How to stop abortions

[Pommer]

I never said you did. However you put the responsibility on the woman....and rightfully so. It is their bodies and it is their responsibility to have that baby because men wrote the laws demanding they not have abortions (or at least when it is not a baby a particular man had with a woman, then it is off to a state still allowing abortions).

The Poe is strong here!

 

[friend of]

And here I thought babies slowed it down. Parents taking time off for babies, etc. Mothers leaving the workforce. etc.

And in 50 years when everyone retires, who is there to keep society going if nobody is having children?

 

[dogs4thewin]

And in 50 years when everyone retires, who is there to keep society going if nobody is having children?

that does not mean that EVERYONE has business having children and if people do not want them I do not think you want them to have them because odds are that they would not be very good parents. It is also on you to ensure that you can afford to raise those children. Yes, people fall on hard times and that is one thing, but if you are having major problems making ends meet or are on government assistance do not have any children if that means you need to keep your legs closed so be it.

 

[Belk]

It is not on the government to care for children that they did NOT decide to create. Nope that is on the people who chose to lie together.

Can you offer reasoning on why I should come to this point of view?

Now, in the rare case a person is raped it is neither the child, nor the woman's fault and so if she feels she cannot care for the child there are plenty of people who can and want them. Really the same thing applies to consental sex, but in that case the people involved knew the risk and so should realize one way or the other either through keeping the child or giving the child up for adoption it is not the government's job to provide "free" childcare.

Again with this assertion.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Can you offer reasoning on why I should come to this point of view?

Again with this assertion.

Again did the government make the decision to have those children to do "what it takes" children do not just appear out of nowhere. If not, then why should the government be made to take care of those children that they did not choose to have?

 

[Belk]

Again did the government make the decision to have those children to do "what it takes" children do not just appear out of nowhere. If not, then why should the government be made to take care of those children that they did not choose to have?

Your argument is that the government didn't have sex so should not take care of offspring?

Well allow me to retort.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our highest law of the land is instructions on taking care of people and children. That is the preeminent function of Government. That is why.

 

[friend of]

that does not mean that EVERYONE has business having children and if people do not want them I do not think you want them to have them because odds are that they would not be very good parents. It is also on you to ensure that you can afford to raise those children. Yes, people fall on hard times and that is one thing, but if you are having major problems making ends meet or are on government assistance do not have any children if that means you need to keep your legs closed so be it.

I'm not talking about people who don't want kids. I'm talking about small families who do want to have kids. Universal childcare would incentivize people to NOT have abortions because they would be able to actually afford the other expenses of child rearing. Having a family is expensive, and if people didn't have to worry about paying hundreds of dollars per month on daycare and the like, then this would reduce abortions I think.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Your argument is that the government didn't have sex so should not take care of offspring?

Well allow me to retort.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our highest law of the land is instructions on taking care of people and children. That is the preeminent function of Government. That is why.

where in that does it say the government provides for people's basic needs? The government provides protection which brings peace the government is not there to provide your every need that is on you to prevent for you and yours. Even on the protection side of things you cannot expect the government (police) to be everywhere, so it is still first and foremost on you. Remember, what the government provides it can take away that is why the founding fathers planned a small government on the federal level pre the point of both the 9th and 10th amendments.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm not talking about people who don't want kids. I'm talking about small families who do want to have kids. Universal childcare would incentivize people to NOT have abortions because they would be able to actually afford the other expenses of child rearing. Having a family is expensive, and if people didn't have to worry about paying hundreds of dollars per month on daycare and the like, then this would reduce abortions I think.

oh so you are saying that more people may be app to have kids if childcare was not an issue? This then still does not address the issue of adoption. If a person feels that they cannot afford to care for a child give it to someone who can. Nothing is free. Now, if you want to have a sliding scale that may be one thing but not free. That is to say that the amount a family paid would be based on what they could afford. Ideally, childcare would not be an issue because one income would be enough. However, since this is often not the case a sliding scale would be OK this way people would still be expected to pay for the children they created while not making it where they could not afford to work, yet could not afford mot to work.

 

[JustOneWay]

where in that does it say the government provides for people's basic needs? The government provides protection which brings peace the government is not there to provide your every need that is on you to prevent for you and yours. Even on the protection side of things you cannot expect the government (police) to be everywhere, so it is still first and foremost on you. Remember, what the government provides it can take away that is why the founding fathers planned a small government on the federal level pre the point of both the 9th and 10th amendments.

If the government cannot/will not provide the needs of a mother with child then the government should allow abortions so some women do not have the burden of trying to make a living while being a mother. Women can no longer depend on men to pull their weight.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Please for to explain how this “stops abortions”.
Thanks.

Because people need to heae the good news of gospel and believe.

The job of a Christian is not to correct people, that bears no fruit, but our 'job' is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How does this help? Because people are sinners and they need a Saviour. God created us in His image to reflect His glory back to Him, but sin broke that. That's why God sent His Son to restore us back into image of God.

When a person believes, Jesus restores Him and that person resembles Christ more and more, thus loving all life. Such person won't be pro-choice, but pro-life. This does not only apply to abortion, because God writes His law on believer's heart and the believer obeys.

A Christian desires God and to love Him and those that love God, obey Him.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If the government cannot/will not provide the needs of a mother with child then the government should allow abortions so some women do not have the burden of trying to make a living while being a mother. Women can no longer depend on men to pull their weight.

Again, I have no problem with programs like WIC and SNAP as long as they have strict requirements. Unless you were raped a woman knows the risks when she has sex if you have one that is one thing, but you should not just keep having children you cannot afford and it is easy to avoid.

 

[Belk]

where in that does it say the government provides for people's basic needs?

It does not call out specifics. Name a place it prohibits providing basic needs.

