• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Possible solution?

JLee1977 said:
I am probably the only conservative who believes this issue is between a woman, and her doctor! If lawmakers ban a medical way of doing them, the women who want to have one will find away to have to performed. I am pretty confident that no one anywhere can recall when they were a fetus growing in there mothers womb, there for I can't buy into the argument that life, or consciousness as I know it now begins at conception.
Click to expand...

LOL Welcome to the forum.

And please see my signature.
 
Sorry Soylent Green, the thread got off on a couple of tangents. And perhaps newcomer JLee1977 would also like to discuss the OP "solution." (Altho I suggest reading ahead a few pages in the beginning of the thread first.)
Kal'Stang said:
I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.

So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.

First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.

I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
soylentgreen said:
Nice, but simplistic.

While you dwell on the how you have neglcted the why.

For which i will bring up one example, religion and male dominance. A religion that demands a woman must be wed or bring shame by giving birth to a bastard. In the same society where religious men encourage their boys to have sex before mariage while demanding their women remain virgins before marriage.

While a women is left in a position of either getting an abortion or becoming an outcast bringing shame to herself and family or being forced into an nante marriage.

You assume rights are the only issue here as to why abortion wold happen or it is just about a child being born. You do not understan that abortion ios about male domination through artifices such as religion.
Click to expand...
 
LesGovt said:
Define commonplace. Were there a million or more abortions per year?
Click to expand...

During the early 1930’s there were over 800,000 a year in theUS.

In 2014 the CDC reported about 700,000 abortions that year despite the fact the population has doubledsince then.
 
JLee1977 said:
I can't buy into the argument that life, or consciousness as I know it now begins at conception.
Click to expand...
AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE MOST CERTAINLY BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. Consciousness, however, is something else altogether. To the extent it includes simple awareness, many life-forms have that much brainpower --look into the non-faceted eyes of a praying mantis (an insect), and see for yourself. A vast variety of life-forms need to become aware of prey or predators, to survive. But to the extent that consciousness includes self-awareness, this is something that can be tested-for. Many ordinary animals, like house-cats, cannot pass this simple test for self-awareness --they simply don't have enough brainpower for it-- and humans cannot pass that test until about 18 months after birth.
 
minnie616 said:
During the early 1930’s there were over 800,000 a year in theUS.

In 2014 the CDC reported about 700,000 abortions that year despite the fact the population has doubledsince then.
Click to expand...

COnsidering that the population of the US was less than 150 million at the time....it makes that number more remarkable.
 
minnie616 said:
During the early 1930’s there were over 800,000 a year in theUS.

In 2014 the CDC reported about 700,000 abortions that year despite the fact the population has doubledsince then.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that a lot of extrapolation was done to get to that number from the 1930s.
 
As a Conservative I don't want Government involved in my life at ALL! They should protect our borders secure our Nation, provide good roads, water, electricity, and Emergency Staff IE: Fire, Police, EMT etc...


As for telling me how many guns I can have, how big of a Soda I can buy, or whether of not a woman and man want to take on the responsibility of a child. They have NO RIGHT!


Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, nowhere does it state the Government has to agree with your choices.... Personally I don't like abortion its wrong, but I will fight to support your rights to it. I'm a Conservative but not a far right guy. For all the people hooting and hollering for the children, well their are currently 1000s of kids all over the Country / World in foster homes, orphanages, or worse homeless.... Get off your hypocritical butt and adopt the, you can't sit idly by telling people Abortion is wrong but not deal with the problem that many kids are unwanted and left to fair for themselves after they're born!


Same people shout for Socialism, yet they don't go share what they own or hav with others do they... Socialism is great for everyone elses stuff just not yours right?
 
Marco Montana said:
As a Conservative I don't want Government involved in my life at ALL! They should protect our borders secure our Nation, provide good roads, water, electricity, and Emergency Staff IE: Fire, Police, EMT etc...


As for telling me how many guns I can have, how big of a Soda I can buy, or whether of not a woman and man want to take on the responsibility of a child. They have NO RIGHT!


Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, nowhere does it state the Government has to agree with your choices.... Personally I don't like abortion its wrong, but I will fight to support your rights to it. I'm a Conservative but not a far right guy. For all the people hooting and hollering for the children, well their are currently 1000s of kids all over the Country / World in foster homes, orphanages, or worse homeless.... Get off your hypocritical butt and adopt the, you can't sit idly by telling people Abortion is wrong but not deal with the problem that many kids are unwanted and left to fair for themselves after they're born!


Same people shout for Socialism, yet they don't go share what they own or hav with others do they... Socialism is great for everyone elses stuff just not yours right?
Click to expand...

I too am a conservative and I agree with you, but only on part of your statement. I will not take it up here as that is moving away from the intent of this thread. I only suggest that you review the history at the time of the founding of our Republic (and for many years after) and you can find where laws were proposed regarding similar matters and with some of the laws that existed at that time.
 
Ah..I liked the bold in the post you quoted: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

LesGovt said:
I too am a conservative and I agree with you, but only on part of your statement. I will not take it up here as that is moving away from the intent of this thread. I only suggest that you review the history at the time of the founding of our Republic (and for many years after) and you can find where laws were proposed regarding similar matters and with some of the laws that existed at that time.
Click to expand...

Btw, when you choose to deny women abortion, you would deny them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To prevent women from getting abortions, to force women to remain pregnant, such laws needed to do so would end up denying us liberty.

To deny women abortions is to deny us the pursuit of happiness.

To deny women abortions can even take their lives (or ruin their health). (Remember, 86,700/yr in the US...something you never even acknowledged in discussion, as if those women and their loved ones dont matter)

But that's all ok with you correct? As long as you decide the unborn deserve those things more?
 
Removable Mind said:
More than interesting. Great information. Too bad most of it would be smirked at by pro-life advocates.
Click to expand...

When you look at why 100s of thousands of women had abortions during the Great Depression....it flies in the face of their oft repeated "convenience" narrative.
 
year2late said:
When you look at why 100s of thousands of women had abortions during the Great Depression....it flies in the face of their oft repeated "convenience" narrative.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I opine that....

The driving arguments by pro-life (whether they admit it or not), in the majority of cases, conception is a holy event not to be intervened in by humans, especially women. Their wombs are like holy grails. Some believe that the fetus must survive at the cost of the life of women because women apparently lose their “holy status” at some point after birth.

No pro-life advocate has yet shown how it’s possible to value the life of an embryo equal to or over born persons, but more in particular women who host their presence.

There is so many ways human life is extinguished after birth (at all possible aged) - and at the hands of humans.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.

So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.

First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.

I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

And who is going to pay for the vat raised embryo when it becomes a child? Where's the kid going to live? Your house?
 
jet57 said:
And who is going to pay for the vat raised embryo when it becomes a child? Where's the kid going to live? Your house?
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan will figure out a way to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid to pay for such a procedure and storage. Anything for the yet to born. For those who don’t want government to force them to have such a procedure, Ryan is more than willing to have women put in institutions until they give birth. Payment for that will be from the same sources previously mentioned.
 
year2late said:
When you look at why 100s of thousands of women had abortions during the Great Depression....it flies in the face of their oft repeated "convenience" narrative.
Click to expand...

Food and shelter are conveniences...where ya been? :roll:
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm of two minds about abortion. Always have been. On one side, the personal side, I do not like abortions. Glad as hell that my wife never had one and if she got pregnant again I would hope to hell that she didn't have one even knowing that she does not want another child. On the other side, the political side, I am pro-choice because I feel that women have a right to privacy in all things medical. I also do not believe in forcing people to do things to their bodies that they do not want to do. That is just as bad as slavery or rape in my book.

So after thinking about it for a long while I think I may have come up with a solution. One that doesn't seem to be talked about all that much, if at all. If I were President, or someone that could get a bill/act passed through congress/senate this is what I would propose be done.

First, keep abortion legal. But I would also encourage and fund technology that would advance the ability to take an embryo just conceived and raise it in a vat until maturity and then put the child up for adoption. Once such technology is achieved then I would make abortion illegal in the sense of killing the ZEF, but make it legal to transfer that ZEF into a vat. Once transferred that woman no longer has any responsibility what so ever for that child. (except of course where normal taxation occurs) It would essentially be "aborted" for that woman, yet it would also still save that child.

I suggest the above because I know that abortion as we know it will never end and will never be fully made illegal. Not in our society which has such a strong affinity for Rights. And even if it were to somehow be made illegal it would not stop abortion. This to me is the best solution that will ever be made when it comes to abortion.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It is reminiscent of those who said we didn't need to worry about abolishing slavery, because slavery would naturally peter out in the industrial revolution.
 
cpwill said:
It is reminiscent of those who said we didn't need to worry about abolishing slavery, because slavery would naturally peter out in the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

It is reminiscent of a day when people could be pragmatic.

Tossing to the side nonsensical vanity projects and looking for common sense solutions that could really work,

In this case...of course performing a major procedure or surgery to remove an embryo or fetus and place it in an artificial womb and an amazing cost and risk to the person who undergoes the procedure as a replacement for abortion is a nonsensical vanity project.

The do-able pragmatic approach to decreasing abortions is to decrease the unwanted pregnancies - either by improvement of safety, availability and accessibility of long term birth control options or showing the pregnant woman how she can actually provide for a stable healthy home for her child if she gives birth.
 
cpwill said:
It is reminiscent of those who said we didn't need to worry about abolishing slavery, because slavery would naturally peter out in the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

Slavery was about the economics of an entire nation. Period.
 
Removable Mind said:
Slavery was about the economics of an entire nation. Period.
Click to expand...
Sure - people argued that slavery was acceptable because it benefited slave owners.

But slavery wasn't wrong because we industrialized. It was wrong because it violated the deepest rights of entire classes of human beings.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Sure - people argued that slavery was acceptable because it benefited slave owners.

But slavery wasn't wrong because we industrialized. It was wrong because it violated the deepest rights of entire classes of human beings.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I’ve never advocated that using any population/race/gender for involuntary servitude is acceptable. In case you don’t know, there’s more slavery, which exists today, than in any other time in history.

The reason for forcing people into involuntary servitude is always for the same reason.

Involuntary servitude and abortion don’t equate. That’s why the slavery will always be called a false equivalency when used in the abortion arguments.

And if you believe that embryos and early stage fetuses, the stages in which most abortions are performed, are victims of having their deepest rights violated. I do and will always adamantly disagree.

If anything, if women were forced into prenatal expenses, gestation for nine months, the physical labor and cost of giving birth, postnatal expenses, and the cost of raising a child until young adulthood is clearly “involuntary servitude”. Now we have a true equivalency.
 
cpwill said:
Sure - people argued that slavery was acceptable because it benefited slave owners.

But slavery wasn't wrong because we industrialized. It was wrong because it violated the deepest rights of entire classes of human beings.
Click to expand...

It's just as wrong to violate the deepest rights of one class of human beings by superseding them to accord those same deepest rights to another class (we'll use your term here).

Then it comes down to value: which do you value more? Because they cannot be treated equally under the law nor, in my opinion, ethically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom