Or, that the woman should not have sex, and if she does have sex, she is obligated for keeping the baby she does not want, and if she fails in that regard the state can press charges.
I know it sounds cold, but if you look at it from the perspective where the fetus is a person, it should make sense.
~Max
If you look at it from the perspective that the woman is a person, it doesn’t.
Under what circumstances does the state have the right to compel you to submit to invasive, dangerous, medical procedures to save the life of a third person?
Do you support mandatory organ donation? How about blood and bone marrow from living donors? Should the state compel my parents to donate blood if I need it? I clearly have a right to life.
Since it is well known that children do much better in two parent households, giving young mothers huge benefits contingent on their partners leaving is a horrible idea.
The main reason why children do better in two parent households is that it’s easier to raise children when you have four hands instead of two.
If we gave single mothers an extra set of hands–whether in the form of additional services or funds–then we could improve their and their kids’ quality of life. And you know what, puddlegum? We could require recipients of that assistance be on birth control, as well as being enrolled in sex education programs. But conservatives like yourself have a problem with those things too. You guys seem to have plenty of ideas for how we can further shame and punish people, but no actual solutions.
Documentary on what happened to kids, and pregnant women, in Ceausescu’s Romania with draconic restrictions on abortion (and contraception) and little support for mothers. (Spoiler: it was not good.)
I’m willing to bet we’re at the point where a fertilized egg could likely be removed safely from a woman’s uterus and then be implanted (with the right hormone manipulation) on the peritoneum of a man–there have been documented pregnancies that resulted in viable babies that gestated in this manner. If the bodies of adults are property of the state and may be used as incubators then it stands to reason that men should line up for the job of being incubators too–I mean, sure there’s a risk and all, but women have been the sole carriers of this risk for millennia so I think it’s really time the men stepped up for it. Every man who’s been sexually active needs to be on the list to receive a transplanted fetus, regardless of their wishes or their place in life or how much a pregnancy might disrupt said life, just as women are. Fair’s fair, right? I bet every man arguing that women should be forced to gestate every fetus would be signing right up for this procedure, right? And if not–well, maybe ought to sit with that and examine your motives for insisting women be “held accountable” for the “consequences” of having sex when men aren’t.
I could see someone seriously arguing that forcing men to incubate fetuses “goes against God’s will” and would thus be an abomination.
Well, of course they would–I mean, anything that inconveniences or endangers men is something god is against aside from sending them off to face a hail of bullets in a war. I’ve noticed that the more likely something is to adversely affect a man the more likely he is to argue that it’s against nature to expect him to face it. Hence the very old rich men who send the young and poor ones off to die to secure their monetary interests. Force them old rich fucks to put on a pack and pick up an AR-15 along with the young, fit troops and there’d be no more wars. Force men to bear the children and face death doing it and suddenly abortion becomes a sacrament. And so it goes.
Where is the evidence that additional services or funds could actually replace a father in the home?
I have no problem with forcing people on welfare to be on birth control, when norplant was approved there were proposals to make it mandatory for welfare recipients to be on it, but those proposals were opposed by the ACLU and people said it was a conspiracy to limit the number of black people.
Enrolling mothers in sex education classes would be a waste or our money and their time, it does not work.
When did this happen, and how did it fail?
Where is the evidence that abortion ban will improve the greater good?
Ya’ll seem real keen on having hard evidence when it comes to something ya’ll are already inclined not to like. But when it comes to the things you learn in Sunday School, suddenly “evidence” doesn’t matter at all.
But since I’m a strong believer in evidence and you asked (kind of) nicely, here you go:
State and federal tax subsidies may reduce child maltreatment by single mothers
See, I wasn’t even talking about welfare. I was talking about services beyond welfare…that could be supported by government funding and private donations. You’re a young single mother and you’re seriously considering an abortion? Well, here’s a program you might be interested in, that can address the particular concerns you’re having about your pregnancy. If you’re worried because you don’t have a support network, the program will provide that for you. If you’re worried about health issues, we have doctors who will give you state-of-the-art care, free of cost. If you’re worried about finances, we’ll help you get on the path of financial independence. Just as long as you agree to practice one of a multitude of contraceptive methods (including abstinence) and you agree to participate in sex education/parenting classes.
Where’s the evidence for this statement?
Because here’s evidence that refutes it.
Fewer abortions are the greater good.
Your first link says that in England kids in single families feel as good about their families and about their peer relationships. Those seem like odd measurements and are probably the result of data mining. However, even if they are true, feeling good about your family is not enough. Children of single parents have twice the odds of dropping out of high school, 2.5 the rate of teen motherhood, have worse grades, are less likely to go to college, and commit crimes at a greater rate. Hardly not any worse.
There are places like you describe that me and other anti abortion voters support. They are called crisis pregnancy centers and they provide counseling and material support to young women considering abortion. Of course the abortion industry hates them and is trying to get them shut down.
Studies of sex education that rely on self report are generally unreliable. The best study about sex education effectiveness found that on measurable outcomes like STI infection rates and number of pregnancies sex education has no effect. The study was done on multiple countries and used 55,000 participants.
Not necessarily. Fewer unwanted pregnancies are definitely the greater good. But requiring women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is not.
Mostly what they do is lie to women:
:rolleyes: There isn’t any “abortion industry”. Family planning services in general, including abortion, are mostly provided on a nonprofit basis. Nobody wants women to have unwanted pregnancies just so they might then be able to sell them an abortion: it’s an absurd business model.
So-called “crisis pregnancy centers” should be exposed and shut down because they try to con women seeking an abortion into believing that they provide actual medical services, and then try to pressure them into changing their decision. If anti-abortion advocates want to make adoption services and counseling available to pregnant women, they can do that without trying to lure women in by pretending to be abortion providers.
Interesting that the “best study” about sex education effectiveness failed to include the United States as part of its scope of research. And you seem to have missed an important part of the study’s conclusion (bolding mine):
But God forbid that we try to reduce teen pregnancies.
To backup the point made by Kimstu: Here are a couple of doctors on the AMA ethical website weighing in on crisis pregnancy centers.
Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical
And when you can list the places that provide the services that were proposed by monstro, please do let us know. Because Crisis Pregnancy Centers most definitely do not offer these services, contrary to your claim.
It would be odd if America alone among countries had the only successful sex education program in the world. The best study on American sex education also found no relationship between comprehensive sex education and pregnancy. Luckily condoms are ubiquitous in American and just about everyone who wants one can easily get one.
I am not surprised two abortion doctors find crisis counseling centers unethical, I’m sure every industry would like to have its competitors shut down.
I don’t have a comprehensive list of crisis pregnancy centers but 2 seconds of googling gave me this which offers free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, counseling about options, help with housing, free emergency contraception, and STI information.
It makes sense only if we want society to look like something out of Handmaid’s Tale.
What makes this one study you dug up from from 1986 that didn’t even involve the country we are talking about the best study on the topic…besides the fact that a quick going over made you think it aligned with your personal opinion? This “best study” of yours is horribly out-dated and off-topic, and you should feel embarrassed that you thought we wouldn’t check up on the validity of your cite.
What if a person is say “pro choice” in just about anything and everything. The only kicker to being pro anything is that you must then live with the repercussion of said choice?
I dislike almost any and all things that take away choice and even more than that , I hate when the government thinks they need to come in and save all those people who made the ‘wrong’ choice(s)
I think the anti-abortion movement is generally supportive of individual responsibility. Have sex, be responsible for the child you might have, or else don’t have sex. So no they would not be in favor of taking care of other people’s children.