The Math Quiz

tecoyah · Mar 28, 2007

OK, lets start with a hypothetical assumption:

The year is 2010, Abortion is Illegal, and the Laws are strictly enforced.

Currently there is a slight deifference in the numbers for dealing with the influx of Humans awaiting families;

"In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994)
New York

104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. (Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

Adoption Statistics: Numbers & Trends

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"

They issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance.

talloulou · Mar 28, 2007

tecoyah said:
OK, lets start with a hypothetical assumption:

The year is 2010, Abortion is Illegal, and the Laws are strictly enforced.

Currently there is a slight deifference in the numbers for dealing with the influx of Humans awaiting families;

"In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994)
New York

104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. (Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

Adoption Statistics: Numbers & Trends

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"

They issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance.

Make birth control much much cheaper and sell it over the counter like aspirin. If abortion were illegal but birth control was fairly cheap and easy to get you'd see much less unwanted pregnancies. The stuff works really well. You just have to be consistent about taking it. If it's cheap and over the counter then really women have no excuse for not using it.

Felicity · Mar 28, 2007

tecoyah said:
OK, lets start with a hypothetical assumption:

The year is 2010, Abortion is Illegal, and the Laws are strictly enforced.

Currently there is a slight deifference in the numbers for dealing with the influx of Humans awaiting families;

"In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994)
New York

104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. (Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

Adoption Statistics: Numbers & Trends

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"

They issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance.

This position begs the question. If one can be a "potential" poor, than one can be a "potential" human being, and the question of human rights must be adressed before one can justify the extermination of the potential poor.

jallman · Mar 28, 2007

Felicity said:
This position begs the question. If one can be a "potential" poor, than one can be a "potential" human being, and the question of human rights must be adressed before one can justify the extermination of the potential poor.

I'm not quite sure I follow...when did "potential" become a protected status?

Felicity · Mar 28, 2007

jallman said:
I'm not quite sure I follow...when did "potential" become a protected status?

If it is the fear of potential poor that can lead to their extermination, the "poverty" part of the equasion can only be dealt with after the "humanity" part is dealt with since one must be an individual human person, to be a person suffering from poverty.

jallman · Mar 28, 2007

Felicity said:
If it is the fear of potential poor that can lead to their extermination, the "poverty" part of the equasion can only be dealt with after the "humanity" part is dealt with since one must be an individual human person, to be a person suffering from poverty.

Okay, I understand now. Very good point.

tecoyah · Mar 28, 2007

talloulou said:
Make birth control much much cheaper and sell it over the counter like aspirin. If abortion were illegal but birth control was fairly cheap and easy to get you'd see much less unwanted pregnancies. The stuff works really well. You just have to be consistent about taking it. If it's cheap and over the counter then really women have no excuse for not using it.

This is likely one of the only viable solutions to the issue.....unless someone has a better Idea?

Sergeant Stinger1 · Mar 29, 2007

talloulou said:
Make birth control much much cheaper and sell it over the counter like aspirin. If abortion were illegal but birth control was fairly cheap and easy to get you'd see much less unwanted pregnancies. The stuff works really well. You just have to be consistent about taking it. If it's cheap and over the counter then really women have no excuse for not using it.

_________
Why are you blaming the women for not using any protection?
"the stuff works very well." So does men protection. Its a 50-50 blame, not just on women.

Sergeant Stinger1 · Mar 29, 2007

tecoyah said:
This is likely one of the only viable solutions to the issue.....unless someone has a better Idea?

________
I just do not get it! "This is likely one of the only viable solutions"
How about men using protection instead of "cut and running" every time he gets the girl-woman pregnant?

tecoyah · Mar 29, 2007

Sergeant Stinger1 said:
________
I just do not get it! "This is likely one of the only viable solutions"
How about men using protection instead of "cut and running" every time he gets the girl-woman pregnant?

Um....I dont think SHE said anywhere, that birth control is just for women. Why is it that the very people who would celebrate the scenario I listed in the OP, are the ones tearing apart the only posted solution (albeit poorly), and are not addressing the issue at all?

Relax Grasshopper

talloulou · Mar 29, 2007

Sergeant Stinger1 said:
_________
Why are you blaming the women for not using any protection?
"the stuff works very well." So does men protection. Its a 50-50 blame, not just on women.

Bith control pills when taken correctly actually work better than condoms. B.C. pills can't rip. However since they don't protect from any STD's it would be beneficial to use both. If women are on the pill and men are using condoms the chance of an unwanted pregnancy becomes next to nil.

