• 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!

What do you think will be the consequence to all these proposed abortion restricting bills?

Dittohead not! said:
Since it is illegal to use federal money to pay for an abortion, would it be legal to use that money to take care of the aborted fetus in such a future world?
Click to expand...
I suspect that if artificial wombs were able to sustain a fetus, it may be likely that states would democratically elect to sustain all aborted fetuses rather than kill them. I suspect they would also democratically elect to pay for all the abortions if they banned killing the fetus. The financial burden regarding the birth of a child or fetus should be upon the system choosing the circumstance.
And yes the states should care for all orphans and foster children. Certainly in a better manner than states currently care for orphans and foster children.
 
Pozessed said:
I suspect that if artificial wombs were able to sustain a fetus, it may be likely that states would democratically elect to sustain all aborted fetuses rather than kill them. I suspect they would also democratically elect to pay for all the abortions if they banned killing the fetus. The financial burden regarding the birth of a child or fetus should be upon the system choosing the circumstance.
And yes the states should care for all orphans and foster children. Certainly in a better manner than states currently care for orphans and foster children.
Click to expand...

I'm picturing rows of artificial wombs ala Brave New World.
 
bongsaway said:
The loss of even more women voters next election and no the supreme court will not overturn standing law.
Click to expand...

I agree. The white, democratic women who voted for trump in 2016, seeing now what damage can be done will not make the same mistake in 2020.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The religious fundamentalists have sold their soul by helping to elect a totally amoral man to the Whitehouse in hopes he would appoint enough "conservative," i.e. authoritarian, judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, they're starting to pass bills that are unconstitutional in light of that decision in hopes at least one of them will make its way to the SCOTUS so these new judges can usher in a whole new era of control over women's lives.

Whether they will succeed or not remains a question. They might. If they do, then the issue of abortion will be up to the states.

If that happens, then women with the means to do so will travel to other states to have abortions while the rest will bear children they don't want, possibly including the children of rapists.
Click to expand...

The last is one of the best reasons why the unborn will never be declared 'persons' legally. It would prevent women from going to another state for an abortion, something GA is attempting to criminalize as well.

How would that work, exactly? The pregnant woman could never return to the state? Ever? Or be arrested for murder? :roll: They might even try to prevent pregnant women from leaving the state or country! :doh

And there could not be any abortions due to rape or incest.

And then of course, we'd see how the govt was then legally taxed with protecting the life of the unborn monitoring women's drinking, eating, sports, etc.

Yeah, :roll:, and without personhood, there's no violating a woman's 4th Amendment right to 'security of the person.' How can a non-person be given precedent over that?
 
Pozessed said:
If there were successful artificial wombs that could sustain a fetus til viability I could see banning the killing of fetuses. But there would still be abortions, just not killing of the fetus after abortion. Until society could not sustain its economy by supporting all the orphans such measures would create.
Click to expand...

--We see that idea floated a lot but unless the woman consents to the procedure, it violates all the same Constitutional and civil rights.

--And then who would pay for the maintenance of the embryo/fetus? Taxpayers?

--What if it wasnt perfect when born? What if it wasnt adopted? We already have 400,000 kids in foster care now, 100,000 in America available for adoption. Who's paying for their upkeep? Taxpayers again? For more unwanted/unaffordable kids?​

I think it would be great technology for parents who were unable to biologically have kids tho.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Next, the law of unintended consequences will appear.

As it is, in Georgia, every miscarriage (about 10% of all pregnancies) can now be investigated as a homicide. This will result in women who are bleeding or going into toxic shock not seeking medical treatment for fear they will be accused of doing something to "cause" the situation. It will result in doctors refusing to manage high-risk pregnancies for the same reason. The end result will be an increase infant and mother mortality.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Roe v Wade will not be overturned. The GOP will see to that. There are just too many "single issue" voters at stake. Make that issue go away and many of those voters go away as well. It is a wedge issue that drives political rhetoric and voter turnout. Can't risk losing that issue.

Next, the law of unintended consequences will appear.

As it is, in Georgia, every miscarriage (about 10% of all pregnancies) can now be investigated as a homicide. This will result in women who are bleeding or going into toxic shock not seeking medical treatment for fear they will be accused of doing something to "cause" the situation. It will result in doctors refusing to manage high-risk pregnancies for the same reason. The end result will be an increase infant and mother mortality.
Click to expand...

And they'll be very busy! I guess Georgians wont mind paying for all that new bureaucracy, eh?
2/3rds embryos don’t survive

Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.
Click to expand...

Since 97.5% of all abortions are early term as well, consisting of a pea-sized or smaller unborn being flushed painlessly from the womb, doesnt it seem ludicrous for women to be subjected to such Dark Ages mentality and methods...having to sacrifice health and job and ability to meeting their other responsibilities to family and community...when 2/3s will self-destruct naturally anyway? :doh

Meh, pregnant women who dont want to be pregnant will just not tell anyone, take over the counter tests, leave the state, and come back. Or...what other draconian measures to track women do you think a state like GA will come up with? (They did include leaving the state for an abortion as a felony).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Where does this right to have an elective medical procedure funded by the state come from?
Click to expand...

And then continue to pay to maintain it? In the artificial womb and til 18?

Jeez louise.

Gonna be a very expensive proposition, esp. since they'll still be supporting all the frozen embryos abandoned and yet unable to be disposed of...forever.
 
Pozessed said:
I suspect that if artificial wombs were able to sustain a fetus, it may be likely that states would democratically elect to sustain all aborted fetuses rather than kill them. I suspect they would also democratically elect to pay for all the abortions if they banned killing the fetus. The financial burden regarding the birth of a child or fetus should be upon the system choosing the circumstance.
And yes the states should care for all orphans and foster children. Certainly in a better manner than states currently care for orphans and foster children.
Click to expand...

You do know there are about 600,000 abortions/yr, right? That's about 12,000 per state per year that have to be maintained and then enter the foster care system, already on the taxpayer's dime.

What do you think the state's interest is in doing that? What's the justification for the added expense...is it only laws forbidding abortion?
 
Lursa said:
The last is one of the best reasons why the unborn will never be declared 'persons' legally. It would prevent women from going to another state for an abortion, something GA is attempting to criminalize as well.

How would that work, exactly? The pregnant woman could never return to the state? Ever? Or be arrested for murder? :roll: They might even try to prevent pregnant women from leaving the state or country! :doh

And there could not be any abortions due to rape or incest.

And then of course, we'd see how the govt was then legally taxed with protecting the life of the unborn monitoring women's drinking, eating, sports, etc.

Yeah, :roll:, and without personhood, there's no violating a woman's 4th Amendment right to 'security of the person.' How can a non-person be given precedent over that?
Click to expand...

Clearly, if a fetus is a "person," then it has the same rights as any other person, and aborting ("killing") a fetus could not ever be legalized.

No state could make it legal to kill a person, even if that person were the result of rape or incest. No one would say it's OK to kill a toddler, an infant, an adult, a teen, or anyone for being the result of rape. That's not the fault of the person, after all.

No, a fetus is not a person. A fetus is a potential human life, and ending that potential is a terrible life changing decision, but it is a decision best made by the prospective mother and not by a court. Certainly not by an authoritarian politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom