NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose that abortion was outlawed, and for some reason didn't exist illegally either. Should the government step in to help women with unwanted pregnancies? If so, how should it, and which part (local, state, or national)?

Suppose that abortion was outlawed, and for some reason didn't exist illegally either. Should the government step in to help women with unwanted pregnancies? If so, how should it, and which part (local, state, or national)?

Such a government with so little respect for individuality would probably come up with something equally socially abhorrent to do with unwanted children. Maybe sell them to corporate interests as modern day serfs or induce comas and use them as blood and organ banks to prolong the lives of the rich.

Afterall, they would still be alive and clearly in the eyes of such a government, life > self identity.

if women were forced to carry unwanted pregnancies and produce babies that they did not want or could not care for, the government would have to set up orphanages just as romania had to under caucescue.

the feds might have to pony up some cash to the states to pay for the orphanages and the campaigns to get the children adopted by reasonably good families.

If the children are unwanted, why take care of them?

There use to be orphanages throughout the US in days gone by. It could be done again but again they could also relax the delays and paperwork for adoptions.

I first thought about this with the idea that the children would be sent to the military. I didn't think of it as a possibility, it was more daydreaming than anything else. What do people think of that idea?

There use to be orphanages throughout the US in days gone by. It could be done again but again they could also relax the delays and paperwork for adoptions.

Indeed. In fact, adoption is much to be preferred. Biological families > adoptive families > foster families > orphanages

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/21foster.html?ref=us

I first thought about this with the idea that the children would be sent to the military. I didn't think of it as a possibility, it was more daydreaming than anything else. What do people think of that idea?

Worse than an orphanage. Much worse.

Schola Progenium, haha.

Although I do not have a problem with orphanages, I do not think that the government should be raising children. I think that this should be handled by charities. However, the idea of government run and or financed orphanages are better than having unwanted children brought into bad family situations. I do not think that we should look to the government to solve social problems beyond the realm of education and public safety.

I am not the sort of guy that wants government to try to fix problems.

However, if there is a need for orphanages and there are any laws that prohibit orphanages then I think that those laws should be changed to allow orphanages to do their thing.

There used to be an orphanage outside of my town. I am not sure but I think orphanages were banned in my state and we went with a foster parent system instead.

If there was a shortage of foster parents I think we would have no other choice than to bring back orphanages.

I just had one last thought. I think that orphans of soldiers should have the option of staying in public orphanages that are sort of like kick ass boarding schools. We should take care of the widows and orphans of our soldiers who died in our service with tax dollars. I think the same should be done for orphans of police and firemen killed in the course of their public duties.

I first thought about this with the idea that the children would be sent to the military. I didn't think of it as a possibility, it was more daydreaming than anything else. What do people think of that idea?

babies dont make good soldiers.

babies dont make good soldiers.

But they would probably make good meatloaf.

I first thought about this with the idea that the children would be sent to the military. I didn't think of it as a possibility, it was more daydreaming than anything else. What do people think of that idea?

Bad, bad, bad, bad, really bad idea.

They should, but the type of government that bans abortion doesn't care about either fetuses or children - the only thing it cares about is using them as a pretence to control women and their sexuality, which it sees as threatening to patriarchal hegemony. It's nothing else than mysoginy and has nothing to do with "pro-life" (pfft!).

They should, but the type of government that bans abortion doesn't care about either fetuses or children - the only thing it cares about is using them as a pretence to control women and their sexuality, which it sees as threatening to patriarchal hegemony. It's nothing else than mysoginy and has nothing to do with "pro-life" (pfft!).

Pretense and misogyny. Other than that, agree 100%

Suppose that abortion was outlawed, and for some reason didn't exist illegally either. Should the government step in to help women with unwanted pregnancies? If so, how should it, and which part (local, state, or national)?What, you mean orphanages?

If the children are unwanted, why take care of them?
Because they are human beings?

What if you were born as an unwanted child, and weren't taken care of?

Because they are human beings?

What if you were born as an unwanted child, and weren't taken care of?

Than he wouldn't be having this conversation with you. Just like the "What if you were an aborted child" hypothetical.

If the children are unwanted, why take care of them?Which wouldn't be an issue if they'd been aborted...

Because they are human beings?

What if you were born as an unwanted child, and weren't taken care of?

He could end up being raised by wolves. That would rock. :)

They should, but the type of government that bans abortion doesn't care about either fetuses or children - the only thing it cares about is using them as a pretence to control women and their sexuality, which it sees as threatening to patriarchal hegemony. It's nothing else than mysoginy and has nothing to do with "pro-life" (pfft!).
How can you be so sure? What, do you think you can read minds or something? Maybe the government ITSELF may care more about votes, but the people voting pro-life? So how would you explain embryonic stem cell research, then, is it just a pretense to control people with life-threatening diseases and their health, which it sees as threatening to them somehow too?

How can you be so sure? What, do you think you can read minds or something? Maybe the government ITSELF may care more about votes, but the people voting pro-life? So how would you explain embryonic stem cell research, then, is it just a pretense to control people with life-threatening diseases and their health, which it sees as threatening to them somehow too?

To be honest? Fear of science and scientific progress, and what both might entail for the future. Largely, I'd guess, stemming from personal, religious beliefs rather than any real rational basis for concern.

How can you be so sure?

I have functioning eyes and I am not naïve.

The unborn only have rights until they are born. After that they are on their own.

Suppose that abortion was outlawed, and for some reason didn't exist illegally either. Should the government step in to help women with unwanted pregnancies? If so, how should it, and which part (local, state, or national)?

I'm making a big assumption that such laws and situations would have to have come at the hands of some mega-monolithic religious entity. I would say that said entity should have the legally imposed responsibility of caring for all resulting unwanted children. Then I would encourage women to get pregnant and hand over the children to this organization. Flood them with babies. Deluge them with squalling feces and urine soaked neonates. Inundate them with projectile vomiting brats. Overload them with the responsibility and bring them down.

They should, but the type of government that bans abortion doesn't care about either fetuses or children - the only thing it cares about is using them as a pretence to control women and their sexuality, which it sees as threatening to patriarchal hegemony. It's nothing else than mysoginy and has nothing to do with "pro-life" (pfft!).
Quoted for truth. This being the case, it must be clear that such a government would make no effort to care for unwanted children but leave them with the women who either don't want to or are not able to care for them. Or leave them to die in the streets, which would be just as good as long as they are clearly visible in their suffering. After all, what use is it to slap the scarlet letter on women's breasts, if you're just going to take it off again by taking charge of the living, breathing, crying, suffering proof of their sins? How else will you prove that female sexuality is evil if you don't use it to fill the world with unhappy children?