Abortion: What then?

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

Oh dotty just go have yourself a holy bat crap and you will feel better.

What can I add? He put you in your place and it was nice to see.

What exactly are you adding with this post? Nothing?

ok great so everything is the same as before :)



want in on a funny secret?

This neg point you just gave me for this post...

"Poor, poor unfortunate child...run out of old posts to talk about from 2008...LMAO"

It does no good. You are so deep in the red you can't give or take even a single point to anyone. We just see the silly comment and a grey dot but you can not hurt anyone.

Funny huh
 
Werbung:
Oh dotty just go have yourself a holy bat crap and you will feel better.

What can I add? He put you in your place and it was nice to see.

What exactly are you adding with this post? Nothing?

ok great so everything is the same as before :)



want in on a funny secret?

This neg point you just gave me for this post...

"Poor, poor unfortunate child...run out of old posts to talk about from 2008...LMAO"

It does no good. You are so deep in the red you can't give or take even a single point to anyone. We just see the silly comment and a grey dot but you can not hurt anyone.

Funny huh
I learned it all from you 'ole master of the negative/childish/whining posts'...learned it all from you...cause you do what you do sooo well :D

NOW, was there something, ANYTHING that you wanted to enlighten this group with, you know about the TOPIC/SUBJECT MATTER/THREAD/STAYING ON POINT...this should all be right up your 'Hypothetical Alley' that make believe world ;)
 
It does no good. You are so deep in the red you can't give or take even a single point to anyone. We just see the silly comment and a grey dot but you can not hurt anyone.

Funny huh

So that is what the gray dots are for. I wondered. I guess aspca is the one who attempted to give me a negative but was too cowardly to make any comment. Isn't it the same everywhere? You take the time to tear their arguments into easily digestable pieces for them and they thank you by trying to give you a negative.

Typical of very small, bitter, pissy people.
 
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.
Truth Above All seems to agree that the concept is not so absurd, especially given the record of government and politicians to argue for the absurd.

Upon what facts do you arrive at the conclusion that most of the children born will end up in some sort of facility.
Not a one, which is why I've asked for those familiar with the subject matter to assist me. I simply have questions regarding the recognition of rights for the unborn and it seems the best people to answer those questions would be the ones who want to recognize the rights of the unborn. If someone is pushing for a new policy, I think its reasonable to expect them to have some answers for questions related to their policy.

That was not the case prior to roe so what makes you believe it would be the case if roe is overturned.
I was not talking about simply overturning RvW but full federal recognition of rights for the unborn. As far as the stats from prior to RvW, they are nearly 4 decades old and it would be a leap of faith to assume things would be relatively the same almost 40 years later.

Most women who intend to give up their child during the pregnancy find that they can't do it in the end.
Great news... Would you happen to have any statistics? According to this abortion data, the typical candidate is 21-25 years old and never married. So even if she would want to keep her child, it seems unlikely that she would be able to afford it at that time in her life even with the assistance of the child's father, as he's likely in the same situation.

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.
Not really, I'm operating on the premise that irresponsible people act irresponsibly and ignore the consequences till its too late.

As to where children go, they either go to group homes or foster care.
Are these private charity funded homes, state operated taxpayer sponsored, or both?

As to the maximum capacity, irrelavent. As with anything, once the maximum is reached, new facilities can be opened.
Here in Ohio, our jails are overcrowded and rather than open new jails, we simply release criminals back into the population. I know Ohio is not alone in this problem of overcrowded, underfunded facilities. Therefore, I must be realistic when looking at other similar facilities that house, feed and care for people.

One only need look at the historicial record prior to roe.
As I said, that data is nearly 4 decades old. Our society is quite different from 1973 and its not unreasonable to surmise that we would see much different statistics in the 21st century. In fact, I think it would be unreasonable to surmise that the statistics would remain largely unchanged.

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"?
That is a question for you to answer, as its not my intention to argue for abortion on demand in this thread. My purpose for this thread is solely to consider the impact of recognizing rights for the unborn.

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.
Actually, I did take that into account... if you will notice, I said both parents plural. The cost of just giving birth can be in the tens of thousands or more and given the statistics, the parents would scarcely be able to afford the costs and therefore either the grandparents or the taxpayer would have to help foot the bill.

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?
Again, if there is such a number for you then give it, otherwise accept that your decision will result in financial obligations and help us to constructively explore them.

If there is, then name it. If there is not, then why ask the question?
It would seem irresponsible to avoid asking the tough questions about any new policy and avoid considering the liabilities associated with it.

Discuss what? Rationalization for denying basic human rights here in the US?
If anyone wishes to argue for, or against, abortion, they can do so in your abortion thread - not here. This thread is specifically for discussing the results of recognizing rights for the unborn.
 
when DOES life begin?
If you will forgive me, this question is irrelevent to the topic at hand. Regardless of when it begins, it can no longer be terminated.

Yet absurd as it sounds, for those striving to recognize, honor and protect life from its inception the concept is not at all unreasonable.
Thank you, I too think conception certificates are worth consideration.

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.
Is this long wait due to a shortage of children or a shortage of healthy, normal children?

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
On what information do you base that conclusion?

We would most likely see a mix of results.
That's certainly a safe bet.

Resources currently spent in life termination could be utilized to facilitate adoption agencies, temporary interim foster care, etc.
What resources are those?

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.
Then lets do it.

Currently there is a mix of for-profit and non-profit adoption agencies.
This is a good start. Are any of them state run?

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 the kind of constructive input I was hoping to see, now if we can move it from theory to fact, there will be more to work with.


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.
On the flip side of that argument, if a woman, or a couple, has to cut their education short because they started a family too early, society could miss out on that discoverer as a result.

Truth, thank you for your participation and I hope you continue to contribute.
 
Truth Above All seems to agree that the concept is not so absurd, especially given the record of government and politicians to argue for the absurd.

Does the absurd become less absurd because a politician argues for it? What is the purpose of a birth certificate and of what use, in that context, would a certificate of conception be?

Not a one, which is why I've asked for those familiar with the subject matter to assist me. I simply have questions regarding the recognition of rights for the unborn and it seems the best people to answer those questions would be the ones who want to recognize the rights of the unborn. If someone is pushing for a new policy, I think its reasonable to expect them to have some answers for questions related to their policy.

Are you saying that you have never even done any cursory research on the topic or that you don't know how, or simply that you won't? Arguing from a position of abject ignorance with the expectation that others will prove the case for you hardly seems to be a rational form of inquiry. Anyone could tell you anything and what choice would you have but to accept it since you asked?

Not really, I'm operating on the premise that irresponsible people act irresponsibly and ignore the consequences till its too late.

So why do we not have more people stepping off tall buildings? My bet is that even irresponsible people know that once they step off the edge, there is no opting out of the consequences. There are a few notable exceptions that we see on stupid videos but even most people who could be rightly characterized as irresponsible don't see how anyone could be that stupid.

That is a question for you to answer, as its not my intention to argue for abortion on demand in this thread. My purpose for this thread is solely to consider the impact of recognizing rights for the unborn.

No. It is you who is suggesting that financial considerations might be a valid justification to continue to allow abortion on demand so it is one for you to answer. If your answer brings this thread to an end, then the thread wasn't of much actual consequence in the first place.

Again, if there is such a number for you then give it, otherwise accept that your decision will result in financial obligations and help us to constructively explore them.

Again, I am not the one who is insinuation that financial considerations may be a rational justification to continue with abortion on demand. The question is for you to answer since it is part of your premise.

It would seem irresponsible to avoid asking the tough questions about any new policy and avoid considering the liabilities associated with it.

It also seems irresponsible to avoid answering a question that goes to the very heart of your questions. With the exception of the absurd suggestion of conception certificates, each and every one of your questions has financial considerations at its foundation. You have made this about money so it is only right that you answer the question. Avoiding the question brings the purpose of the thread under suspicion.

If anyone wishes to argue for, or against, abortion, they can do so in your abortion thread - not here. This thread is specifically for discussing the results of recognizing rights for the unborn.

Which are at their heart, financial considerations. What dollar figure could be placed on ending abortion on demand that would cause you to change your postion to pro choice and what justification can you provide to support any claim that your dollar figure would become reality.
 
Pale,

Please contribute constructively to the discussion.

"Arguing from a position of abject ignorance with the expectation that others will prove the case for you hardly seems to be a rational form of inquiry." - Pale

I'm not arguing anything, I have no case to prove, and it seems rational enough to me that the fastest cure for ignorance is to consult with those knowledgeable in the subject matter.

This thread is entirely based on accepting your argument from the other thread and analysing the results of recognizing rights for the unborn. Most of the issues that come to mind for me are financially related but I'm a bit debt-centric when it comes to government policies and financial obligations tend to be a primary consideration.

