consciousness of the babies aborted wanted to be born, that they didn't have a choice.

ducky

yet

You support liberty and would like there to be laws for us to retain our liberty. For instance, the Constitution. Isn't that forcing morality on people. What if they don't think people ought to have liberty. Don't you want laws that try to prevent people from murdering others or raping them? Wouldn't that be against the law in your society? If abortion is even POSSIBLY murder, it should be hated with a vehement and total hatred. Just like any other murder.

nice point

Freedom isn't about forcing morality on others.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

But

If the girl's life is in jeopardy, that's one thing. But if her life is not in jeopardy, then how does killing her defenseless, unborn child help her? Do you really think that severe psychological trauma - such as cases of incest or rape - can be cured or bettered by MORE severe psychological trauma via an abortion?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Abortion is so damn tricky

Abortion is so damn tricky that I doubt there will ever be a perfect answer for libertarians.

I personally hate abortion. Babies are babies and to kill one for personal convenience is evil. But then I ask myself "what if all abortions are banned, will people stop getting abortions?" I think the answer to that question is no. Women who want abortions will then go underground or attempt to abort the baby themselves. That situation is not favorable either. The three best solutions I can think of are:

1. Turn this issue over to the states
2. Ban late term abortions (second – third trimester abortions) unless life to the mother is threatened, and maybe in cases of rape as well.
3. Define when life begins. If life ends when brain activity ceases then that means life begins when brain activity is detectable.

That’s my conclusion. I much more prefer solutions 1 and 3 though.

Central Planning will wreck any good idea out there

Be careful of turning these types of issues over to a few Central Planners to solve.

1. The same Two Parties that Rule Washington DC, Rule all the States.
2. Recall that the definition of 'is' and other terms will be Lawyered to death and back for political purposes.
3. I like the definition, but beware of those who will then redefine Brain Activity to meet an end they are looking for. Heck some dairy association is trying to have Milk redefined with Aspartame as an ingredient that doesn't have to be listed. You can't make this crap up.

Point is, if you beg a few Central Planners to provide a solution, expect them jump at the chance to profit from it and FORCE you to pay for it. 'The People ASKED FOR IT after all!'

tasmlab's picture

The rape problem

I think the politicians and the people get confused about the making abortion legal in the cases of rape. If you are a pro-lifer because you believe the unborn is either a human because of a soul (Christian) or a person with rights (libertarian) than the cause of the pregnancy is neither here nor there. A baby made from rape is still a protected human.

I think the R's in the media who went down this path were mistaken (they looked monsterous for no good reason) and the D's who attacked them were also sitting in the same boat (they were just attacking monsters).

On #3, the bioethics debates of determining a life based on biology type metrics doesn't seem to work out because it can quickly and easily create criteria where it is either immoral to harm a prawn, or to make the case that a one-month-old has appropriate human cognitive ability above a cow, etc. This is what I've observed at least.

I agree with you that the solution should probably be 1 and 2, and I really don't know the real ethics behind early term abortions, but it seems common-sensey to me that little clusters of cells aren't quite human beings and that it gets cloudier and more challenging with every day towards the birthday.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Hmmm...

Tough choice, murder someone or create government dependents... Hmmm... I guess government dependent is better than murder. Or I guess we could kill all the people on welfare. Hmmm... This is a real thinker. Please. I would love for the people who support "reproductive rights" to realize the only right they have, is to keep their pants on or take them off. They control that. That's how it has been for about 5,000 years of human society.

Simple, isn't it?

Simple, isn't it?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Abortion should be illegal and...

handled similar to states that have decriminalized marijuana for medical purposes. But unlike marijuana, there should be very limited medical conditions where abortion would be legal.

Those who get abortions outside the parameters of allowed medical conditions should be treated with compassion rather than stigmatized. This compassionate approach should be based on the following Christian principle: Let those among you without sin cast the first stone.

Millions of responsible couples want to adopt a child and most of them prefer to adopt newly born infants. So Planned Parenthood's mandate should be providing access to adoption agencies capable of discreetly helping women with unwanted pregnancies.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

So glad you included this:

"Those who get abortions outside the parameters of allowed medical conditions should be treated with compassion rather than stigmatized. This compassionate approach should be based on the following Christian principle: Let those among you without sin cast the first stone."

I am a firm believer in compassion and understanding leading us to the resolution of many of society's ills. It's the most effective way to spread the idea of liberty, in my opinion.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

The solution is fairly simple:

Personal Responsibility.

You don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.
You don't want a baby, don't get her pregnant.

See. Simple.

what if the girl got pregnant because

she was only taught "abstinence education" instead of sex ed.?

That is, increasingly, the real scenario of abortion these days.

the fact is that,

areas w/"abstinence only education" have *much higher* rates of pregnancy

statistics on teen pregnancy are useless.

Until you know the percentage of teens who got pregnant on purpose, and the percentage of teens who did not care weather they got pregnant or not. Especially since the states with the "abstinence only" education, tends to be the states with the highest number of people on welfare and section 8 housing. I personally know several girls who got pregnant as teens on purpose so that they could get their benefits. If you know of some stats that have that I would love to see a link, but as far as I know all the stats only deal with teen pregnancy percentage, alone without the why.

Who cares what the schools

Who cares what the schools teach? Our schools are an embarrassment. It's as if our children are being taught by President Obama's official school curriculum. Shouldn't the children learn from responsible parents who have taught their children about personal responsibility and the consequences of ones actions?

um, actually it matters a great deal

educate kids about sex and they will be less likely to get pregnant and have an abortion...how can you not see this?

The schools are teaching the

The schools are teaching the kids sex education. But has sex education stopped abortion? It seems that even giving kids free birth control hasn't stopped abortions. This is not an education issue. This is an issue that goes deep. It's more than Roe V Wade. It is the moral decline of our society. It is a society that puts no value on life. With the aid of the govt, the strong family structure has been degenerating. The media has been complicit. The proof is screaming at us. Just watch TV on any night of the week.

that's complete BS

The rate of teen pregnancies, and unwanted preganncies amongst those practicing abstinence is zero. if you are having sex, you aren;t practicing abstinence. On the other hand if birth control, properly used is 99% effective, and your average horny teen has sex 100 times per year (probably quite high but who knows) then the birth control will fail at least once per year. Now let's say the average teen is active for age 16-19, and the fertile period is about 4-5 days per month. that puts the odds of a sexually active teen using birth control of getting pregnant pretty high, especially compared to the rate of ZERO amongst those who actually practice abstinence.

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

Abstinence will never work.

Abstinence will never work. Let's be smart, we are all human beings and the year is 2013.

Also, the science isn't that you get pregnant 1 out of 100 times, it's less than 1 per 100 women get pregnant on birth control.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

how many people do you know

that has a kid who was a result of an accident? Most of the married couples I know have at least one kid like that. Now if married people, responsible married people are having accident kids, then what are the odds of irresponsible, sexual inexperienced teens getting pregnant while on birth control?

look the numbers are out there

abstinence only ed. doesnt work. Period.

if you need a link to those facts, lemme know!!

And the statistics

supporting sex education are so much better. Just look at the pregnancy rates in the public schools....

but the

But the exact same percentage of sluts. Male and female. Only you seem to be suggesting we don't teach people that there are any consequences to being sluts by giving them the safety net of becoming a murderer as well as a slut. Nice play there.

what exactly is your definition of a "slut"?

is a married mother who can't afford more kids a "slut" for wanting to have sex with her husband??

What is your exact definition?

Reco, honestly, do you even read what you write?

Every statement you've made on this thread starts at step 2 or beyond, you seem to forget step one: one male and one female. If a mother wants to have sex with her husband but can't afford more kids....then have safe sex. How hard is that to figure out? But, heck, why bother with safe, responsible sex when all ya got a do is head down to the local removal factory and spend a few bucks, right.

Be responsible or pay the consequences of your actions.

and what if the birth control fails?

i start at "step 2 or beyond" because we are discussing abortion...not the "potential of an abortion".

these issues are complicated and are not as black and white as people enjoy making them out to be.

Bullchit

Starting at step two debates the "consequences" of an action, not the action itself. The action itself is the problem, without it, there wouldn't be a debate on abortion.

Your statement is the perfect example of why this issue is divided. Let's not find a solution for the irresponsible "action", let's debate the solution of the irresponsible actions consequences.

we should obviously try to limit abortion

through sex education and making contraceptives widely available. But pregnancies are still going to occur.

And you should know that sex is not an irresponsible/immoral activity! It's a part of human nature, a gift from god if you will.

Should a married couple not have sex because they *might* get pregnant?

No, but

said married woman still has a choice to say NO. Said married womans husband (who also cannot support more children) has a responsibility to respect his wife when she says no. If he wants more sex he better get a good job so he can support more (potential) children, or get a vasectomy....either one. Of course the married woman could always get her tubes tied as well.....

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois