The efficacy of our current discrimination enforcement is a major problem, I’ll admit. But I don’t think that throwing up our hands and saying “We’ll never be able to provide fair employment practices” is the way to approach the issue, or issues that stem from it.
Well, it’s probably not all that popular among those males. 
You’re right, but I think the amount of people who had a problem with it would be greater. It’s certainly popular in the majority, since after all if it wasn’t it probably wouldn’t occur. But I suspect (and this is totally IMHO) that the majority would prefer the government to pay for such a system, at least in part, were it to happen.
I very much doubt that. There’s a surplus of adoptable children now. People don’t go abroad to adopt because there just aren’t any kids in the U.S.; they go because perhaps they or one of the parents is from that place; because it might be easier; because they think kids in care do worse in those countries than they do in America.
The amount of kids avaliable for adoption going way, way up, and the amount of parents wanting to adopt not changing; No, I can only see this as meaning a very considerable increase in the amount of kids in care who aren’t adopted.
As to your overall idea, i’m afraid I don’t see how this is a compromise of any sort (to go with the OP’s thoughts). The only difference is that the mothers won’t have to go through all the pregnancy and the birth; they’d still have to go through a presumably complex procedure, and the obligation to look after the child afterwards. To my mind it really isn’t any different to just banning abortion outright. Which is ok, if that’s your view, but I don’t know if that’s what you’re going for with this.
Isn’t the existence of any adoptable American children a surplus?
(I really can’t imagine the OP’s scenario resulting in anything other than some child-ridden Dickensian hell, but maybe it’d encourage support for free and subsidized birth control. Or forced sterilization.)
Great question. Admittedly, I have no idea what to do when natural rights conflict.
I don’t believe anyone’s natural rights should be infringed even if it would save a life. I’m not necessarily seeking to be charitable here so much as I’m trying to hypothetically conjure up a way in which no one’s natural rights would be violated in abortion. If that’s possible…
It no more “magically” makes this transformation then a citizen “magically” transforms into a voter upon his or her 18th birthday. I gather you’re not prepared to discuss this seriously.
Simply let women have an abortion whenever they want it. A mindless piece of tissue has no “natural rights”.
One of the biggest reasons people go abroad is in order to adopt is because they can get babies overseas. From what I understand of the current foster care system is that a very large portion of those kids aren’t given up as babies but when they get a little older: adoptive parents want to start with a fresh slate of a child, so to speak, and those kids who come into the system at 3 or 5 or 12 would remain the same.
The paucity of mothers giving up newborns (due to the wide availability of abortions) has lead to Americans going overseas to adopt. Americans adopted 20,000 newborn foreign children last year. The biggest reason it’s easier or cheaper to adopt abroad is usually because convincing an American woman to bear a child to term and then give it up for adoption tends to involve both supporting the woman for that period and paying a significant amount of money for her troubles. The OP’s invention would circumvent those requirements in cases such as this.
This isn’t a compromise between all factions in the pro-abortion/anti-choice divide. Those people who feel that abortions are a woman’s irrevocable right or who feel that women should be punished with pregnancy for sex wouldn’t find this a compromise at all, obviously.
However, I think the vast majority of people against abortions feel that way out of concern for the fetus. This would alleviate that. And a sizable number of those people who argue for abortions state that abortions are necessary because of dangers to the life of the mother or the hardships imposed by pregnancy itself (see some of the arguments made by MLS and Siege, above). This would alleviate their concerns, as well.
So obviously, this ain’t a perfect compromise. But it probably would be a way to bring together those sides which aren’t entirely intractable on the issue.
(I realized I didn’t fully address Revenant’s second bit in the above post, and I ran out of edit time before I finished typing this: )
How about we just say, for the sake of argument (we are dealing with something extrodinairily hypothetical, after all), that a dialation/extraction procedure could be done on the fetus with no significantly greater complexities than modern day the modern day [del]Hoover-condom[/del] abortion procedure. As far as the obligation goes, I still say that current views on paternity show that financial concerns really shouldn’t go into decisions on bringing children into the world. I might have to lay this aside, because I don’t think my argument there is making much headway in this thread.
You have a point about a mindless piece of tissue having no rights. I’m just not convinced a fetus is just that.
Well, any similarly radical advance in medical technology is going to require new thinking about an issue. Before we perfect the artificial womb, I expect, we’ll be able to transplant the fetus into another host. Those opposed to abortion can carry the fetus to term (and the hosts could even be men, conceivably), then give it up for adoption. I have to wonder what kind of changes that’ll lead to.
Quite possibly that’s so, although I still believe the reasons I gave are also reasonably common ones.
American aborted over a million fetuses last year. That’s 980,000 adoptable babies (at least) not accounted for, if we assume zero people chose to adopt from aboard anyway.
… assuming the procedure is a safe one, that is. And assuming that those who are pro-life believe that the system is as good for the fetus as it would be to go the natural way. But yes, I think you do have a point here.
I think it would help some ways, but I think it would create further divisions; between those who think the state should pay for these kids, and those who think the parents should, and to what extent, for example. And I suspect that there are enough people on either side for who this is an intractable position that it might not make all that much help.
I imagine that having it as an option, OTOH, would get pretty much 100% support, or as close to that as you can get.
On preview;
It’s all very well saying they shouldn’t be a factor, but we can’t force people to vote the way we want them to. If financial concerns are a factor, then they’re a factor.
I would say that financial concerns are a very important factor in the decision. I mean, raising kids costs quite a deal. I, from the position that fetuses are at quite a lot of the pregnancy not persons*, don’t feel that killing a non-person life on one side balances out raising a child in poverty on the other.
*My particular pro-choice reason is not personhood per se, but that’s a whole other thread.
That’s outright denial of reality. Children need food, shelter, clothing, education, medicine, and innumerable other things that take money. This is simply another example of how evil the pro-birth movement is. And yes, pro-birth is much more accurate than pro-life, as you have just demonstrated. You’ve as much as admitted in what I quoted that you don’t care if the kid freezes or starves because it’s parents can’t afford to support it. You just want it born, regardless of the consequences.
The Governator goes from having starred in an awful comedy to a documentary ahead of its time?
The hosts could be men? Are you sure men are “wired” for that?
I view a fetus as a child already, Trihs. I know, you don’t agree with that. But if you don’t take that into account as one of my postulates, then you are in no situation to dissect my motives or beliefs.
No way to tell at this point, but most of the work is done by the fetus and the placenta. It really is somthing of a parasite in the way it acts. I suspect it would seriously screw him up, though.
Which is yet another reason to believe your side has no compassion. If someone regards a little mindless bit of flesh as a child, that shows how little they think of children. Why not expend them as part of your side’s war on women, if children are just things ?
I no longer feel you’re discussing this in good faith. I’m done with you.
Don’t worry. I think we’ve pretty much shunned the guy as well.
Can’t handle someone who doesn’t suck up to you ?
And I note you fail to even try to defend your attempt to equate children with tiny blobs of cells. Explain to me, if you dare, how that does NOT devalue children ? You are in essence saying that children are meat.