Today's St. Paul Pioneer Press had the following story.
Mom Left Baby, with no question unasked
It noted that Minnesota has a law that, as long as a baby is presented to a hospital within 72 hours of birth and is 'unharmed', the baby can be left at the hospital to become a ward of the state, no questions asked.
In this particular case, the hospital screwed up a bit by asking questions they shouldn't have, but overall, the law has seemed to work, even if it has been used very sparingly.
Question:
Is this a reasonable policy?
Could Christian and other opponents of abortion support this policy?
Would this or a similar policy in conjunction with a ban on most abortions be a possible compromise between abortion foes and abortion rights advocates?
To avoid having the thread digress, please let's not get into the rationale for why abortion is right or wrong. The thread is intended to focus on this particular policy and whether those who disagree on the morality of abortion could support the policy or not, and why or why not.
We could discuss what 'most' means in the context of banning most abortions. Again, I will ask posters to focus on 'what they could live with' or what might prove 'doable' in the political and social context of the U.S, not what is right or wrong. We are assuming for the purposes of this thread that those that disagree on the rightness or wrongness of abortion are not going to change their minds, and neither side is likely to 'win' the morality debate within the political realm.
Free adoption as a solution to abortion
Moderator: Moderators
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #2
Why would it matter? California has had a "Safe Surrender" law for years which allows women to surrender their newborns within 72 hours, and then can reclaim them within 6 weeks or something if they want and it hasn't slowed the number of abortions a bit. It also hasn't slowed the number of infant killings where they're just dumped in a dumpster or beaten and abused and killed.
Exactly how does the ability to put your child up for adoption change the fact that some women never want to give birth in the first place?
Exactly how does the ability to put your child up for adoption change the fact that some women never want to give birth in the first place?
Post #3
Yes, I am aware very few people avail themselves of these laws, and it may not change what people want to do. Certainly, if a person sees nothing wrong with abortion, they would simply choose to have an abortion instead of carrying the child to term and then giving it up for adoption. This is probably why the law does not get used more often.
Yes, if we instituted such a program nationwide, in conjunction with restrictions on abortions, it would mean some people would have to behave differently and not get exactly what they 'want' or what they have now.
Abortion foes would need to justify the expense of such a program, which would be considerable if the large majority of pregnancies that now result in abortions end up as adoptions instead.
On the other side, this thread is asking proponents of abortion rights in some sense to justify why the carrying to term of a baby is such an egregious burden that we should not require most people to do this in most circumstances, given that their responsibility would end with the birth, and given the benefit to the child of having the gift of life.
In my view, many on both sides of the abortion debate are trying to dodge responsibility. Abortion foes are trying to dodge responsibility for the impacts of a potential ban on abortions. Abortion rights proponents I believe are supporting a policy which results in a form of violence, and are not willing to be more insistent that citizens behave in a responsible manner with respect to sex.
I fully realize I have painted a huge target for both sides to open fire on.
Yes, if we instituted such a program nationwide, in conjunction with restrictions on abortions, it would mean some people would have to behave differently and not get exactly what they 'want' or what they have now.
Abortion foes would need to justify the expense of such a program, which would be considerable if the large majority of pregnancies that now result in abortions end up as adoptions instead.
On the other side, this thread is asking proponents of abortion rights in some sense to justify why the carrying to term of a baby is such an egregious burden that we should not require most people to do this in most circumstances, given that their responsibility would end with the birth, and given the benefit to the child of having the gift of life.
In my view, many on both sides of the abortion debate are trying to dodge responsibility. Abortion foes are trying to dodge responsibility for the impacts of a potential ban on abortions. Abortion rights proponents I believe are supporting a policy which results in a form of violence, and are not willing to be more insistent that citizens behave in a responsible manner with respect to sex.
I fully realize I have painted a huge target for both sides to open fire on.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #6
No, see, the idea is that you put it on before having sex, before getting pregnant, and before aborting your baby.
But of course, right now that is just fantasy talk. I doubt whether even half of our sexually active youth even know what a condom is, much less where to get one or how to use it.
And who has made sure of that? Why, the same religious conservatives whining about abortion, of course.
They would like to believe that so called "illicit" sex can be eradicated; that honest human nature can be reversed. Anything that does not promote abstainence is part of the Satan-driven liberal/homosexual conspiracy, including cursory sex education classes. Today's youth are being denied the opportunity to know simple anatomical knowledge, such as how not to get a girl pregnant, ruin their young lives with an unwanted kid, or contract STD's.
Most other societies are not so terrified to bring up the forbidden subject of sex in the classroom. Hey, maybe that's why their clinic dumpsters are not filled to the brim with fetus carcasses, and half their kids are not running around with syphilis?
Anti-sex Christians are the prime reason for our nation's abortion rates.
"In these nations [France, Germany, Netherlands], societal openness and comfort in dealing with sexuality, including teen sexuality, and pragmatic governmental policies create greater, easier access to sexual health information and services for all people, including teens. Easy access to sexual health information and services leads to better sexual health outcomes for French, German, and Dutch teens when compared to U.S. teens."
Advocates for Youth
The best solution to abortion is sex education. If Christians care about fetuses so much, they would agree.
But of course, right now that is just fantasy talk. I doubt whether even half of our sexually active youth even know what a condom is, much less where to get one or how to use it.
And who has made sure of that? Why, the same religious conservatives whining about abortion, of course.
They would like to believe that so called "illicit" sex can be eradicated; that honest human nature can be reversed. Anything that does not promote abstainence is part of the Satan-driven liberal/homosexual conspiracy, including cursory sex education classes. Today's youth are being denied the opportunity to know simple anatomical knowledge, such as how not to get a girl pregnant, ruin their young lives with an unwanted kid, or contract STD's.
Most other societies are not so terrified to bring up the forbidden subject of sex in the classroom. Hey, maybe that's why their clinic dumpsters are not filled to the brim with fetus carcasses, and half their kids are not running around with syphilis?
Anti-sex Christians are the prime reason for our nation's abortion rates.
"In these nations [France, Germany, Netherlands], societal openness and comfort in dealing with sexuality, including teen sexuality, and pragmatic governmental policies create greater, easier access to sexual health information and services for all people, including teens. Easy access to sexual health information and services leads to better sexual health outcomes for French, German, and Dutch teens when compared to U.S. teens."
Advocates for Youth
The best solution to abortion is sex education. If Christians care about fetuses so much, they would agree.
Post #7
I would certainly agree that appropriate sex education and the use of contraceptive techniques are appropriate policies, and would likely go a long way to reducing the number of abortions. Given the statistics cited from other countries by PP, it would probably not eliminate them, however.
For the purposes of debate, if we want to assume that the U.S. also implements such policies, and the public practice follows suit, that is fine. We can then debate whether my proposed policy makes sense in this new context.
For the purposes of debate, if we want to assume that the U.S. also implements such policies, and the public practice follows suit, that is fine. We can then debate whether my proposed policy makes sense in this new context.
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #8
You're never going to eliminate abortions because people are stupid. If you want to stop abortion, sterlize everyone. That's about the only way.micatala wrote:I would certainly agree that appropriate sex education and the use of contraceptive techniques are appropriate policies, and would likely go a long way to reducing the number of abortions. Given the statistics cited from other countries by PP, it would probably not eliminate them, however.
Heck, I honestly have no problem requiring that all women be implanted with Norplant at age 12 and it doesn't get removed until they're married and have passed, along with the prospective father, parenting classes. But if you think you opened a can of worms before, I just opened a bigger one.
Post #9
Cephus wrote:I honestly have no problem requiring that all women be implanted with Norplant at age 12 and it doesn't get removed until they're married and have passed, along with the prospective father, parenting classes. But if you think you opened a can of worms before, I just opened a bigger one.
You know, this might actually be an interesting idea to discuss. Yes, it obviously does open a big can of worms as it would be a huge change in current practice. However, is it really so unreasonable?
After all, we require people to be 16, pass a written test and a driving test, and show proof of insurance before we let them drive. This is for the safety of the person licensed as well as everyone else.
Is there not at least a slightly similar justification for regulating procreation? If a 14-year old gets pregnant, there are certainly fairly extreme ramifications for her and her parents, though not necessarily the wider society. There is also some slightly higher chance of death in the short term. If the girl or her parents do not handle their responsibilities, then the state is saddled with caring for the new child. If she has an abortion, there are some potential consequences for the girl, in addition to the cost.
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #10
The problem is that the ones that would be against this are the same people who are against abortion and birth control. I can't tell you how many Christians figure that any kids that show up are "from God" and kids are just magically going to stop having sex because they say so.micatala wrote:You know, this might actually be an interesting idea to discuss. Yes, it obviously does open a big can of worms as it would be a huge change in current practice. However, is it really so unreasonable?
Some people have a seriously overactive fantasy life.
