Then I STRONGLY suggest you don’t follow up such “original thoughts” with:
…because those are not his words. I disagree with Topo, but I’m not going to make up quotes and then attribute them to him.
Frankly, you should know better than that.
At the very least, you’ll have to double-check your coding (as I just did), since your words and his words are running together.
I wrote the OP, and so far the discussion has been at most 10% relevant to the questions I asked.
I was really trying to avoid:
Hands off my body! But it’s a live baby! But it’s my choice! The fetus has rights! When does life begin? Stop moralizing!!!
We have all heard the typical arguments ad nauseum. I was hoping ot open up a slightly different issue that rarely gets addressed.
OH well, carry on then.
P.S. I have enjoyed hearing Il Topo, just because he’s a new (to me) voice with an interesting (and amusing) writing style.
Hard to imagine that somebody would start a thread about abortion that won’t just follow the rituals, surely that’s the whole point?
Well regarding the OP, here’s what I would like to see accompanying a ban:
-
Make it a lot easier to get permanent sterilization. (As an aside, is there such a thing as temporary or reversible sterilization for women? If so, that should also be made easier to get, and if not research should be done in that area.) An increase in birth control information and distribution may also be necessary.
-
To push this through, I would expect the pro-life movement to line up a long, long list of families willing to adopt, especially minority and disabled children, as well as older children. Honestly, I think right now the pro-life movement should be paying more attention to these issues. There need to be families in place who pledge to take care of unwanted children (using unwanted in the sense that the birth mother can not or will not take care of them).
-
Some sort of overhaul of the foster care system. Whether abortion is legal or not this needs to be done, but making abortion illegal would put a huge strain on an already strained system. Unfortunately at this time I don’t have a new model that will minimize child abuse and neglect and maximize meeting the needs of the child, nor do I have the knowledge necessary to create one.
-
IMHO, health care should be free at least from the womb (for lack of a better word) to 18 years. This would go a long way towards helping those who can’t afford a child; at the least, they could afford prenatal care and delivery.
I realize there are probably other issues I haven’t thought of yet, and of course I appreciate comment.
Really, I’m not so sure about the “restrictions on pregnant women” thing. We don’t prohibit people from flying to Colombia right now, even though the war on drugs is going on. What I would seek to create would be a world in which 1. everything necessary could be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and 2. everything necessary could be done to ensure that embryos, fetuses, infants, children, and adolescents are taken care of.
(Note: I’m writing this rather quickly since I’m late for class, so if anything is unclear or confusing, just call me on it and I’ll clarify.)
Substitute “country” for “world”, since of course I can’t influence the laws of other countries.
For me, bearing an unwanted child would be a form of torture. So, I mentally rephrase your question this way:
Can we torture someone in order to save a life?
And my answer is “no.”
Julie
My questions about what kind of punishments the pro-lifers would impose on people who get abortions and perform abortions have still been unanswered.
Anyone?
Thanks for the response, Shodan, and a few points in return.
Yes, parents should support their children. Yes, parents should be responsible for their children. Yes, parents should provide clean and adequate clothing for their children. Yes, parents should supervise their children, and give them a safe home. Yes, parents should educate their children fully and adequately about sex and responsibility. No, parents should never abuse their children.
However, the fact remains, whatever SHOULD happen in parenting, there are a great deal of parents who are either unwilling, incapable, or incompetent to minister adequately to their children. The burden, by default, falls back on the government – and from there, back to the taxpayers whose money is used to support the programs.
Further, any increase in children is going to result in a larger number of children who will be going to school. As public schools are funded with public tax dollars, any significant increase in the number of children who are making use of school programs is going to cost more money. That money comes to the schools from various sources, be it property taxes, levies, federal funding, donations, or what have you. But the fact remains, more kids = more resources. More resources = more money.
Therefore, I think it is a well-supported hypothesis that we will see governmental spending spike dramatically as a result of a significant increase in the birth rate, as this would definitely be. Look at sheer numbers. I’ll again take the pro-life numbers of one abortion for every four live births [not because I actually accept the validity of that number, mind you.] I ask again: how could we possibly not have a 20% increase in the number of children being born each year and not feel the impact?
If you wish to see the results that a baby boom has on education and governmental programs, look at what is happening now with the recent baby boom. Classrooms are strained; funding is inadequate, and school districts across the country are resorting to desperation measures to just keep schools open. And this boom, I will say again, is the generation which will be reaching reproductive age under an abortion ban – therefore making the problem even worse than it would have been under X, with its lower numbers.
Having presented what I believe is more than adequate support for this hypothesis, I’d like to see some good, concrete suggestions as to how this problem can be addressed, not to be told that it won’t happen. I do not see this coming from a single anti-abortion proponent or group. I see a great deal of idealism, a great deal of emotionalism, and a dearth of practicality.
I could respond by saying that one aspect of slavery which was found to be highly contemptible was the practice of forcible impregnation of female slaves to boost the work force. The comparison to women being forced to bear unwanted children, I believe, would be fairly clear. I could also point out [again] that eliminating abortion would deprive all women of necessary medical care – thus introducing the decidedly ugly issue of discriminatory health practices based on sex. However, we’re introducing an issue here that has nothing to do with the point at hand, which has a significantly emotional coloration, and moreover, doesn’t do a darn thing to either answer the issues I brought up or solve them.
The fact that these objections could be used for other issues does not make them any less valid. Rather than pointing out what else they could be used to justify [or not justify] I would prefer to see them addressed. I think it is poor planning, poor judgment and poor service to the American public if we fail to do so [although goodness knows there are a plethora of laws on the books which were passed solely for look-good reasons and without any thought of the impact they might actually have.]
Not quite what my argument was. My point was that if we implement it, there will indeed be a great monetary cost. [see point one above.] Like it or not, we are going to have to deal with said cost. I refuse to support someone else’s children over my own. I work; I want the money I make to go to benefit my children, not to pay for someone else’s. That isn’t wrong. That’s fulfilling my responsibilities to them. With your convictions being what they are, would you honestly be pleased about giving up another 15% or so of your take-home pay? How would it affect your family? What you were able to provide for your children? How much you had to work and thus, limit the time you have to spend with them? It’s worth thinking about. More: it must be thought about. It’s a potentially huge and negative impact on the American family – which said groups are generally said to be trying to preserve.
I want these issues addressed from an pro-abortion-ban perspective, because I see a sad lack of follow-through from such proponents on issues as they stand today. For example:
-
For all they claim that adoption is the answer, there are vast numbers of babies out there who won’t ever be adopted – because they are simply not what most adoptive parents want to adopt. I do not see them taking steps to see that all of these children get adopted. I see them abandoning them to the system. What anti-abortion groups sponsor adopting crack babies, or deformed minority children? Haven’t seen any thus far.
-
I do not see anti-abortion groups actively helping mothers who have chosen to bear their children and keep them and who are unable to find work that will support them. That job falls to welfare.
-
Where are the anti-abortion groups who offer child care to teenage mothers who have had children and who are trying to go back to school, or poor women who want to work, but can’t afford child care? Answer: None.
-
Where are the anti-abortion groups who fund pre-natal care for poor mothers? Not just a pregnancy test and a scare lecture on the evils of abortion: real, honest-to-goodness medical care with doctor’s examinations and treatment as needed. Answer: None that I know of.
It seems to be enough for the anti-abortion groups for childbirth to occur, and that they have no interest in the child, once born. To me, that’s just plain backwards. It only takes a few minutes to conceive a child, nine months to bear it – but thousands upon thousands of man-hours and dollars to raise it to maturity.
It’s not enough to espouse a cause, no matter how worthy said cause may be, unless one is prepared to deal with all aspects of said cause. As it stands, the anti-abortionists are prepared only to deal with the nine months of pregnancy – not the eighteen or so years minimum that’s needed to raise the child after birth. The two, however, go together. If they are not prepared to help society deal with the repercussions which will inevitably occur as a result of their actions, then they should not be pushing for the actions at all.
But I have to say I’ve liked the discussion. 
Oh, and Super Gnat, you asked:
(As an aside, is there such a thing as temporary or reversible sterilization for women?
To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, doctors will also absolutely not give certain types of birth control to women. You can’t find a doctor to give you an IUD if you haven’t already had children. I very much doubt you’d find a doctor who’d tie your tubes if you hadn’t had children [too much fear of lawsuits if you changed your mind and found that it was irreversible.]
There are a number of fairly long-term birth control methods that don’t involve taking a daily contraceptive [Norplant, Depo Provera], but unfortunately, if you have wacked-out hormones or your body simply doesn’t like them, you’re up the creek. There’s not a chemical one out there that doesn’t have the potential of unpleasant side effects.
Pity we can’t just have something that sterilizes everyone at the onset of puberty and which they have to get reversed in order to get pregnant. Ah, well.
We are NOT going to execute a million women a year for having an abortion/murder.
We also cant afford to jail 30 million women, 30 million times $30,000 times how ever many years they were sentenced to.
If you cant correctly punish women for murdering their babies, then why outlaw it?
It depends on their personal circumstances, like any other crime. Your question is liking asking, “What punishment will you impose on people who cause another’s death?” Well, it depends.
This would be called a false dilemma. We don’t have a choice between executing a million women a year or allowing abortion. This argument about the impracticality of banning abortion never seem to run out of gas, and I can’t uderstand why. Banning abortion would certainly reduce the number of abortions performed significantly since there would be no legal infrastructure in place. You can lament that scenario, but how could this not result in fewer abortions?
And bans were in place as recently as 30 years ago, if you want to form a mental picture as to how this might work. Yes, society has changed, not the least change being the ability of modern police to detect and prevent prohibited activities.
Now, this is different than arguing whether or not this ban is justified (I happen to believe it is). But stating some form of, “How could this possibly work?” just ain’t the show stopper some people like to suppose it is.
How would we prevent this activity? Using the same sorts of techniques society uses to prevent other prohibited activities. How would we punish the transgressors? Appropriate to their respective circumstances, just like other crimes.
How would you catch transgressors? If the procedure were successfully, and quietly done, how would law enforcement find out?
Sorry, can you explain how this would be different than any other crime? IOW, can it not be said of any crime, if it were carried out with appropriate stealth, how will you catch the transgressor?
BTW, I would concede that there would still be abortions taking place after a ban, and with some people unprosecuted, in much the same way that the prohibition against stealing has not eliminated theft or brought all thieves to justice.
I think the question is like asking, “What penalty will you impose on people who murder others” since the definition of murder will now include abortion.
And if it doesn’t include abortion, and you don’t want it to, then I want to know why.
Julie
Not every wrongful death is a murder, correct? Why isn’t it possible for an abortion to be prohibited criminally without it amounting to murder in every single instance? Your argument is a strawman. I do not posit that all abortions are the equivalent of murder, though some most certainly are. Just like other criminally prohibited wrongful deaths. Do you also want to know why I don’t think all other “non-abortion” wrongful deaths are necessarily murder, or do you see what I mean?
That’s the position of the ‘People who provide abortions should be jailed because they are killing babies’ camp of pro-lifers. The ‘People who provide abortion should be jailed because women need to face the consequences of their sinful ways’ camp think it’s OK to abort in cases of rape because it wasn’t the woman’s fault she got pregnant.
Under what circumstances would a banned abortion not be considered 1st degree murder? I assume we’re not talking about banning abortions at the expense of the mother’s health.
Perhaps under the circumstances of a desperate, helpless woman, deluded into believing that she did not actually hold another human life within her body, succumbing to pressure from her family and friends?
Then there are people (like those on the record here on this board) who concede that it’s a human life, but feel that this particular human’s rights are subjugated by the mother’s right to decide how her body will be used. Such a person, who understood that the law prohibits the death of the unborn human, is in a different position, it seems to me. They agree it’s a human life, they understand the law prohibits it, but they have an abortion anyway in defiance of the law.
I’m not suggesting that either scenario is the typical abortion. But I do posit that frame of mind is a factor in all crimes, and it should be no different with abortions. FWIW, as a practical matter, I believe most of the criminal prosecution would be directed toward the provider.