Question : Pro-lifers, Exactly How Would You End Elective Abortion?

That is not common sense.

That is a reality which has been imposed on the entire population.

God said to be fruitful and to multiply.

Then man says - no - that is only for those who can afford the baby.

 

Duh, dealing with reality IS commonsense....

And as far as I'm concerned not having kids if you can't afford them hasn't been imposed enough!

I don't care what your "god' thing says, ....having too many kids to support and over population are NOT "fruitful".

 

We already did that. Actually, we did it to the extreme.

If we want them to survive, some prudence is indicated. If we breed more than we can provide for, they will perish. (Words of wisdom from the Goddess)

 

Honestly what you are here saying is the true example of what I have been saying all along.

The issue of abortion is not about women's liberation or about truth or justice, as it is just about killing off the babies of the poor, and especially of the minority (black) babies.

That money is the deciding factor - and not right from wrong.



===================================================

The concept of "over population" is mostly based on racial prejudice and bigotry, and it is far more emotional than rational, as it is based on unjustified fears and greed and on extreme ignorance.

The mathematical fact is that every person in the entire world - all 7 billion people could fit just into the State of Texas and fit rather comfortably with a density less then that of New York City. And since every human could fit into Texas then that means the earth could hold 100 times that many more people, and in fact it could hold a thousand (1,000) times the human population of today, so the "rational basis" is not very rational at all.

You say here that you want people to "survive" and yet the process you promote is through killing off babies by abortion, so our survival is to be based on their massive executions, and I certainly do not want us to "survive" by that horrible and inhuman means.

 

With modern birth control, the fact that abortions exist means far too many people are just dangerously irresponsible. Dangerous for the human fetus.

Probably the only way to get rid of abortions is by our mandatory health insurance inserting birth control implants in all females after the onset of menses. Then when they get ready for kids, they no longer get them. Then go back on them once they have as many kids as they want. Since it is the utter refusal to take responsibility for you own sexual behavior, if we want to protect unborn human lives, we now have the medical technology to do that.

Of course in order for this to happen is as a society we will have to have enough people that truly value human life. The problem today is, so few actually value any human life other than their own. Abortion for convenience, which is most of them, is no different than killing someone because they are an inconvenience to you.

 

I've heard that story about 7 billion people fitting into Texas with 1500 square feet per person. We're supposed to believe from that that there's plenty of room. Let's think about that for just a moment. Those figures don't allow any space for roads, public buildings, industry, retail, farming, public parks and recreation, schools, waste disposal. When we allow for those things we're gonna be spreading out a bit. Now each and every person requires ten acres of fertile land to provide for food and fiber. Just a little bit more than 1500 square feet per person, huh? The more densely populated areas of the earth already have a problem with waste disposal. Then there are resources. Some people believe that water shortages will soon cause a major problem, maybe we should ask Californians about that. Some people believe we have already reached peak oil production, and there's no substitute for petroleum (petroleum is needed to produce wind and solar equipment). Really and truly, that "no overpopulation myth" is promoted by right-wingers who believe it doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back soon to save the believers.

Abortion is not "killing off babies" nor "massive executions", but your hyper-emotionalism is noted. If you don't like abortions you could support free birth control and the education to use it in the short term, and in the long term support research for more reliable birth control. If you don't like abortion, you should definitely support it remaining a woman's choice, because it's for sure that a government powerful enough to prevent abortion is powerful enough to require it.

 

Well spoke!

I was getting really tired of the "let's all live happily in Texas" as "proof" that the earth is just fine....

But we are dealing with very Non-Science/Anti-Science posters who still think a fetus is a baby.......

 

I agree that money is a big important deciding factor, but being pregnant is a far more important human body function than the money.

When the parents' (both parents') decision about their unborn baby is based on their finances then that is an unfair and unjust and inhuman pressure to get an abortion instead of giving birth to their baby.

There is a famous (or infamous) saying that = "It takes a village to raise a child" - and the idea behind that is that the village must help and assist the two (2) parents in raising their children, as the new baby must not be viewed as separate from its parents or that the parents are separate from the village.

The way to help the children (the babies) is by helping the 2 parents, and that means the village must help with the money when the parents can not afford their own baby.

It is not that way here and now, and that means we are all guilty every time any abortion is performed based on any parent (any one parent) who can not afford it. When two parents can not afford the baby then our shared social guilt is doubled.

That is not accurate for what I said.

What I do say is that forcing parents into poverty for having their baby (for not getting an abortion) is an unjust punishment which is given by our immoral society.

And just because a new baby makes so the parent(s) have less money then that does not mean that they are truly "poorer" because the new baby can fill their house with love and affection which money can not buy.

I do not challenge everything that you say because for me this is not a competition and I am not really arguing with you.

As such a lot of the things you say are meaningless to me, or it is your belief / your opinion and that is cool with me.

You do seem to be sincere which I respect, even though you are still misguided and wrong about so much.

If you do not object to getting a piece of advice from me as I have done many online discussion boards - then you are making a mistake by trying to counter every line and sentence because it is petty, and instead you need to just jump on the important words and only challenge that which demands a challenge and always answer questions, because that way you can take far better control of the discussion.

 

Abortion is a right that people deserve, and that is coming from a Nazi. If you are going to have a child with down syndrome, go ahead and abort it (in fact, dont even think about it, you better abort it). If you were raped and dont want a child, go ahead and abort it. If you just want an abortion for the sake of it, that is kind of wrong. You cannot end abortions anyways because there are so many ways to self-terminate your unborn child, just punch your belly real hard. Anyways, that's my bit, ciao.

 

The fact that the safest and best methods of birth control are priced out of the reach of those who probably need it the most. Human error is one of the biggest factors in unintended pregnancies, if contraception like IUD's and hormonal implants were free at source there would be a huge decrease in unintended pregnancies and abortion.

That is all well and good for those with health insurance, what about those who don't have it, and why just women with the advance in Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG) men can be just as easily be rendered temporarily sterile, furthermore hormonal implants still have a typical failure rate of 0.05%, where as in tests so far RISUG has a 0% typical failure rate - http://www.newmalecontraception.org/risug/ and is easily reversible without any invasive surgery. Perhaps the answer lies in not using hormonal implants, that MAY have an effect on the female but to use RISUG on all males during puberty.

Rubbish, human life has only ever had the value another places upon it and even you fall into that category.
This "convenience" thing pro-lifers keep on about, just because you think it is "convenience" does not mean the woman making the decisions thinks it is convenient.

 

................................

It is wrong to paint abortion as if it is just about women.

The fathers count, the grandparents count, the entire society is effected, and our entire Country is involved.

The women / mother is assaulted, the baby is lost, and everyone concerned is damaged each time it happens.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

No one is painting it as just about women .. however in the end it is ONLY the woman who has the authority to make the final decision.

They do, to the point where the woman makes her decision, or are you advocating a man being able to force a woman to not have an abortion because if you are then the opposite is true as well, he can force to have an abortion.

nothing to do with them what so ever

rubbish, abortion has absolutely no effect on any one other than the woman and her partner/husband.

Only because people want to stick their noses into other peoples affairs.

rubbish, it is not assault if there is consent. There is no 'baby' lost, a fetus yes, not a 'baby' and no not everyone is damaged each time it happens, that is just a pro-life myth.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

 

Such melodrama! "Our entire Country is involved" as if our entire country will come crashing to a halt over an abortion! Abortions have been occurring in about the same numbers for hundreds of years in this country without causing a single missed beat. No doubt they will continue despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

1. this isn't as much a question for political belief as of effective law enforcement. Not really what people here generally care to discuss.
2. Irrelevant? IF we're going to further restrict abortion, it isn't because "it's icky", it's because we define it as murder. What does the state do to discover murder? Well really, the state generally acts on reports and evidence brought before them. It isn't like that state has officers walking the beat looking to spot murder.
3. No.
4. ^_- per the Constitution, that'd be up to the states.
5. Again, this isn't really a political opinion matter. How the state would distinguish? Uh, pretty sure there are ways to know.

 

I'll take no. 2 and 5

No. 2. Report of what? (NO Anti-Choicers has EVER been able to tell me what they would say to police when they suspected someone had an abortion....What would YOU say to convince police that a crime had been committed???)


Evidence of what?

Where's the "murdered" body?

How would a woman BE suspected of an abortion?


ALL women would have to be monitored weekly to see if they're pregnant and then checked by womb police to see if they stay pregnant?


HOW would the police know a woman had a miscarriage? Cameras in her bedroom and bathroom? In EVERY woman's bedroom and bathroom?



Oh, and number 3.....of course they'd be either be banned from leaving or banned from returning if they committed murder while "on vacation". They'd have to be banned from leaving or how else could women be controlled???

 

These are just silly questions. If you want to know how crimes are reported and investigated, there are many ways in which you can research that.

No.

OK, so when John Doe dies, how does the police know FoxHastings didn't kill him? Do the police go and arrest and interrogate everyone because a crime might have happened? No. Reasonable suspicion and presumption of innocence, Fox, phrases so integral to our justice system that most can readily recognize them.

basic principles of our legal system don't get tossed out anytime there is a change in our law. Have you seriously never heard of presumption of innocence? Again, I've already said this, IF abortion laws become more restrictive it's because we consider it to be murder. Would we tell any citizen of the U.S. they can't leave because they have the potential of killing an American abroad? of course not, that's positively absurd. However, if an American citizen killed an American citizen abroad and the U.S. government got wind of it, do you expect the U.S. government would just say, "well, didn't happen here, it's fine"?

 

None of my questions were answered.

When John Doe dies, there's a body.
Or if he disappears, that means they can't find him.
If he never existed (wasn't born) how can he be missed?

HOW does a person SUSPECT a woman had an abortion? By the look on her face??

WHAT do the police investigate?


Would any woman accused of an abortion have to undergo a medical exam? How else could she prove her innocence?


If abortion is illegal do women tell everyone they know and see that they had an abortion?


If abortion is legal in a foreign country then how would the US government become involved....NO American citizen was killed , (aborted). To be an American you have to be BORN.



These are not silly questions....certainly not silly to women who will become the targets of every psychotic busybody control freak, business rival, campaign opponent, and nasty mother-in-law or ex-husband....all of whom can just point a finger and make her life hell..........FOR NO REASON.

 

No, people here really want to know what measures the state would take in order to prosecute any abortions.

If "reports and evidence" is the essential matter for investigating a potential abortion, we want to know what constitutes "evidence" for a "report." Be specific.

Don't you think that would be a rather large loophole in the law? With Canada, Mexico City, Bermuda, and the Women on Waves ships anchored just offshore, most women would still be able to access safe abortions.

OK, but if that turns out to be a popular punishment, there's going to be a shortage of women.

Uh, pretty sure there is not. Medical personnel cannot distinguish between a medical abortion and a spontaneous abortion. Medical personnel cannot distinguish between a surgical abortion and a D&C done to clean up after a spontaneous abortion. That makes it a little more difficult to obtain that evidence you were talking about.

 

Well that's just factually inaccurate and anyone can go and check it.

If you can't handle the integral parts of a hypothetical, then this discussion isn't worth my time. Like I said, if a society makes abortion more restrictive it is because it decides that the 'life' starts earlier. As it stands, our society has determined that life starts at viability. Your outright denial of the existence of something leaves one wondering how you abort a non-existent thing. ^_-

Oh yes, police use facial expressions as the basis for reasonable suspicion all the time.

Same things they normally would. They investigate a crime through asking questions and seeking physical evidence when a warrant is issued.

As far as I know, a medical exam even a month later wouldn't be able to show the difference, it would have to be less than two weeks after the occurrence, and even then might not be too late. But no, people wildly accused wouldn't have to undergo a medical examination, just as the CIA won't come to a university and conduct interviews and do checks just because some students wildly says they're professor is working for "the Reds".

You mean if abortion is illegal will women be more open about it? Uh, did you really ask that?

Again, you're refusing to work within the realm of hypothetical - if that's the case, then you shouldn't even be discussing this issue.

actually, we already have laws and legal traditions that make that statement of yours inaccurate.

but really, the "for no reason" line?

 

If people want to know what would make for the most effective law enforcement, then I imagine a different forum than the "political forum" would be where they chose to go.

One such case is where a woman discusses having an abortion with someone. Much like if Jane Doe has a conversation with her friend in which she discusses plans to have an abortion and then a day late had a "miscarriage". That is reasonable grounds for suspicion. Evidence would include testimony under such unusual circumstances. Proof would include medical evidence (which as I mention, the usefulness of it mostly depends on when it is gathered and even then varies).

It wouldn't be as FoxHastings suggests, where someone is just accused and then that's that.

Is a "perfect murder" a loophole to the law against murder? ^_-

Considering that the death penalty isn't a popular punishment to begin with, I see no reason to believe that it'd become a popular for this.

No, there are matters which are different between the two cases that can be noticed, though largely circumstantial. Telling the difference isn't as easy as telling the difference between a missing arm and a present one, and there are times when it couldn't be determined. But again, there is that whole presumption of innocence thing in our system.