The government provides protection which brings peace the government is not there to provide your every need that is on you to prevent for you and yours. Even on the protection side of things you cannot expect the government (police) to be everywhere, so it is still first and foremost on you.

So your claim is that we should leave infants to fend for themselves? Last I checked the government claims a compelling interest in child welfare. Hence why we have CPS. Are you claiming this is not the case?

Remember, what the government provides it can take away that is why the founding fathers planned a small government on the federal level pre the point of both the 9th and 10th amendments.

The founding fathers created this structure in the pre-industrial era. They created a government that was designed to change with the time to suit our needs. I see no point in hashing out what the founding fathers intended for an agrarian society.

 

[JustOneWay]

Again, I have no problem with programs like WIC and SNAP as long as they have strict requirements. Unless you were raped a woman knows the risks when she has sex if you have one that is one thing, but you should not just keep having children you cannot afford and it is easy to avoid.

Well, the republican party is not very happy with WIC or SNAP, and somehow believe 5'2" 300 lb people spend their days buying up all the fudge rounds in stock.

 

[friend of]

oh so you are saying that more people may be app to have kids if childcare was not an issue? This then still does not address the issue of adoption. If a person feels that they cannot afford to care for a child give it to someone who can. Nothing is free. Now, if you want to have a sliding scale that may be one thing but not free. That is to say that the amount a family paid would be based on what they could afford. Ideally, childcare would not be an issue because one income would be enough. However, since this is often not the case a sliding scale would be OK this way people would still be expected to pay for the children they created while not making it where they could not afford to work, yet could not afford mot to work.

If raising a child was more affordable, abortion wouldn't occur as often. Adoption is already a heavily strained system and needs all the alleviation it can get. I'm from Canada and we have healthcare paid for by our taxes and it works. Childcare being paid for by taxes would be a worthy investment in our countries future.

 

[jayem]

Apart from conscientious use of birth control, I think a reasonable way to reduce elective abortion is to incentivize adoption. And what better incentive is there than cash? Consider this: The US adult population is over 250,000,000. Wouldn't at least 10% be pro-life, and willing to donate to a charitable fund with a mission of reducing abortion? It would be a purely private endeavor, with no government funding. If 25,000,000 people donated $100 a year--$8.33 a month--that would raise $2.5 billion. Ramp this up over 3 years, and we'd have $7.5 billion. (Corporate donations could add signifcantly more, but we'll ignore that for now.) Take off 25% for admin expenses, staff salaries, etc., and we have $5.6 billion. We don't want to use it all in the first year of operation. $3.5 billion would be a good start. That would pay $35,000 each to 100,000 pregnant women. All they have to do is provide a birth certificate confirming they delivered a newborn, and within 3 months of age, the child was irrevocably surrendered for adoption through a legitimate agency. I think something like this could definitely reduce abortions. In no way is it baby selling. It's simply an award--from a charitable organization--for doing a good deed. There are many infertile couples (or singles) who desperately want children. And this should reduces a need to adopt a child from overseas. Would some women make a career of being a birth mother? Maybe so. But I'll trust that women know enough not to threaten their health. And anyway, there are far worse ways of earning money than giving people who very much want children the greatest gift of their lives.

 

[Pommer]

Again did the government make the decision to have those children to do "what it takes" children do not just appear out of nowhere. If not, then why should the government be made to take care of those children that they did not choose to have?

Better we should have large aircraft carrier fleets roaming the world’s oceans to keep us free from…the Fijians?

 

[Pommer]

Because people need to heae the good news of gospel and believe.

The job of a Christian is not to correct people, that bears no fruit, but our 'job' is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How does this help? Because people are sinners and they need a Saviour. God created us in His image to reflect His glory back to Him, but sin broke that. That's why God sent His Son to restore us back into image of God.

When a person believes, Jesus restores Him and that person resembles Christ more and more, thus loving all life. Such person won't be pro-choice, but pro-life. This does not only apply to abortion, because God writes His law on believer's heart and the believer obeys.

A Christian desires God and to love Him and those that love God, obey Him.

This might come as news to you but a lot of Christian women have had abortions.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

This might come as news to you but a lot of Christian women have had abortions.

1. Just because someone calls themselves Christian, does not mean they are (no ofc just because a Christian woman has an abortion does not mean she is not a Christian)

2. Even Christians make wrong decisions

3. No one woman should ever be in a situation where she has to consider abortion. It is tragic for even one having to go through that decision. When God created this world, there was no sin, no evil, no pain...but we rebelled against God. The reason we have abortions today and other evil is because we are sinners. But God send His Son to restore us and defeat the sin.

4. Define a lot of Christian woman, where you get the source from?

5. I see under this threat lot of solutions, none of which invloves God. We must depend on God first, otherwise it ends in a catastrophe. God is greater than abortion, there is nothing He cannot solve. We often think there is only answer A and B to a problem, but God sees it all, He knows the best.

6. When we meet a woman who considers abortion, we must not judge, but shower her with love. It does not help telling a woman who considers abortion, she is evil to do so etc. She is already going through a lot. Telling her about God and the gospel can do wonders as has done in a lives of many.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If raising a child was more affordable, abortion wouldn't occur as often. Adoption is already a heavily strained system and needs all the alleviation it can get. I'm from Canada and we have healthcare paid for by our taxes and it works. Childcare being paid for by taxes would be a worthy investment in our countries future.

This is actually for another thread, but is it true that people in Canada have longer wait times for treatment which sends them down here? As to adoption being a heavily strained system the adoption system and the foster care system are two different systems, Very rarely are babies in the adoption system in the adoption system for long (unless sadly sometimes if the child is special needs, but in general the adoption system is not strained the foster system yes, but I am not really sure how big of an impact free childcare would have on the foster system.