What is your plan for dealing with 800,000 children each year if you ban abortion?

[weaver2]

If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?

 

[Rexedgar]

Pro-lifers are only pro-life for those that have yet to draw breath, once you suck that first lung-full, you are on your own........

 

[weaver2]

Pro-lifers are only pro-life for those that have yet to draw breath, once you suck that first lung-full, you are on your own........

I agree with you that seems to be their plan, but when the reality of 800,000 extra children every year (8,000,000 in ten years) shows up in the real world needing services, programs, education, medical attention, housing someone is going to have to come up with a plan to deal with these needs. The reality that a 20% increase in births every year is so enormous it will not simply be absorbed into the general population doesn't seem to have sunk in to the conservative mind, yet.

 

[soylentgreen]

If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?

They will do what christians have always done with those born in sin.
Scandal of cesspit babies: Bodies of 800 kids were thrown in a sewage tank by nuns - NZ Herald

 

[weaver2]

They will do what christians have always done with those born in sin.
Scandal of cesspit babies: Bodies of 800 kids were thrown in a sewage tank by nuns - NZ Herald

There are stories like this from Ireland and Quebec.

 

[Lursa]

OP question is good, would be interesting to see pro-life people respond.

It does illustrate a point I often make: that there are no negative consequences from abortion on society. At least, no one's ever been able to list any when requested.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Triton]

Eat them.

 

[Lursa]

Eat them.

"Soylent green is people!"

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Triton]

"Soylent green is people!"

Babies aren't people, but fetuses are.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Pro-lifers are only pro-life for those that have yet to draw breath, once you suck that first lung-full, you are on your own........

This is why I usually call them "anti-choicers" instead. If they were really pro-life,. all of their arguments would be about end of 9 months, not the beginning.

 

[Lursa]

Babies aren't people, but fetuses are.

Wow, you might be the most literal person to post here. Ever. :roll:

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Josie]

This is why I usually call them "anti-choicers" instead. If they were really pro-life,. all of their arguments would be about end of 9 months, not the beginning.

That doesn't make sense. Life begins at conception so why would a pro-life argument begin 9 months later?

 

[mike2810]

First off. I support a woman's right to have an abortion.

That said, If abortions were banned the US should first hold the mating couple accountable for producing an "unwanted" child. There are proven methods to reduce the risk of the female becoming pregnant. If the couple gives up the child, they should be held financially accountable for that child till it is adopted by some other person.

 

[Lursa]

First off. I support a woman's right to have an abortion.

That said, If abortions were banned the US should first hold the mating couple accountable for producing an "unwanted" child. There are proven methods to reduce the risk of the female becoming pregnant. If the couple gives up the child, they should be held financially accountable for that child till it is adopted by some other person.

I'm all for that. Equally for any child. But one of the primary reasons women/couples choose abortion is financial.

Creating more stressed, economically-challenged homes in unsafe neighborhoods with parents who end up underemployed harms society overall. Esp. if their kids are then also neglected due to those stresses or lack of resources.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That doesn't make sense. Life begins at conception so why would a pro-life argument begin 9 months later?

If you are really "pro-life" your desire to keep that zygote alive until it becomes a baby would extend to having a healthy, happy, well-cared for child with none of the problems that go with the mom never wanting him/her. There is no good reason to want any offspring to live from conception to birth, only to then not care what happens to him/her indefinitely after the umbilical cord is cut.

 

[Josie]

If you are really "pro-life" your desire to keep that zygote alive until it becomes a baby would extend to having a healthy, happy, well-cared for child with none of the problems that go with the mom never wanting him/her. There is no good reason to want any offspring to live from conception to birth, only to then not care what happens to him/her indefinitely after the umbilical cord is cut.

True. But you said that the pro-life argument would be about the end of the 9 months which makes no sense. It would start at conception and be ongoing throughout their childhood.

 

[prometeus]

what kind of solution do you propose

We don't need no stinking solution, let them live and God will sort it out.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

True. But you said that the pro-life argument would be about the end of the 9 months which makes no sense. It would start at conception and be ongoing throughout their childhood.

What I meant was if people are really "pro-life" they care about the entirety of the child's life, not just the nine months before he/she is born. Instead, most people who call themselves pro-lifers accuser women of being irresponsible (even if that is not true) and hate thinking about the probability of unwanted babies having bad lives - no homes, childcare, education, healthcare, etc. Anti-choice is more accurate than pro-life for those people.

By the way, most zygotes do not become babies. Do you mourn the deaths of zygotes that never implant on the uterine wall or the blastocysts that do not convert to embryos? What about the embryos that were only a lot of stem cells? The beginning is when most offspring die, and most of the time, their death is natural. Anti-choicers love to grossly overestimate the chances of a zygote becoming a baby all the time.

 

[weaver2]

Eat them.

 

[Josie]

What I meant was if people are really "pro-life" they care about the entirety of the child's life, not just the nine months before he/she is born. Instead, most people who call themselves pro-lifers accuser women of being irresponsible (even if that is not true) and hate thinking about the probability of unwanted babies having bad lives - no homes, childcare, education, healthcare, etc. Anti-choice is more accurate than pro-life for those people.

I know that's probably what you meant, but you said the argument should be about the end of the 9 months instead of the entire life of the child.

By the way, most zygotes do not become babies. Do you mourn the deaths of zygotes that never implant on the uterine wall or the blastocysts that do not convert to embryos? What about the embryos that were only a lot of stem cells? The beginning is when most offspring die, and most of the time, their death is natural. Anti-choicers love to grossly overestimate the chances of a zygote becoming a baby all the time.

Life begins at conception, BD. You know I believe this so I don't know why you're asking me these questions you already know the answer to.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I know that's probably what you meant, but you said the argument should be about the end of the 9 months instead of the entire life of the child.

No, I said the end of nine months and indefinitely after birth instead of the beginning of those nine months.

Life begins at conception, BD. You know I believe this so I don't know why you're asking me these questions you already know the answer to.

I was explaining why "life begins at conception" is really not important to pro-choicers. If every zygote became a baby, you would have a point. But 2/3 of unborn humans that are not aborted artificially die naturally.

 

[Bodecea]

Pro-lifers are only pro-life for those that have yet to draw breath, once you suck that first lung-full, you are on your own........

That's how it works with them.

 

[Josie]

No, I said the end of nine months and indefinitely after birth instead of the beginning of those nine months.

Yes, I know. Which is what didn't make sense. A "true pro-lifer's" argument would be from conception until the end of childhood.

I was explaining why "life begins at conception" is really not important to pro-choicers. If every zygote became a baby, you would have a point. But 2/3 of unborn humans that are not aborted artificially die naturally.

Yes, I know that it's not important to pro-choicers. We were talking about pro-lifers, though....

 

[Josie]

Pro-lifers are only pro-life for those that have yet to draw breath, once you suck that first lung-full, you are on your own........

That's how it works with them.

For some. Not for all of us.

 

[Atreus21]

If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?

Well, we certainly wouldn't kill them. So that's a start.