If abortions were outlawed in America, what would the outcome be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter interestedman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill_Martin said:
I doubt there would be less sex. Probably just a big increase in contraceptive use.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if this is true, but I have heard that anal sex was far more common (at least among Europeans) during the medieval era because there were no reliable methods of birth control.
 
johnnyjones said:
Theres massive contraceptive use now and we still have abortions. I’m sure there would be a spike as you say but also a ton of women who just won’t want the hassle of consistency and become conveniently fridged.
Click to expand...
What?
 
rfournier103 said:
Personally… I think that if someone wants to ruin their lives with illegal drugs, too much booze, or some other reckless behavior that puts their life and/or soul on the line… HAVE AT IT!!!

HOWEVER… When that behavior infinges upon SOMEONE ELSE’S pursuit of life, liberty, etc… That’s when my dander gets up.

There are many whose lives are ruined by bad decisions, bad luck, etc… but for the most part, they have a fighting chance. These children don’t even have that.

The ADULTS need to take responsiblity. Can’t afford a kid? DON’T GET PREGNANT.
Click to expand...
Many would argue that’s why women need contraception.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
We can make a few fairly reliable predictions though.
For instance, Planned Parenthood and all similar organizations would effectively die out here in the United States.
Click to expand...
No, this isn’t a fairly reliable prediction.

Abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood activities, 35% birth control, the rest- women’s healthcare–pap smears, mammograms, HIV testing, etc. The OP’s question is about abortions.

In the days before Roe vs Wade, Planned Parenthood had free pregnancy tests. They would also give you contact information about where you could get a legal abortion. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, there were 4 states where abortions upon request were legal in the US.

Planned Parenthood will adapt. After all, they’ve been in existence since 1916.
 
If every abortion was turned into an adoption. there would be plenty of familes to love these children. ** I was only able to adopt two children during the 18 years we tried.** Most birthmoms like placing their baby/kid with a couple who don’t have any children. They are PROUD to make them a family. We don’t have orphanages in America in the traditional sense (filled with adoptable children). We have group foster homes filled with foster kids, not free for adoption, because their parents still have legal rights to them. ( which cost us about $90,000. per year per child!) I was a Nevada Foster Parent for 5 years trying to adopt these kids. Some older children once freed for adoption may wait to be chosen. However, with internet, I believe any age child, with any number of handicaps can find a loving home, and forever family. I have met them!

Plenty of fertile moms have told me they would love to adopt, but don’t want to take a child away from couples who can’t conceive. God has an adoptive family available for every child who was aborted.

2 MILLION FAMILIES A YEAR CANNOT FIND EVEN ONE BABY/CHILD TO ADOPT
 
Regular_Atheist said:
But it’s awfully boring. 😃
Click to expand...
And some might argue that contraception is awfully boring too and not pleasurable enough.

If people find abstinence to be boring and unrealistic, whos to say those same people wouldnt feel the same about contraception?

The argument that contraceptiom will solve the spread of AIDS is flawed.
 
CrimsonThorn said:
And some might argue that contraception is awfully boring too and not pleasurable enough.

If people find abstinence to be boring and unrealistic, whos to say those same people wouldnt feel the same about contraception?

The argument that contraceptiom will cure AIDS is flawed.
Click to expand...
They might. But then they only have themselves to blame when they get STDs. 🤷 Not that they necessarily will. Better safe than sorry, though.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
They might. But then they only have themselves to blame when they get STDs. 🤷 Not that they necessarily will. Better safe than sorry, though.
Click to expand...
“Better safe than sorry”

So we’re arguing effectiveness then, and not what is boring? Right?

Then abstinence is 100% effective, where contraception is not.

Better to be safe than sorry 😉
 
CrimsonThorn said:
“Better safe than sorry”

So we’re arguing effectiveness then, and not what is boring? Right?

Then abstinence is 100% effective, where contraception is not.

Better to be safe than sorry 😉
Click to expand...
It would be simpler if religious people who had negative attitudes towards sex were all just completely celibate.

They could worry less about sexual sin, and the rest of us would be happier when their idealogies largely died out with them.

But I suspect trying to achieve this would be impractical in the extreme.
 
Seeker1961 said:
That’s unfortunate it’s like that where you live-it’s NOT like that in my area. The complex I live in has Section 8 housing and there are people who get kicked out of there quite routinely. I guess it depends on the management company that runs it or how tough the local laws are. Ours seems very aggressive because they have a LONG waiting list of people who need that assistance and they want to make sure that the people who already live there are obeying the rules.
Click to expand...
Interesting. In light of what you say I would suspect it is because I live in the state of Massachusetts. While it is possible for a landlord to really press the issue of someone moving into an apartment while not on the lease, in my experience this happens on occasion but has nothing to do with whether or not the person is on section 8 or not. What it has to do with is whether or not the tennant is disrupting the other tennants where they live. In my experience it’s pretty rare for a landord to kick someone out of their apartment if they move in a girlfriend or boyfriend so long as the rent gets paid and quiet hours are observed, etc. And I have never experienced a landlord paying any extra attention to someone on section 8 abiding by that lease specification. They get paid the same either way whether or not they have someone on section 8 or someone paying market rent. A lot of section 8 is not project based (what your talking about, the actual unit is subsidized rather than the tennant having a ‘mobile’ section 8 voucher that they can use for any apartment so long as the market rent is not above a certain maximum rental ammt based on the area the apartment is located (people can’t use it to move into luxurious apartments for example).

I do deal with mobile section 8’s moreso than project based, but in my experience even with the project based ones, so long as the tennant is obeying general respect for the building and neighbors, etc they don’t get kicked out.

What I was speaking about was, for example, the company I work for, funded by the Dept of Mental Health. Their clients sign contracts with another public company (either project based apartments run by one organization or mobile vouchers run by another) and my company will not report anyone using drugs, etc or moving someone in even though it’s in their contract not to do so. And the landlords don’t care so long as the tennant doesn’t cause a big disruption to the neighbors/building. If they do, my organization does everything they can to chill out the landlord, assuring them the problem will be solved, etc. The obviously try to have the clients obey the rules, etc but if they don’t they try to get the landlord to chill aobut the issue to keep the tennant there.

I suspect, as I said, any difference might have something to do with the fact that I live in a very liberal state. I have no knowledge as to how any other states operate in this regard but it’s interesting, and refresing, to hear that people are pressed to follow the rules in other locations.

And we have LONG waiting lists too…
 
Glomung said:
The whole situation would be much better if we could straighten out the adoption system in this country, which right now is absurdly costly and a paperwork nightmare. MOre young women would be willing to go to term if adoption could be guaranteed.
Click to expand...
This is a great point and would like to see this changed whether or not roe v wade changes. Adoptions are very costly. There are a lot of people who would like to adopt but can’t afford to. What does it cost? 10K, 15K? more? That’s a pretty penny and the child is supposedly ‘unwanted’ by the birth mother so why does it cost so much money? Why can’t couples with the financial means (and stabilty, etc) to raise a child simply do so with minimal costs and just background checks, etc???

If it were low cost maybe some couples would choose to adopt rather than birth their own child for moral reasons. Maybe some would even do so because it would be easier on the wife than going through pregnancy.
 
Chrish1975 said:
It would take a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion in the United States. Even if there was I’m afraid people with the means would simply go to Canada to have the procedure done. If SCOTUS ruled that Roe vs Wade is void then it would go back to the states and the liberal states would keep it legal and the conservative states would ban abortion. That would mean women would just go to liberal states to have an abortion.
Also with medications that can cause abortion there would be a black market and women could just order the medication through the Internet from Canada.
IMHO.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t even be nearly that difficult. Look up the drug PGCL. It’s used to abort livestock. I’m sure it would be used by plenty of those looking to abort their own human child if abortion was illegal. And with the internet it’s an easy drug to get. Professional bodybuilders use it to shed water weight prior to competitions.
 
Carlan said:
Please also consider the other party’s resposibility and his focus on what is below his belt and behind his zipper. Excuse my crudeness,
Peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that woman in the projects intentionally have children in order to receive benefits. It’s also generational. And by not identifying the father officially they can get full benfits from the government and also potentially get financial assistance from the father. I know of one former client who had sex to get pregnant to get an apartment and additional money from the government. She didn’t care in the least who the father was. This sort of thing is, unfortunately, common.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
It would be simpler if religious people who had negative attitudes towards sex were all just completely celibate.

They could worry less about sexual sin, and the rest of us would be happier when their idealogies largely died out with them.

But I suspect trying to achieve this would be impractical in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Sex within marriage is not negative though. Having children is one huge part of marriage. Thats not a negative view of sex, its a healthy one.

But on the part of effectiveness, abstinence is fool proof guaranteed 100% from any std, whereas contraception is not. So why would you risk people contracting diseases even with the use of contraceptives? And certainly contraceptive promotio for purpose of birth control is pretty useless as shown by the statistics of the numbers of abortions.

Treat the root of the problem, not the symptoms 😉
 
CrimsonThorn said:
Sex within marriage is not negative though. Having children is one huge part of marriage. Thats not a negative view of sex, its a healthy one.

But on the part of effectiveness, abstinence is fool proof guaranteed 100% from any std, whereas contraception is not. So why would you risk people contracting diseases even with the use of contraceptives? **And certainly contraceptive promotio for purpose of birth control is pretty useless **as shown by the statistics of the numbers of abortions.

Treat the root of the problem, not the symptoms 😉
Click to expand...
That’s the most ridiculous thing I have heard all day.
 
THANK YOU JESUS! That is what we would say - having repented for the many years of sin that became more and more evil. When God has known us before we were knitted into the womb, how offensive is that to Our Lord? Have you noticed that the people of our country have had enormous increases in pornography, pedophilia, abuse of the innocent, and down and down it goes. A nation that kills its children will not survive.
So lets us the God-given Graces we have left and make this happen. To the atheist that is so happy with babies being murdered - before you do anything else today, try and find a soul within you and work from there.
 
CrimsonThorn said:
“Better safe than sorry”

So we’re arguing effectiveness then, and not what is boring? Right?

Then abstinence is 100% effective, where contraception is not.

Better to be safe than sorry 😉
Click to expand...
Nah. What I meant was, while doing something potentially dangerous it’s better to do it as safely as possible. Obviously no one claims that it’s better to do nothing safely. Since abstinence is essentially doing nothing.
CrimsonThorn said:
Treat the root of the problem, not the symptoms 😉
Click to expand...
But people live to live, not just to survive. We’d all be much healthier if we followed your system, though, of not doing anything to enjoy harms way. And I know your issue isn’t actually with health problems, but simply due to your religious beliefs. For example, alcohol causes more deaths than any other drug, so should people stop drinking? After all, should we not tackle the root of the problem? Of course, I know you won’t agree because you don’t actually care about health issues associated with these things. When we get right down to it, it’s just your religion that you want to impose, not any kind of campaign to make people healthier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top