So there many who are pro choice, and anti choice. I'd propose a compromise. Not that I think it is grand mind you but I see it working better than what is currently being done - which is massive abortions. The Proposal: If you want an abortion provided by the state, whether in funding or in personnel, you also must agree to be sterilized in the same treatment. I see this as having several benefits. First, we wouldn't have repeat visits for abortions. Second, It would reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. It would save the taxpayers a great deal of money in the future and those who are willing to get abortions won't ever need to do so again. Disease protection would be on the consumer though no sense in subsidizing another's sexual recreation. And also you get the protection from disease without the risk of pregnancy should it be faulty. Want to have kids later in life? Fine, you pay to get yourself fertile once again. The state paid the first time to fix your mistake, now it would be your turn. Since you are now more responsible, or at least enough to have a child, you can show your commitment by fixing your own plumbing. However you are ineligible for future abortions provided by state resources once this is done. After all, you're all grown up and responsible now. Rape clause? Of course one shouldn't be forced to carry a child to term that you had no say in creating. You just have to pay for it on your own dime is all - at the local hospital. If the life of the mother is threatened or you've sired a potato then abortion would apply as well as the mother sees fit. This would require a second opinion as well to prevent abuse of the law. Minors - Parents choice. If Muffy and Buffy want to have a loving romp in the sack it is their parents who decide. But if they get an abortion Muffy is sterilized, if Buffy doesn't pay his child support(or his parents) than he is sterilized as well. But hey don't forget about the men in the equation! If the woman keeps the child, and he doesn't cough up child support, track him down and sterilize him as well. Not only would he think twice about slipping his organ in the nearest woman who'd take him, but he would keep up on his payments as well! Or at the very least, he'll not be polluting the gene pool with inferior stock. Obviously DNA testing would be required before sterilization, and confirmed twice. No sense in sterilizing the wrong guy after all. Now if the girl got drunk at a party and doesn't know who sired the child within she gets to weigh her options - give birth, or abort and be sterilized. Her choice. To enforce male sterilization I would make a national 'do not hire' list. I'd also make it an arrestable offense with a national registry. Along with that I would make them ineligible for student loans, any type of government assistance, or passport, and it would show up on credit check which would be compulsory to notify law enforcement or pay a huge fine. They can either pay child support and live a normal life, or they can get clipped. ---End of proposition. So what do the pro-choice and anti choice crowds think?
I think you should send that letter to your state and federal representatives(the lawmakers)... ...everyone needs a laugh... Oh, BTW, you may want to write the AMA and recommend they take off their restrictions on sterilizing women.....
Fair enough, we could offer free tax payer funded sterilization to all that desire it, but it is up to them to restore their organs if they want children later.
...to all that desire it IF the AMA will change their rules.....good luck with that but if you do many feminists will thank you
Its an interesting proposal, however I can see a few problems with it. 1. You would have to change the Bill of Rights (Or its ammedments) in order to make it law. 2. You would have to repeal the International Human Rights laws
Gemini_Fyre said, Well I respectfully disagree. There is no compromise if even one life is taken. The Proposal: The state should not give out abortions...should not be in the killing business. It is against the Constitution. NO benefits...especially for the unborn children murdered. The state killed...wrong, wrong always wrong. What do you mean by this? Abortion in the case of rape is ok? Aren't you pro-life? OMy land.....as I said, no abortion. NO ABORTION....NO ABORTION....NO COMPROMISE Why make abortion illegal...would be easier. No compromises to a group that celebrates killing unborn children. Not on your life.....
This is why you never get any traction anywhere Churchmouse. Hate to break it to you but until HE gets here, you've got to deal with the world as it is. And it is filled with imperfect people. And persuasion is more palatable than brow beating. I would think that reducing abortions would be on your list of things to do. Sure, whacking a child in the womb is a pathetic thing to do - on this we both agree. But why not remove the same imbecile from the repeat customer list? Do you know that the zealot aspect of the pro-life movement alienates a good number of people?
Well you are right....nothing will be perfect until He gets here. But the thing is Gemini...if you are a Christian, no matter what you stand on the truth. The Truth sets you free and is always the right thing to do. Do you think Jesus compromises? No. He tells us what the truth is in the Word. And He is pro-life. It is quite simple. To be honest...traction is not possible here really. Two sides...opposite, nothing in common. I am not here to make a deal or to compromise the pro-life position. It is what it is. You either want protection for the unborn or you don't. What you suggest here was absurd...aborting a baby and then sterilizing....????? You still kill.
Keep religion in the religion forum. I can't believe of all people I had to be the one to say this to you. I would think that preventing future life loss would turn gears of logic in your head. Really, your side isn't exactly winning in the public eye, largely because of the way the typical pro-life crowd member displays their message. I already explained this to you a long time ago in another thread. I contend from the wallet point of view because asking a set of people to agree on morals is simply not going to happen. Then you go and lay down the law like you were the savior himself. This 'holier than thou' attitude is why people can't stand the pro life movement. Simply put, I am not The Man, neither are you. We as wee mortals are not endowed with the awesomeness to be able to avoid negotiations due to sheer might. So get used to it. Forcing people to your will is also not exactly a Christian attribute either. Contemplate that for a while if you would. Well I think they have things they could agree on. Pro life wants no abortions - something they won't get if they make it illegal, so you may as well stop barking up that tree. Pro choice wants to avoid pregnancy - something they can't seem to avoid for a myriad of reasons and obviously don't want to endure. Is not sterilization better than committing murder of innocent life to you? Even if sterilization was voluntary? Again, you need to learn what palatable dialogue is and then practice it. People do not negotiate with others they don't like - you tend to make yourself unwanted outside your zealous circles. You have to learn how to open positive dialogue and even remain civil if you don't agree. Calling me a killer isn't going to make you any friends.
Gemini_Fyre said, Is that a rule? "I can't believe of all people I had to be the one to say this to you. I would think that preventing future life loss would turn gears of logic in your head." But your plan kills innocent children to do it? Is that right? How can one be pro-life and do or think that? Yes we are why do you say that? We had a lot of victories in the past year. How do I display my message? I am consistent and I always stand on the same thing...others do not. I believe ALL LIVES SHOULD BE SAVED, NOT SOME. Wouldn't you agree that 99% of people believe abortion is killing a living human child? Wouldn't you agree that 99% of people would agree that abortion is immoral? People here on this thread have said they know its immoral but they can't force their morality on others. Which makes no sense because they turn around then and want laws banning all sorts of things. Abortion after 40 years is still immoral, still a taboo subject to talk about really. Women deny having one and usually don't share their abortions with people. So don't tell me that people don't believe it's immoral....they do, even those who don't believe in God. I am the one who has NOT pretended to be holier than thou....I am the one who admits she killed her living child. I think you have things backwards. The MAN>? Do you mean God? If you do...."Keep religion in the religion forum." But since your not letting the religious aspect go...I am curious, do you claim to be a Christian, to love and accept Christ? Is it wrong for society to force people to abide by societal laws? Should we have any laws at all? Because laws force people to act one way or another. You must be pro-late term abortion then because that law forced women to have babies in later terms, when they own their bodies. Right? Is this law wrong? "Pro life wants no abortions - something they won't get if they make it illegal, so you may as well stop barking up that tree. Pro choice wants to avoid pregnancy - something they can't seem to avoid for a myriad of reasons and obviously don't want to endure. Is not sterilization better than committing murder of innocent life to you? Even if sterilization was voluntary?" Again, your telling me what to do? LOL Would rape happen any more if we made it legal? Sure it would. And by abortion being legal...more happen. If abortion was against the law sure it would still happen, but no way near what it does today. That is a no-brainer. You never get what you don't ask for...so why not ask for a lot. If your selling a house do you ask what you want in the beginning? Of course you don't. We in the pro-life movement have to ask for it all. We know as long as our culture declines morally that the likelihood that abortion laws would be overturned is slim. But that should not change our message or to make us compromise on anything. You can't if you love life and believe that the unborn has a right to live. Well I struck a nerve with you didn't I? That's ok, I expected it. What you proposed is ridiculous...sorry. Especially if you claim to be pro-life. Do you? As I said...not here to make friends. I say it like I believe it and I do not entertain any silly compromises that are ridiculous. As I said...if you would entertain your idea...your NOT PRO-LIFE. Maybe you should consider your own position. Because I work in this field and your idea would be laughed out of any group of pro-lifers talking about the issue. So sorry I hit a nerve....oh well.
""""Wouldn't you agree that 99% of people believe abortion is killing a living human child? Wouldn't you agree that 99% of people would agree that abortion is immoral? People here on this thread have said they know its immoral but they can't force their morality on others. Which makes no sense because they turn around then and want laws banning all sorts of things. Abortion after 40 years is still immoral, still a taboo subject to talk about really. Women deny having one and usually don't share their abortions with people. So don't tell me that people don't believe it's immoral...."""" No, there is no proof that 99% of people believe abortion is killing a living human child. Does your god allow lying? No, there is no proof that 99% of people consider abortion immoral. Women are not required to discuss their medical history with anyone.....especially if mentioning their abortion gets a screaming extremist guilt ridden freak wailing and whining in their face.
No, but it would make things alot easier if you didn't bring up things people will obviously never agree on. You have to zoom out and see the bigger picture. There are those who will still kill their unborn children regardless of legality. I aim to remove repeat customers and thereby save lives, and money for everybody. You need to figure out what is desirable and what is practical. I've laid out a simple plan which would dramatically reduce abortions in the future. You could learn a little from the pro-choice movement and liberals in general. They demand a mile, but will settle for a foot, and they will do this indefinitely until they get what they want. It is all about degrees of conditions over the course of decades. Like I said, you have to zoom out and see the bigger picture and see the end game. Obviously I would agree with you but I am not the one you need to convince. But there are a (*)(*)(*)(*) ton of people that won't and those are the ones you continue to irritate and alienate with the typical pro-life presentation. Well you could have fooled me, better yet, we could take a community poll and find out.. Incorrect, and irrelevant. Actually, it was a question. Back that (*)(*)(*)(*) up Tanto. You claim it, than back it up. This more or less kind of proves the point that outlawing it is pointless. People will still do it, and they will still be repeat customers to black market providers. Akin to heroin dealers. Is long term thinking a skill you have learned? Or one you actively avoid? Translation: my way or the highway. Contrary to what you might think, there are other avenues to your end game. You just don't like it as much as your chosen path. ...progress towards your goal of reducing abortions? On this I'd agree. I have, you clearly haven't. Just because I do not adhere to your inherently flawed strategy of brow beating people, does not in any way change how I view life in the womb. Your way is busted. Not breaking major ground. My way is a massive reduction at the cost of what they were going to do anyways, and then remove their capacity to do it again. I'm supposed to care? But really, if you are going to apologize, mean it, otherwise you are lying. And you and I know where liars go. Couldn't resist!
You don't know your bible very well do you. Jesus compromised the law by stopping the stoning of the harlot, even after he had said he had not come to change the law, but to enforce it .. Whether that law on stoning was just or not, it was the law and as such Jesus should have upheld it following his statement of enforcing the law. If you believe in the truth then you of course agree with slavery, as it is a staple part of both the old and new testament. I would love you to show me where in the bible Jesus is pro-life (in the abortion sense that is) .. be very careful here, I know a lot more about religion than you may think and not just from a atheists point of view either .. I wasn't always an atheists, I studied for a number of years with a view to joining the clergy.
Here's another moral argument in support of that. If the life of the woman is equal to the life of the fetus inside her, then why should any woman be allowed to get more than one abortion? How can one justify killing 2 human lives for the convenience of a single individual? Some women just keep getting themselves pregnant over and over again, only to terminate each pregnancy with an abortion each time. Should these women really be allowed to go on like that? Is there no limit to how many human lives a woman should be allowed to bring into this world and then brutally send back out of existence? I support the sterilization idea. If a woman really does not want to have children, fine. But she should not be allowed to abort her child just because he was not conceived at a convenient time in the woman's life. Seems like some people are willing to do anything for convenience, no matter the cost to others.
Although I planned on only debating from the wallet, you make a sterling point. I agree, some are simply careless, hence why I devised the idea. Probably not the first guy to think about it though. I am not overly about my proposal either, because there are alot of children that will die because of it. But preventing future deaths in the millions I see as more equitable than what is currently being done. Which is repeat customers. It is not only costly, but it is an evil we are needlessly participating in. The business is just wrong. But if we are forced to be in it, we may as well remove customers as we find them.
What about just requiring the surgical implantation of an intrauterine device at the time of the abortion procedure? The woman likely will already be sedated anyway. That way, if she ever does want to take responsibility and start a family some day when she gets older, the option will not be completely taken off the table. I think this proposal would have a more realistic chance of passing.
Stepping into morality is very shaky ground especially for you given your moral stance on "retarded" babies. Each pregnancy is a separate incident, there is still only the balance of one life .. and the womans life is more equal than that of the fetus anyway, it is only your perception that they are equal. As it stands at the moment, no there is no limit. It doesn't cost you a cent . - - - Updated - - - I actually think this has a little bit of merit .. however it should only be done if the woman is asked and she chooses to do so, if it is done without her consent then it is actual bodily harm.
