Sterilization for Abortion, a fair compromise ?

Do you think the parent(s) wanting an abortion should be sterilized afterwards ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • No

    Votes: 15 83.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Total voters
    18
CutsieMarie89 said:
But making a law like that is just as bad as making abortions illegal. You just wouldn't go to a professional. You'd do it yourself, which is oh so dangerous. Or you'd be like my friend and force a miscarriage. Also not wise, albeit safer than poking yourself with a hanger.
Click to expand...

If someone was personally responsible enough, they'd realize that if they're so sexually irresponsible that they have to kill their baby, then they don't deserve to have a baby again and would submit to sterilization.

It's sort of like if someone gives you a VERY nice gift, like a brand new car. If you wrecklessly crash it and destroy it on purpose, do you think you deserve another brand new car ?
I don't think so.
 
Cazzo said:
If someone was personally responsible enough, they'd realize that if they're so sexually irresponsible that they have to kill their baby, then they don't deserve to have a baby again and would submit to sterilization.

It's sort of like if someone gives you a VERY nice gift, like a brand new car. If you wrecklessly crash it and destroy it on purpose, do you think you deserve another brand new car ?
I don't think so.
Click to expand...

But most people don't feel that way. Which is what my point was about. If you know that you want something, but don't like the consequences then you'll just get it through other means. If you were pregnant and absolutely did not want the baby, but knew that if you got an abortion they would remove all of your reproductive organs, you probably would rather take your chances aborting the pregnancy by other means. When you have an unwanted pregnancy the baby's life isn't really much of a priority to you (if you even consider it a life), just your own.
 
Do you think the parent(s) wanting an abortion should be sterilized afterwards ?

Ridiculous.

Here is a real option. Non medically necessary abortions must instead be carried to term and the baby will be cared for through college by a special tax levied against those who are prolife.

Basically put your money where your mouth is prolifers or keep your nose out of other people's business.
 
Cazzo said:
I have a feeling people getting abortion for the convenience of it (at the expense of the baby's life) did it after being sexually irresponsible much more often than some 1/1000000 chance that the condom broke AND her pill didn't work......
Click to expand...

Actually the condom breaking is lot more common. The number you gave is like if you wore ten condoms, wrapped them in saran wrap and the girl was on the pill and it was two days to he period.

Realistically a Condom is 99% if used properly with a spermicidal lubricant. The Pill is 95% at the best considering the number of drugs and chical that interfere with the funtion.

Now take the average condoms at 90% effectiveness and the birth control pill at 90% effectiveness and it's damn easy to get a girl pregnant.


Now there are many reason people get abortions. They might not be in a place in their life where they can afford to be out of work for even a few months of pregnancy. They might be getting ready for a new carreer in the peace corp, They might be too young, not ready, the man could have walked out and so on. None of these are convience reasons.

Would you want yet another homless destitute family with a baby on the streets? How about some thrid world village that will not be getting a sewage system? more teen mother? Abused children, welfare casses that have little hope of getting off the doll through no fault of their own?

Your method goes too far. What if a woman is raped by her uncle and wants and abortion? You would have her starilized for his crime. What if a 21 year old college student on her way to becoming a doctor needs an abortion? Would you make this valuable meber to society be sterilized?
 
Why stop there? Why not disable other needed parts of the body, like the ability to eat or digest food? Maybe just take some people's brains out, or maybe their stomachs?

No, I believe in the natural flow of human life unhindered, don't sterilize people, don't allow abortions, discourage use of Big Pharma's shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons. Whatever happened to welcoming babies to happen as they happen?

Let the body's reproductive function, after committing together in stable marriages first, but of course, function naturally, producing babies as it can. We let other parts of the body function, isn't reproduction sort of "vital" to human existence and welfare as well?

Of course I voted No.
 
Ironically, it sort of happens that way already. Often, abortions can cause so much damage to the mother's body also, that she may have aborted the only baby she will ever have. That's so sad!

Yet another reason to warn people never to have an abortion. Even considering adoption would be so much a better option, at least respecting the baby's right to have a fair chance at life, especially considering many mothers do manage to bond to their babies and change their mind and keep their baby after all.
 
Mod Hat - Note on insults

Mod Hat — Note on insults

Even when I happen to agree with certain insulting content posted in EM&J, I cannot permit such unsupported slings and arrows. Despite my sympathies to those who perceive a certain significant degree of idiocy in certain posts, I must demand that, in the future, if people wish to denounce something as the most ignorant post they have seen—ever, or in a while, or whatever—at least some effort be made to support that denunciation.

Come on, folks, we can do better. Well, yeah. Some of us can. I know, I know, the burdens of those not blessed with blissful ignorance ....

At any rate, five and a half posts struck.

Carry on, carry on. Well, with some pretense of civility, please.
 
We should put men in a giant square box after they have sex, just in the case that he wants to impregnate a woman who then wants an abortion. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this thread, but someone will find some connection.
 
Pronatalist Often, abortions can cause so much damage to the mother's body also, that she may have aborted the only baby she will ever have.

This is just not true, especially with early term abortions.

Also, carrying a baby to term is not risk free either. Women still die from child birth complications, preclampsia, etc.

Any baby could be your last. Welcome to life.
 
Cazzo said:
This thread isn't about making abortion illegal....:rolleyes:
But it is about people taking responsibility for their irresponsible actions.
Click to expand...

No it's not. First of all, having surgery to remove a fetus *is* a form of taking responsibility to the exact same extent as "giving a child up for adoption" later, so would you sterilize women who do that? This is just about increasing the costs of abortion (i.e. "punishing women who have them") so that people stop having them.

That women get abortions at Time X does not mean they would not be ready for children (or good parents) at Time Y, so it's not even a particularly well-tailored suggestion even if it weren't crassly an attempt to eliminate the practice. In that sense, it is also *more* stupid than suggesting that we let people get heart bypass surgery only if we force them to give up eating red meat and liver treatments only if we force them to never drink alcohol again for the rest of their lives. In those cases the heart and liver diseases are equally undesirable both now *and* later, unlike pregnancies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top