Now as to the rest of your post I'm seriously confused. How is providing the pill at a cheaper rate over the counter "blaming" women? It would give them more control over their reproductive lives without cost and accessibility being a huge burden. You see that as some form of punishment? You see "blame" in that? :roll:

Jerry · Mar 29, 2007

tecoyah said:
OK, lets start with a hypothetical assumption:

The year is 2010, Abortion is Illegal, and the Laws are strictly enforced.

Currently there is a slight deifference in the numbers for dealing with the influx of Humans awaiting families;

"In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994)
New York

104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. (Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

Adoption Statistics: Numbers & Trends

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"

They issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance.

Your numbers address abortion and children in the system, but not how many families can take these children in. You will need to address that in order to find a practical solution.

The key to such a plan is in enabling families to be financially and psychologically capable of adopting children, and then rewarding families that do.

IMO the best rewards come in the form of tax brakes, specifically the child care tax credit and various property taxes. Offer lower interest rates for adopting families who buy a bigger home for their expanding family.

Also, lack of financial benefits and even financial penalties for creating more then 1 or 2 children is not out of the question.

In a society which chooses to be Capitalist, our solutions to these problems must be Capitalistic.

tecoyah · Mar 29, 2007

Jerry said:
Your numbers address abortion and children in the system, but not how many families can take these children in. You will need to address that in order to find a practical solution.

The key to such a plan is in enabling families to be financially and psychologically capable of adopting children, and then rewarding families that do.

IMO the best rewards come in the form of tax brakes, specifically the child care tax credit and various property taxes. Offer lower interest rates for adopting families who buy a bigger home for their expanding family.

Also, lack of financial benefits and even financial penalties for creating more then 1 or 2 children is not out of the question.

In a society which chooses to be Capitalist, our solutions to these problems must be Capitalistic.

Good Call......and likely helpful to anl extent. But, the likelyhood of creating another million willing families is somewhat slim.

A piece of the puzzle, but not a solution.

Jerry · Mar 29, 2007

tecoyah said:
Good Call......and likely helpful to anl extent. But, the likelyhood of creating another million willing families is somewhat slim.

A piece of the puzzle, but not a solution.

Sure.

I think we can all agree that 2 other important pieces of this puzzle are 1. not creating unwanted pregnancies in the first place and 2. taking care of your self and your children so that they don't end up in the system to need to be adopted.

tecoyah · Mar 30, 2007

Jerry said:
Sure.

I think we can all agree that 2 other important pieces of this puzzle are 1. not creating unwanted pregnancies in the first place and 2. taking care of your self and your children so that they don't end up in the system to need to be adopted.

100% agreed. Birth control,and education would be important regardless of the legality of abortion.

Jerry · Mar 30, 2007

tecoyah said:
100% agreed. Birth control,and education would be important regardless of the legality of abortion.

You know, I think virtually everyone of every political persuasion agrees on 90+% of the solution, but we spend more of our time quibbling over the details.

gullivers travails · Mar 31, 2007

tecoyah said:
The issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance.

In the U.S.A., the number of 'unwanted children entering the system' is miniscule compared to other less economically sound parts of the world. That number(?) probably defies implementation of any plan to help those. It boils down, then, to survival of the fittest!

tecoyah · Apr 1, 2007

gullivers travails said:
In the U.S.A., the number of 'unwanted children entering the system' is miniscule compared to other less economically sound parts of the world. That number(?) probably defies implementation of any plan to help those. It boils down, then, to survival of the fittest!

The premis in this thread is a hypothetical examination of the resulting influx of these "unwanted" children in the aftermath of a change in abortion laws. While we currently do not see a huge excess of children in the system, we likely would if abortion were outlawed.....thus the OP asked:

"
The issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance."

Using the past decades as a template for these numbers....I suppose 1 million per year is a close approximation to the actual hypothetical number.

Felicity · Apr 1, 2007

The premise is faulty. Not only does it "beg the question" that is at the heart of the abortion debate (the "personhood" of the ZEF), but it also assumes no "pre-policy change" education, preperation, incentives, etc. and it ignores that after initial rise in population that would likely occur, that the numbers could just as likely as not level off, or even decrease, from current levels.

This type of speculation is aimed to frighten people. It is entirely an emotional appeal to maintain the status-quo, and it is based on encouraging fear rather than good sense.:roll:

tecoyah · Apr 1, 2007

Felicity said:
The premise is faulty. Not only does it "beg the question" that is at the heart of the abortion debate (the "personhood" of the ZEF), but it also assumes no "pre-policy change" education, preperation, incentives, etc. and it ignores that after initial rise in population that would likely occur, that the numbers could just as likely as not level off, or even decrease, from current levels.

This type of speculation is aimed to frighten people. It is entirely an emotional appeal to maintain the status-quo, and it is based on encouraging fear rather than good sense.:roll:

No, actually it is meant to create a debate on a subject of Importance,and hopefully come up with solutions to a possiblly serious situation. It was framed as a hypothetical, to avoid the negativity you have instilled, in favor of actual discussion on the topic. If you intend to derail this thread, just state that intent ahead of time, or avoid the temptation to type.
At no point in this thread has the issue of personhood come into play,and I would prefer it did not. The scenario removes the ethical question completely by stating abortion is already illegal. We are all aware you love to discuss the ethics of this issue, and there are many threads awaiting your input. This one however does not deal with such things.

Felicity · Apr 1, 2007

tecoyah said:
No, actually it is meant to create a debate on a subject of Importance,and hopefully come up with solutions to a possiblly serious situation. It was framed as a hypothetical, to avoid the negativity you have instilled, in favor of actual discussion on the topic. If you intend to derail this thread, just state that intent ahead of time, or avoid the temptation to type.

It is entirely appropriate to point out the flaw in the hypothetical to get to the logical part of the debate, rather than mire in emotional scare tactics. If there is a genuine desire to find "solutions", you ought to discuss the hypotetical policy issues that could be instituted prior to the initial influx of of born children rather than tie the hands of debaters with the flawed premise. Characterizing logic as "negativity" further demonstrates your emotional appeal just as your suggestion that my "intent" is to derail the thread. But I forget that you and your ilk are "mind-readers"...:roll: been there...done that...:doh

At no point in this thread has the issue of personhood come into play,and I would prefer it did not.

Because (as noted at the beginning of this thread) it is an "inconvenient truth" that this entire line of reasoning that you present BEGS THE QUESTION of "personhood."

The scenario removes the ethical question completely by stating abortion is already illegal. We are all aware you love to discuss the ethics of this issue, and there are many threads awaiting your input. This one however does not deal with such things.

As you stated....
"
The issue here is how to deal with the unwanted children entering the system. I request any plans we can come up with to save these children from a lonely, uncared for existance."

...does that not imply an ethical basis for your lame premise? :doh

tecoyah · Apr 1, 2007

....OK....derail away. Might as well let this turn into a duplicate of the other 20 threads already in place.

It's all yours

Felicity · Apr 1, 2007

tecoyah said:
....OK....derail away. Might as well let this turn into a duplicate of the other 20 threads already in place.

It's all yours

Do you not care that your arguments have a logical foundation that is sustainable, or would you rather intellectually masterbate on your pre-determined course that will assure a conclusion you have already come to while encouraging others to ignore other possibilities? That is not only appealing to emotion rather than logic, it is also intellectually dishonest "debate"--(and I use the term "debate" very lightly in this instance).

Felicity · Apr 1, 2007

tecoyah said:
....OK....derail away. Might as well let this turn into a duplicate of the other 20 threads already in place.

It's all yours

BTW--you can run away and pout now if you like....:roll:

gullivers travails · Apr 1, 2007

First things first........

It might well be debatable, but I have long been impressed by 'studies' which claim that our Earth and its resources equate to about 2 billion living humans.

If so, then what should be done with the excess of 4.5 billion living humans?

And, another 'stat study' has shown that if there had been no abortion in the 20th century, the Earth's population would now be close of 50 billion humans.

Thereby, it would appear that 'dealing' with excess population should be at the top of the 'scale' - eclipsing all other priorities.

The Math Quiz

tecoyah

Illusionary

talloulou

Felicity

jallman

Felicity

jallman

tecoyah

Illusionary

Sergeant Stinger1

Sergeant Stinger1

tecoyah

Illusionary

talloulou

Jerry

tecoyah

Illusionary

Jerry

tecoyah

Illusionary

Jerry

gullivers travails

New member

tecoyah

Illusionary

Felicity

tecoyah

Illusionary

Felicity

tecoyah

Illusionary

Felicity

Felicity

gullivers travails

New member

The Math Quiz

Illusionary

Illusionary

Illusionary

Illusionary

Illusionary

New member

Illusionary

Illusionary

Illusionary

New member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency