BTW, "responsibility" is the code-word for that "Women want sex? They have to risk becoming pregnant and staying that way as 'payment' for their lusts!" attitude from the anti-choice males.
What part of : YUP! Sometimes it does. Can't afford a kid? Do the responsible thing and don't have one. Want to support MORE kids in the system then RAISE TAXES to pay for them.....now contact your Repub buddies and ask how high they want their taxes raised. You know, those people who scream and whine about, "not one penny of mine should go for abortion/Welfare/social programs for CHILDREN" """ ....don't you understand? How IRRESPONSIBLE to not want to take care of children already here....
If the woman can't afford a child, what makes you think she can afford a gestation machine? - - - Updated - - - What part of abortion is responsible don't you understand?
I think the most effective way of making both sides happy in this case is to focus on measures that would actually be effective in reducing the number of abortions, instead of trying to outlaw the procedure. Im talking about comprehensive education about sexual intercourse, availability of contraceptives, and an open, trustworthy relationship between parents and children, so that teens dont feel the need to hide their sexual relations and thus make a stupid mistake. Disappointingly, conservatives who are pro-life are instead pushing for abstinence-only education, no governmental aid to single parents, and legislation that would do nothing other than bring unwanted children into the world and have them grow up in families that are not capable of caring for them.
Birth defective fetus, which is a fairly high percentage of abortions, including but not limited to Down Syndrome, would very likely not be adopted. Overall, quickly there would be far more babies than people want to adopt. So, to the OPer, how many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars per year as it grew across time would you be willing to commit to this? If the 30-40 million abortions had instead been born parentless the cost by now would run into the trillions.
Greatest question in the world!!! What responsibility have you taken onto yourself? Posting reasons you think its wrong on a forum doesn't count as responsibility.
....and how many Republicans would be willing to raise taxes to cover the expense? That would be zero.
Push WHAT responsibility off onto to whom? ??? I think it's irresponsible to not address posts just because they make you uncomfortable or aren't convenient...
My question is never going away. Either you accept some responsibility and show unwanted kids they they are wanted, cherished, and treasured, or you are an "accomplice to murder". (Taken from your belief that abortion is murder,)
I believe this is a great idea, but I don't know how monetarily reasonable it is. Being pro-life in my eyes is about protecting the life of the fetus, not restricting the freedom of the mother, and I concede that many pro-lifers get that wrong. I also understand that many believe that a life does not begin at conception, and while I disagree with that belief, I respect it, and as it is a matter of conviction and not opinion or fact, I will not argue or debate it. And as abortion is generally not performed with malice, I don't know if it'd be fair to call it murder. I'd support a Constitutional Amendment defining life as beginning at conception. With that (and I know this'll draw much anger), I believe abortion in cases of rape and danger to the mother's health should be banned as well. However, I believe if the idea you suggested cannot be implemented to all that otherwise desire an abortion, I believe priority should be given to mothers whose health is threatened by the fetus, and that victims of rape should be given second priority.
I'm not opposed to this route because it does address concerns from both sides. Mothers don't have to keep a pregnancy in their body, but no abortion has to occur. However, I suspect that this procedure would be incredibly costly and I worry about who would be made to bear that cost. Would it be the mother? That would essentially place this procedure out of reach of all but upper class women.
It would be fine if all Anti-Choicers would donate their money for this bizarre procedure but I can't really see them doing that. Abortions are much cheaper, at the time they take place, and cheaper in the long run since no children will end up in the system or on Welfare. "The long run" is something Anti-Choicers(mostly Repubs and Conservatives) never think of. The cost of keeping millions of fetuses growing in vast warehouses would be staggering, too impractical.
Who is the "someone else" in your equation? Who takes over the responsibility of the pregnancy for the mother?
FoxHastings, I can't figure out this whole quote thing, so I'll use quotation marks where necessary. "Placing the life of the fetus above the woman it's in (women are NOT mothers unless they've given birth) IS taking away women's freedom, something ALL Americans should have. It can't be any other way. Banning abortion takes away women's rights and freedom." "THAT doesn't restrict the freedom of the woman ????????! WHAT!!!! Not to mention being as cruel and barbaric as any other idea put forth by Anti-Choicers... Talk about Fetal Worship! Women FORCED to give birth even if it kills them ! FORCED to be raped forever by having to give birth to a rapist's kid?!!" Sorry, I should've clarified when I said "Being pro-life in my eyes is about protecting the life of the fetus, not restricting the freedom of the mother, and I concede that many pro-lifers get that wrong." What I meant was that the purpose of being pro-life and pushing a pro-life agenda is to preserve the life of the fetus. The objective is NOT to restrict the freedom of women, but I do admit that such policies would and do restrict the freedom of women. I wasn't trying to make the point that women's rights wouldn't be restricted, I was trying to say that the sole purpose of being pro-life was not simply restricting women's freedom. When I said many pro-lifers get that wrong, I meant that many DO see the main purpose of being pro-life as punishing the woman by restricting their freedom. Those are the sort of people you hear make claims like "The woman should have to give birth because she made an irresponsible decision." That's the sort of speech I don't agree with. "Murder does not need "malice" to be murder." I didn't clarify that I was speaking in a legal, not moral context. Legally, malice is required for one to be charged with murder. The reason I included that point was because I do not believe women and doctors should be charged with murder for abortions. If life were defined as beginning at conception, it'd be fairer if they were charged with involuntary manslaughter, as, while the term hasn't generally been used in such a context, they'd be taking the life of another, because while there was no malice, they did so while breaking the law.
You forgot some of my post Such as : """Rapist: A person who wants to FORCE women and CONTROL them.........does that ring a bell with you?????""" No matter what you say, banning abortion restricts/controls/ punishes women for getting pregnant. THAT is the bottom line. Hopefully in this country especially, no ones right should be taken away to accommodate someone else. YOU do NOT have to allow your body to be used by another to sustain it's life. NONE of us do....not even women. And why don't you read back through a few threads in this forum and see if you can out just HOW an abortion is suspected, reported, investigated, and tried...
FoxHastings, "Rapist: A person who wants to FORCE women and CONTROL them.........does that ring a bell with you?????" Honestly, I wasn't completely sure what point you were trying to make there. I agree that a rapist wants to force and control women, and I also believe rape should be illegal. However, I don't think a traumatic event happening to a person is justification for taking the life of another. Were you trying to compare pro-lifers to rapists? If so, by claiming that forcing women and controlling a woman makes someone a rapist, isn't everyone a rapist? Unless one is an anarchist, he or she believes that women should be controlled and forced to obey the law in some way. Again, I wasn't sure if I understood what you meant, and if I misinterpreted it, I'm very sorry. "No matter what you say, banning abortion restricts/controls/ punishes women for getting pregnant. THAT is the bottom line." I have already expressed my agreement with this statement. "Hopefully in this country especially, no ones right should be taken away to accommodate someone else." Isn't that the foundation of implementing government? Your rights are taken away to accommodate others. The government forcefully takes our money for the sake of funding things that don't always benefit us.