Someone else may have other priorities to consider, and bring something up that I would have never thought of, thus adding to the comprehensive nature of our discussion on the topic.

This topic is posted in the "Other policies" section, this is not a debate thread, its a discussion on a specific policy. Now if you want to debate and argue that your policy will have no ramifications on society, that it will not incur financial obligations to the state, or otherwise have foreseeable consequences, then feel free to argue that, but for the purpose of this thread, the issue of accepting, and recognizing, rights for the unborn is to be considered settled.
 
This thread is entirely based on accepting your argument from the other thread and analysing the results of recognizing rights for the unborn.

How much analysis do you require to accept the recognition of your rights? Is there any amount of analysis that could dissuade you from them?


Most of the issues that come to mind for me are financially related but I'm a bit debt-centric when it comes to government policies and financial obligations tend to be a primary consideration.

If there is a number at which you change from anti abortion to pro choice then name it and the discussion can continue from there. If there is no number, what is the point of the discussion?

This topic is posted in the "Other policies" section, this is not a debate thread, its a discussion on a specific policy.

The specific policy is the denial of the most basic human rights from an entire class of human beings and your initial premise suggests that there is a dollar figure, or a specific amount of trouble that may make this denial worthwhile. If that is so, then what is the figure or the amount of trouble that would prompt you to accept such a denial?

Now if you want to debate and argue that your policy will have no ramifications on society, that it will not incur financial obligations to the state, or otherwise have foreseeable consequences, then feel free to argue that, but for the purpose of this thread, the issue of accepting, and recognizing, rights for the unborn is to be considered settled.

Everything has financial ramifications. Which other rights are you, personally willing to give up because they simply cost too much to protect? Do you believe the court made a good decision a couple of years ago when they decided that a community could simply take your property if someone else could generate more tax revenue from it than you. Are those ramifications worthy of denying you that right?

Why start a thread if you must evade the most basic question it brings up?
 
If there is a number at which you change from anti abortion to pro choice then name it and the discussion can continue from there.
I am sorry but that is not the topic. If you need an answer to discuss the actual topic, then my number is the same as your number. If no cost is to great, then consider it the same for me.

If there is no number, what is the point of the discussion?
See below.

Everything has financial ramifications.
Then why the reluctance to discuss the actual topic? Ignoring the ramifications will not make them go away but if you acknowledge and address them, you can mitigate their impact.
 
If you will forgive me, this question is irrelevent to the topic at hand. Regardless of when it begins, it can no longer be terminated.
I can appreciate that. The question of "when does life begin" is an unavoidable mental exercise to me when thinking through the possibilities proceeding from a new status quo, such as your scenario encompasses.
Thank you, I too think conception certificates are worth consideration.
Not that that wouldn't have it's OWN set of problems to resolve...
Is this long wait due to a shortage of children or a shortage of healthy, normal children?
Yes. To both. There are those that only wish to adopt a newborn, with no known defects or deficiencies. There are those that wish only a black child, or a white child. One with blue eyes, one with brown. The vast majority of people wishing to adopt an infant, however, are those that are unable to have their own child, and wish only for the experience of child rearing. That usually means the full experience, as much as possible, which naturally requires a young as possible baby.

There is a lengthy process involved for adoption. Many in the U.S. currently adopt overseas, because the wait isn't as long and often the process is apparently much simpler.

Off setting that, foreign adoptions are typically more expensive. The adoption process itself may range up to $30,000, and there can be significant additional costs.

Adoptions in the U.S. can run from zero to over $40,000. The basic types are: Foster care adoptions, licensed private agency, Independent, facilitated or unlicensed.

In 1970 there were 175,000 (un-related, non-familial) adoptions in the U.S. In 2002, there were 22,291.

About the availability of babies to adopt and matching that with prospective adoptive parents, the numbers are all over the map. Some sources state it can take 6-18 months, others state it can take 2-3 years, one source says upwards of 5 years. I think the other variables come into play - what the goal is for the adoptive parents.
On what information do you base that conclusion?
This is based simply on what the current volume of U.S. abortions is, then factoring in the data on the breakdown of who is having abortions and why. As I stated, they are very generalized numbers, but MY opinion is that the proportions would be a fairly acceptable representation.
That's certainly a safe bet.
LOL! Thank you.
What resources are those?
How do we begin to calculate the current monetary resources utilized in the abortion industry? The procedure costs themselves. The "counseling" from Planned Parenthood and similar organizations. This in itself could prove an exhaustive study.

