Abortion Thread with a Twist

[Ben Kenobi]

1)How do you provide for the additional hundreds of thousands of babies each year, many of whom are born addicted to drugs or who have serious physical or physiological defects?

How do I provide for these children. Am I responsible for the birth of children I did not conceive? Their parents should provide for them, and if the parents are unable then society should provide for their welfare.

2)How do you support the hundreds of thousands of single mothers, who are suddenly unable to work, and many of whom are unable to rely on the support of their families?

Where's the father? The father should provide for his child and the mother of his child.

3)What about the thousands of babies that will simply be abandoned?

There used to be a place by the nunnery by which one could leave a child. I wouldn't see a problem if the Church were willing to do the same now.

4)How do you combat the unsanitary and unsafe underground abortion network? Coat hangers in alleys would no longer be a joke, so much as it would be a fair approximation of reality.

How does one combat the unsanitary and unsafe legal abortion network? I don't see much difference between the two to be honest. Shut them down and arrest the practicioners.

[David Floyd]

How do I provide for these children. Am I responsible for the birth of children I did not conceive? Their parents should provide for them, and if the parents are unable then society should provide for their welfare.

So, large increases in social services spending, then? Thought you were against that?

Where's the father? The father should provide for his child and the mother of his child.

Sounds nice, in fairy land. The reality is, deadbeat dads are a very real problem, especially amongst the demographic we are describing.

There used to be a place by the nunnery by which one could leave a child. I wouldn't see a problem if the Church were willing to do the same now.

How does the Church pay for that, given declining Church membership and increased child care obligations?

How does one combat the unsanitary and unsafe legal abortion network? I don't see much difference between the two to be honest. Shut them down and arrest the practicioners.

That isn't going to stop the practice, it's just going to drive it further underground. I think history has made it clear that when you ban something that there is a demand for, supply find a way to meet the demand, often in a way much more detrimental than if you'd just left it alone to begin with. Or do you not agree that bootlegging caused more problems than Prohibition solved?

[SlowwHand]

OK, I know we already have an abortion thread, but what never gets discussed by the "pro life" crowd is what to do with the babies that would otherwise been aborted, not to mention their mothers.

So, here's what I want to discuss:

1)How do you provide for the additional hundreds of thousands of babies each year, many of whom are born addicted to drugs or who have serious physical or physiological defects?

2)How do you support the hundreds of thousands of single mothers, who are suddenly unable to work, and many of whom are unable to rely on the support of their families?

3)What about the thousands of babies that will simply be abandoned?

4)How do you combat the unsanitary and unsafe underground abortion network? Coat hangers in alleys would no longer be a joke, so much as it would be a fair approximation of reality.

Ben, and others, solve those problems satisfactorily, and then we can see about actually banning abortion.

All these scenarios deal with what to do with children parented by irresponsible jackasses.

Here's what we do. Sterilize both members of the couple who have such a difficult time figuring out what happens to make babies.

[David Floyd]

Here's what we do. Sterilize both members of the couple who have such a difficult time figuring out what happens to make babies.

Sounds just as Constitutional as, well, banning abortion

[SlowwHand]

Where is it in the constitution that no one is to be sterilized?

[David Floyd]

Where in the Constitution does it say I can't shoot you?

[Ben Kenobi]

So, large increases in social services spending, then? Thought you were against that?

As a last resort if the parents abandon their children. Otherwise the parents should be legally responsible for the children that they created. I don't see that as particularly controversial.

Sounds nice, in fairy land. The reality is, deadbeat dads are a very real problem, especially amongst the demographic we are describing.

What demographic is this? Middle class? Look at the numbers. Middle class folks are the most likely to have abortions than any other group. Fathers should be held responsible for the children that they create.

How does the Church pay for that, given declining Church membership and increased child care obligations?

You seriously don't think the church can take that on? I'd have them take the children on as well. I thought libertarians were in favour of private charity.

That isn't going to stop the practice, it's just going to drive it further underground.

Then you continue to arrest and ban the practicioners.

I think history has made it clear that when you ban something that there is a demand for, supply find a way to meet the demand, often in a way much more detrimental than if you'd just left it alone to begin with. Or do you not agree that bootlegging caused more problems than Prohibition solved?

Do you not agree there is a difference between a bottle of rum and a child?

[David Floyd]

What demographic is this? Middle class? Look at the numbers. Middle class folks are the most likely to have abortions than any other group. Fathers should be held responsible for the children that they create.

Well, when the father isn't around, and can't be found, or won't show up to court, it makes it more difficult. Even if he is available, now you are clogging up already clogged up courts with tens of thousands of new cases. Additionally,while you may think that income concerns shouldn't dictate whether a fetus is aborted or not, the fact of the matter is that sometimes the father simply cannot afford to pay for abortion and pay rent. Sometimes the mother can't afford to pay rent and child care and pay for food, even with child support.

You seriously don't think the church can take that on? I'd have them take the children on as well. I thought libertarians were in favour of private charity.

Absolutely, I just don't know that there is enough private charity to be had, here.

Additionally, having the Church raise a generation of children strikes me as worse than abortion.

Then you continue to arrest and ban the practicioners.

Worked well, during Prohibition, eh?

[Darius871]

Where is it in the constitution that no one is to be sterilized?

Where in the Constitution does it say I can't shoot you?

Wait, are you implying that it would somehow be unconstitutional for a state to not have a ban against you, a private citizen, shooting Slowwhand for no reason?

[DinoDoc]

You do realize that in large swaths of the country abortion providers are already quite rare. Where's the underground abortion network your trying to gin up a fear of?

[Ben Kenobi]

Additionally, having the Church raise a generation of children strikes me as worse than abortion.

Mises called. He wants you to turn in your libertarian card.

[DaShi]

You do realize that in large swaths of the country abortion providers are already quite rare. Where's the underground abortion network your trying to gin up a fear of?

It's in the closet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait, are you implying that it would somehow be unconstitutional for a state to not have a ban against you, a private citizen, shooting Slowwhand for no reason?

I think he meant murder in general.

[Darius871]

I think he meant murder in general.

So did I - what legal argument could be made that the Constitution prohibits murder, or at least imposes upon states an affirmative duty to prohibit murder?


(Leaving aside that forced sterilization would be a state action and a murder would not, which makes his analogy even more silly...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe that was Floyd's point. It doesn't... unless you want to extend substantive due process rights that far (right against being killed while doing nothing? ).