ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

MorgMcA said 04/20, 03:18 AM
Ok, so I'll admit there are rare exceptions when abortion can be ok. i think when the woman is a victim of r*pe or incest, then there is a justifiable reason for her to obtain a safe and legal abortion.

However studies have shown (including one by TIME magazine, a very liberal magazine by all accounts), that most women who choose to have an abortion are not r*pe or incest victims, usually can support the baby financially (inability to do so not considered a good reason anyways, after all there is still the option of adoption), but rather are women who simply fooled around, wound up pregant and said "oh, i don't want this". which is completely unacceptable. if you didn't want it, don't get there.

so inorder to reconcile the two problems, i propose that we federalize all abortion clinics and make it a legal requirement for a woman to file that she was a victim of a rapist or a victim of incest, she doesn't have to be able to prosecute mind you. parental involvement (of one parent) in the legal process is a must as well.

sure the system could use some fine-tuning and i'm open to that, but the idea is to allow the victim a chance to begin healing and keep abortions rare.

MorgMcA said 04/20, 04:26 PM
I agree that socializing abortion, so that anyone who wants it can get it and have the taxpayers pay for it, is one of the worst things that could ever happen to this country.

That is why this is a two part proposal, taking abortion clinics out of the private sector and thus limiting the number of clinics is only part of it (i also don't propose making it cost-free to the patient, after all i have to pay for stamps a passport and other federal services). the other part is just as important, that we create the law requiring the person seeking the abortion to file as a victim and have one parent involved in the process (for minors). one part of the plan is useless without the other and it is essentially a compromise between outlawing the process entirely without any exceptions and allowing the exception to the rule to overturn the rule which are the two most prevalent options in today's politics.

as far as legality is concerned, i'm sure it can be arranged, after all as a nation at one time or another we questioned the legality of the national bank, the FDA, Social Security, the IRS, even the Louisana Purchase just to name a few things that are now deeply a part of our societ

MorgMcA said 04/23, 10:37 PM
This wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. it would allow the government to work around it. people would still be able to have an abortion, they just have to fit very tough requirements
if the law fails to pass the house and senate at least it will provide individual states greater incentive to consider it.
yes there is the problem of loopholes, perhaps we can close these by having a mandatory DNA test of the fetus. I also doubt that the great majority of women will feel comfortable signing a government document stating that they were r*ped.
the inability to support a child is not a feasible excuse for an abortion (and isn't even the principle reason for less than a quarter of those who seek to have one). there is always the option of adoption. there is a huge list of potential adoptive parents out there, who are actively seeking to adopt, i even see ads in the local paper.
i admit i hate to see the government involved in another expansive project that will more than likely drain resources, yet i don't private enterprise as willing to submit to such rigorous regulation.
The plan isn't perfected, but it's a start. abortion for victims ok.
for those who just don't want it, no!