Then there is the human resources; the structural resources; the organizational resources. It would seem on the surface that whether financial or other resources, much could be diverted to a newly purposed outcome. It might feel incongruous to think of a "counselor" who has counseled a woman on the emotional impact of abortion now counseling that same woman on the emotional impact of adoption, but I don't believe that is too much of a stretch.
Then lets do it.
Got to admit here, I failed to note what you were referencing on this, and so I'm a bit lost... I'll try to get back to this one.
This is a good start. Any any of them state run?
In a nutshell, no. U.S. Health and Human Services is often affiliated with the whole process, setting guidelines, ratings, etc. Some states have a varying level of involvement, also. There may be some more direct involvement from some states at that level. But for the most part, these are either agencies or non-profits, often affiliated with churches or religious organizations.

Again, the information is largely there to be found, just sorting through it all would be quite exhaustive. There may be a "master" network somewhere, but I haven't located it at this time.
This is the kind of constructive input I was hoping to see, now if we can move it from theory to fact, there will be more to work with.
Thank you again, GenSeneca. I hope I can have more time to dedicate exploring this.
On the flip side of that argument, if a woman, or a couple, has to cut their education short because they started a family too early, society could miss out on that discoverer as a result.
This is true. However, a couple, or a woman, can recover from a divergence in their plans. Time has a way of restoring that which was lost to those who desire to find it. The same can not be said of an aborted baby. There are no do-overs...
Truth, thank you for your participation and I hope you continue to contribute.
You're welcome, and thanks for the great subject. It's nice to be able to come at this issue from a different perspective... "what then?" indeed.
 
Adoptions in the U.S. can run from zero to over $40,000. The basic types are: Foster care adoptions, licensed private agency, Independent, facilitated or unlicensed.
Well it seems this could be a problem that solves itself, financially speaking anyway.

If a couple is willing to pay $30-$40k for a newborn, and they outnumber the pregnant mothers, it seems they could use that money to bankroll the mother to see her through the pregnancy and cover the costs of Prenatal, Postnatal, and birthing costs incurred at the hospital, with a little left over for the mother to begin rebuilding her life that was placed on hold.

Capitalism solving lifes problems!
How do we begin to calculate the current monetary resources utilized in the abortion industry?
Oh.. That industry of death... Silly me, I thought you were talking about some Kevorkian style industry that I was unaware of. :eek:

Thank you again, GenSeneca. I hope I can have more time to dedicate exploring this.
Me too! You have excellent insights and are incredibly helpful.

However, a couple, or a woman, can recover from a divergence in their plans. Time has a way of restoring that which was lost to those who desire to find it. The same can not be said of an aborted baby. There are no do-overs...
Excellent point.

You're welcome, and thanks for the great subject. It's nice to be able to come at this issue from a different perspective... "what then?" indeed.
Quite a different perspective... I would like to see others approach the thread topic with your enthusiasm but even if its just the two of us discussing the topic, I'll take it.
 
I am sorry but that is not the topic. If you need an answer to discuss the actual topic, then my number is the same as your number. If no cost is to great, then consider it the same for me.

When you listed your what if's in terms of financial ramifications, you made it the topic.

And since I didn't pose the questions, my own financial considerations are not at the heart of either the issue or this thread. I find it interesting that in following this tactic, you have painted yourself into a corner in the initial post and are unable to answer a simple question from the very beginning. Don't you?

Then why the reluctance to discuss the actual topic? Ignoring the ramifications will not make them go away but if you acknowledge and address them, you can mitigate their impact.

No reluctance on my part. I have been trying and you have been shucking and jiving. You are the one who made this about money, not me. I am trying to get to the amount of money it would take for you to abandon the protection of human rights. If there is an amount of money, that is where the discussion starts in that we can begin to figure out ways to reduce costs, transfer existing funds from the abortion industry to the financial consequences of ending abortion and exploring ways to cut costs. If there is no dollar figure, then the thread is specious from its beginning and is no more than mockery on your part of anyone who "plays" your game.
 
When you listed your what if's in terms of financial ramifications, you made it the topic.

I am sorry but that is not the topic. If you need an answer to discuss the actual topic, then my number is the same as your number. If no cost is to great, then consider it the same for me.
 
Werbung:
I am sorry but that is not the topic. If you need an answer to discuss the actual topic, then my number is the same as your number. If no cost is to great, then consider it the same for me.

If no cost is too great for you, then why mock the members by playing this game?
 
Back
Top