A theory on abortion...
saveuplife
Posts: 1,173
For pro-choicers....
What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment.
So the question is....
Would you support this, if it was feasible?
If not, why not?
What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment.
So the question is....
Would you support this, if it was feasible?
If not, why not?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
We dont have the resources to support our current populations at the American standard of living.
Its like giving food to hungry people in poor countries, it only keeps them alive long enough to have 5 babies who will grow up hungry who are kept alive to create 25 babies...
It is a tough world but if you look at how species survive, it is not by overpopulation, that will destroy us eventually.
So extract the baby prematurely, incubate it and eventually give it up for adoption so it can grow up to pay taxes and work it's ass off? Then in addition to paying taxes give the government more money somehow for the incubation period? I'd have to say that's a pretty bad idea. Sounds like it would be keeping it alive to be a glorified slave. That's just my opinion, let's see what the others have to say.
I'll bite...
Yes, I would support this as a 4th CHOICE.
Regarding your assertion that would-be aborted fetuses could help the national debt - that's silly. You have no way of knowing this. Many would argue that they would be more likely to actually increase the national debt by requiring various forms of "welfare".
And I don't know who you think would compensate the government for the incubation period. Are you planning to sell these babies or something?
or use it for energy...see "The Matrix"
are you saying this in conjunction with reversing Roe v Wade and/or making it illegal to have an abortion?
I would support your new idea being an option for the mother ... but, I still contend it's their choice, and that right should be protected. But, if this was an option, it would be great.
I don't think the religious folks would like fetuses being raised outside of the mother though ... do you?
As for this ...
"Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help."
Sounds a bit crass, not really the way one should think about the potential of a human entering this world.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
First, Maltus was wrong. So, your theory is not correct.
Second, we can't support Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security because we lack the tax base. Meaning, we don't have enough young to support the old.
Luckily, we aren't as bad off as Europe, but we are close and getting worse. A number of countries over there are paying people to have children now. This is the same type of concept.
have to admit, this was the first thing that entered my mind when reading the OP.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Breeding humans to pay off debts? What an astoundingly dystopian concept to be conceived by someone who supposedly respects the value of life.
No, it's not silly at all. Aggregate demand is a function of population. The largest the population the larger your demand. Real GDP (and our economy) increases with population. Your argument may be about per capita GDP, and it may be a good one. One really can't know. But, you should take into account that wealthier people tend to adopt. So, I don't think these kids would end up on welfare. But, that's an opinion.
Well, this is just a theory... so no, I'm not selling the babies. And I'll be the first to say... selling babies sounds completely awful. However, I think plenty of parents who can't have kids (which is becoming more of a problem as people try at later stages in life) would be willing to pay for a child. So it's a win for the gov't a win for the couple and a win for the kid. They pay agencies already.... why not the gov't?
Saveuplife, I'd like to think that as a fellow poster you'd know that I value and respect your opinions, and you make strong arguments, but your points are not more or less important than anyone else's in this thread or on this board.
Again, you are looking too short term. If we are talking long-term sustainability then we have to reduce our population. Yes, there will be a period of great suffering, but that would be the price to pay to save civilization until we can get back on a more sustainble path. Otherwise our path is towards exponential population growth, use of resources, etc. That does not have a happy ending.
Yes. I'm saying reverse R v W, once this technology is feasible. This way, teh woman has the ability to rid herself of the "cells", the cells, fetus or baby (whatever you prefer) has the chance to "live", the gov't has the chance to make money and parents who can't have kids have the chance to "adopt" a young child at a lower price.
It is crass. I'll admit it but I think that's because of the "selling" aspect. I truly dispise the notion of abortion, I think most do too, but they think it's necessary. I don't understand why something like this can't help everyone come to some form of middle ground.
oh jeez....... lol this idea is insane!
I couldn't agree more ...
What a horrible thread saveuplife! What are you thinking?!?
Once again. Malthus was wrong. Look him up. Look what he said. It's identical to what you are saying. It WAS why economics got the title the Dismal Science. Anyway, he's been proven wrong empirically time and time again. His theory, although seminal, is now not considered relevant at all.
And that's an even bigger leap than the science that would be involved to make this thread a reality. Of course, we could improve the foster care system but that might mean more funding. And that might mean higher taxes.
And then we reach an impasse.
The gov't and they will recoup a profit afterwards that can be used as the constituency feels fit.
maybe i could get a few and train them to use the computer so that the next time PJ tickets go on sale via the 10 club I can have a few working to get MSG seats for me-
I get it. You don't like the idea. That's fine. Atleast I'm trying.
With this idea, how so?
You use an incubation period, in a hospital, once they are old enough they will be available to be adopted. How's that losing compassion? I honestly don't understand your point at all.
keep spinning those wheels!
I only like this idea if:
1. There is an adoptive family found for the baby before it is removed from the mother.
2. We ask the baby and it says it wants the "chance to live".
You too.
I already told him. 1/2 a million in the U.S., according to the adoption counseling class I took yesterday.
So much compassion in MORE parentless babies