1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Abortion: What then?

Discussion in 'Other Policies' started by GenSeneca, Jul 27, 2009.

  1. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    After the rights of an unborn child are recognized, what then?

    I invite everyone to think of all that would result from such a decision and, hopefully, some will offer answers to any questions.

    Will we issue conception certificates rather than birth certificates?

    Where do children go now and what is the maximum capacity of the currently available facilities?

    What is the operational cost of those facilities now and how much can we expect their costs to rise after?

    Women who would have otherwise had abortions will now have to carry the baby to term and give birth... What kind of financial obligation will this create for both the parents and, if they can't pay, the taxpayers?

    I will add more questions, and thoughts, on the issue later but hopefully someone will be willing to discuss this topic with me.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A birth certificate is only used to establish citizenship and to the best of my knowledge, no one is arguing for the rights of citizenship for unborns; only the protection of thier most basic human rights.

    Upon what facts do you arrive at the conclusion that most of the children born will end up in some sort of facility. That was not the case prior to roe so what makes you believe it would be the case if roe is overturned. Most women who intend to give up their child during the pregnancy find that they can't do it in the end.

    Your argument also supposes that when women don't have abortion to fall back on, either they will be unable to consider the consequences of their actions or they don't understand how they become pregnant.

    As to where children go, they either go to group homes or foster care. As to the maximum capacity, irrelavent. As with anything, once the maximum is reached, new facilities can be opened.

    One only need look at the historicial record prior to roe. Tell me, is there any figure that could be named that would justify abortion on demand. If costs rise by a billion, would that be justification for abortion on demand? If costs rise by 10 billion, would that be justification for abortion on demand? If costs rise by 100 billion, would that be justification for abortion on demand? What figure would cause you to change your postion and say "this justifies killing them"?

    You ask these questions as if roe has been the law forever. Prior to roe, we weren't able to prove paternity so the burdens fell primarily on women. Today, however, paternity can be proven and men will find that they must also shoulder the financial consequences of their actions.

    And again, what figure would cause you to switch from an anti abortion position and support abortion on demand? Is there such a figure that would cause you to reject protecting the most basic human rights here in the US? If there is, then name it. If there is not, then why ask the question?

    Discuss what? Rationalization for denying basic human rights here in the US?
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. ASPCA4EVER

    ASPCA4EVER New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of the JAYHAWKS-ROCK CHOCK Jayhawk, KU
    Well, that hypothetical world won't happen in my lifetime, but I'll play along with your make believe world! This will just open up the barn door for more government dictation into our private lives...kinda goes against our Constitution...Hmmm
    Well you are starting out this topic as a mellow fellow we'll see just how long that lasts before your start the tossing of the foul names/words bomb?
    This little simplistic idea will cause the many local city/county agencies such a paper trail back log as we have never ever felt before :confused: Just think about all of those teenagers who might be a month late on their menstrual cycles that will now have to get a pregnancy test and then file for a 'conception certificate' too. OH, HELL NO...what a cluster 'F'd UP' mess that will create!!! INVASION OF PRIVACY...that would fly like a 'lead balloon'! Virginity Police...asking all young females to report to your local doctors office for that all important 'VIRGIN CHECK UP'...OMG...what a mess!!!
    Nice question and as the end of the baby boomers age group are wondering WTH about us there are not currently enough LTC facilities to handle the capacity crowd that we are going to create...what does this mean for the influx of newbie humans that will be dumped upon the American resources. I'm seeing large warehouse type facilities as in the type/structure that the foreign countries have built...but we would do it oh, so better for managed care {just like we have our VA hospitals} ;)
    If the bilking of the Medicare/Medicaid System is any clue then we can well expect our cost for maintaining these 'New NEWBIE HUMAN' facilities to rise 125% just within a year or two.
    Bad debt will force many a hospital to close their Neonatal/birthing centers...especially out here in the rural area of America...they'll be struggling to handle all of the 'Baby Boomers' LTC problems and there won't be easy solutions for either situations!
    If & when you stay 'CIVIL' in your response then both sides of this issue will keep the dialog open...practice what you preach and this will be a long thoughtful discussion!!! :) My 2ยข worth!
     
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Which part of the constitition suggests that you have a right to kill another human being and claim that it falls under a right to privacy?
     
  5. ASPCA4EVER

    ASPCA4EVER New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of the JAYHAWKS-ROCK CHOCK Jayhawk, KU
    You might be 'fishing' but I'm not going to bite that baited hook...this isn't the topic nor is this the first time that you derail a thread/topic/subject to dredge up some more or your ideologies and 'AWAY YOU GO'. No,WAY,
    'PALE ONE', I've stated my opinion and you know the what/who/how I feel about that issue!!! ;)

    BTW...the word CONSTITUTION is not spelled CONSTITITION :rolleyes:
     
  6. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If one looks at the health care system in this country it's obvious that life has a dollar value. We as a nation will not provide medical care for all of our citizens because it's too costly--so people who cannot afford the medical care they need die. And no one cares--least of all you--if people die for lack of medical funding.

    Your pollyanna view allows you to campaign for more people to be brought into this world even though we cannot/will not care for the ones already here.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    Interesting. You accuse palerider of fishing, yet your reply to GenSeneca brought the Constitution into this thread.
    You accuse him of derailing threads, yet you are the one to do so in this instance.

    You accuse GenSeneca using "foul names" and "word bombs". Yet you are the one here to begin name calling, specifically 'PALE ONE' instead of palerider. In the context of your other comments to him, it is obvious your intent of denigrating a fellow poster

    You also point out the fact that he misspelled 'Constitution'. Fine. Except in this case it merely adds to your condescending response. If we wasted time around here correcting everyone's spelling or grammatical errors, we might as well close up shop and go home. I know I'm not perfect, but it's really nice to meet one who is.

    Oh, and BTW... I do believe that you meant 'of' instead of 'or' in the "some more of your ideologies" line... :rolleyes:
     
    2 people like this.
  8. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    The rights of an unborn child discussions that I've seen seem tied mostly to that most thorny of issues: when DOES life begin? With increasing numbers of states passing more laws to expand manslaughter, wrongful death and even murder charges to the fetus, it is obvious that there is a true contradiction under the law (accepting Roe V. Wade as established law for arguments sake).

    The legalities of any attempt at something so ludicrous as a "conception certificate" are innumerable. Yet absurd as it sounds, for those striving to recognize, honor and protect life from its inception the concept is not at all unreasonable.

    Those striving to recognize, honor and protect are not necessarily those who are pro-life, but may also be some who are pro-abortion. For example, a police officer, a prosecutor, a judge, and jury members may be in that category, yet find themselves under certain circumstances in a position to make criminal verdict decisions based on the death of an unborn (or, the vernacular I prefer, PRE-born.) The quandary of is this driver guilty of one count of manslaughter because a woman died, or two counts because the unborn baby also died...

    Our society has a huge rift on this point - when does life actually begin - and there is no answer that will satisfy all. There is absolutely nothing that is black and white, but without a consensus it is difficult to establish a societal standard.

    I'm assuming you mean, as in where do the newborns go whose parents don't want them? If so, then they go to adoption. Demand is so high for adoption of newborns that there is typically only the smallest delays on the part of the infant. For adoptive parents, a wait up to two years is not unusual at all.

    If abortion were abolished or at least severely restricted, there would be little chance that we would see a 1.2 million spike in live births, and also see one million (-/+) increase in demand for adoptive homes. We would most likely see a mix of results.

    Just for illustrative purposes, there might be 200,000 new babies available per year for adoption. Another 500,000 would be kept by their birth parent(s), or extended family as the case may be. Another 200,000 might never be conceived in the first place, without the availability of abortion as a form of "family planning." And in all likelihood, the remainder would be aborted regardless of law or consequences. Obviously, these numbers are totally off the top of my head, and could be widely variable. But I'd be surprised if the proportions were significantly different
    Resources currently spent in life termination could be utilized to facilitate adoption agencies, temporary interim foster care, etc. There would undoubtedly be requirements and costs involved, but as palerider pointed out, there are models that we can go to to extrapolate data from that would provide working albeit hypothetical models for a modern U.S. system.

    Currently there is a mix of for-profit and non-profit adoption agencies. There is nothing wrong with someone making a living facilitating adoptions, and nothing inherently altruistic about those that don't. The idea would be to gather data on the best of the best, see what works, and get their ideas and input as to costs, liabilities, perceived difficulties, demand, etc. Develop a network of resources and give it the tools and support to grow. The idea would be to not create one problem to solve another, and to try to anticipate anything that would prevent that from happening.

    This is most likely a phantom issue. Yes, there will be a number of women who will become, or remain, a burden on society. Again, this is not necessarily a purely economic issue, but also one of options and expectations. Then again, one of those women now keeping a baby may find that child grow up to be the discoverer of the ultimate renewable energy source that will replace oil, coal, nuclear - everything we currently use. What could be the possible asset gains from these children? These are unknowable things.
     
  9. TruthAboveAll

    TruthAboveAll Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Further North than I'd like
    That is just plain wrong, Mare. Wrong in so many ways...

    We do not have a dollar value on life because we shouldn't have. Life is not to be measured in dollars and cents. What we do have is a nation that provides medical care to all, as the care is available. The details of what is and isn't supplied, and why and why not is for another thread/discussion/subject.

    Stating that palerider doesn't care? "... least of all you..." That is just flat cold, and you've absolutely no basis in this thread for such a statement. If you view his view as "pollyanna" that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I find nothing wrong with someone thinking outside the box, imagining a country, a world, where every life has value. Is there problems with such an idea? Of course. But it's a good problem to have, coming from a position of basic value recognized and placed upon all human life.
     
  10. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reduced to correcting spelling errors? How sad.

    And again, you are claiming that the right to privacy allows you to kill another human being without interference. Which part of the constititon do you base your claim on? If it is there, then there is no derailing. Simply point it out and put me in my place. Of course, we both know that you can't which renders your claim to privacy in this matter impotent.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The preservation of a life that is so sick or injured that no reasonable hope exists for its recovery is certainly a matter to consider in a financial light. You have a right to live but no right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf if there is no reasonable hope for your recovery.

    Again, the right to live and a right to have endless measures taken in an attempt to preserve and extend your life are two entirely different things.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I agree that life shouldn't have a dollar value on it, but it does and we should face up to that ugly truth.

    I'm not arguing that the system we have is right, but it's pollyanna thinking to assume that we are going to pony up the money for everyone to have adequate health care, or that we are going to stop selling addictive poisons to our population, because there is just tooooo much money to be made. Life is cheap in our culture, from the tens of billions of animals we slaughter each year, to the millions of people who die from cancer due to poisons sold to them or pollutants in their air, water, and food, to the insane wars that kill thousands of our best and brightest to line the pockets of giant corporations.

    Pale cares about babies, but he's a misogynist par excellence, and would force women to bear the brunt of his social engineering without qualm.

    I'm sorry if my post offended you. I find the selective indignation of the Pales of the world to be disingenuous because they are all about bringing more people into a culture that doesn't care about the people already here except as they can be used for monetary gain.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. ASPCA4EVER

    ASPCA4EVER New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of the JAYHAWKS-ROCK CHOCK Jayhawk, KU
    AND THEN I SAID: Well, that hypothetical world won't happen in my lifetime, but I'll play along with your make believe world! This will just open up the barn door for more government dictation into our private lives...kinda goes against our Constitution...Hmmm
    And Then I said: Well you are starting out this topic as a mellow fellow we'll see just how long that lasts before your start the tossing of the foul names/words bomb?
    To Which I replied: This little simplistic idea will cause the many local city/county agencies such a paper trail back log as we have never ever felt before :confused: Just think about all of those teenagers who might be a month late on their menstrual cycles that will now have to get a pregnancy test and then file for a 'conception certificate' too. OH, HELL NO...what a cluster 'F'd UP' mess that will create!!! INVASION OF PRIVACY...that would fly like a 'lead balloon'! Virginity Police...asking all young females to report to your local doctors office for that all important 'VIRGIN CHECK UP'...OMG...what a mess!!!
    ******************************
    Another cut & paste so that you can't keep misquoting me and what I meant...SORRY 'PALE ONE' this is exactly what I said and exactly what I meant and it was in answer to GenSeneca's 'WHAT IF WORLD'...so start your own topic and see who/what fascinating humans drop by ;)
     
  14. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Great post, It gave me much joy to read it... Much Joy !!!
     
  15. ASPCA4EVER

    ASPCA4EVER New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Land of the JAYHAWKS-ROCK CHOCK Jayhawk, KU
    Sure it would...the simplistic "drooling of I just love your posts" and yet you've added nothing, NOTHING to GenSeneca's questions; you know the topic/subject matter/staying on POINT...very, very curious and very, very telling too!!! LMAO
     
Loading...

Share This Page