I know that abortion is a sensitive topic, but hear me out, okay?

I've been thinking about it lately, and I've decided that I'm going to petition for a state law that will do two things.

The first will require all abortion clinics to hire therapists to do two things.
1. Talk to mothers and help them decide if abortion is really the right choice for them.
2. If necessary, help ex-mothers cope with post abortion depression and anxiety.

Now although I am pro-life, I feel this would be a perfect compromise with the pro-choice viewpoint. It would bring money to abortion clinics and keep people from losing jobs, unlike an anti-abortion law. In fact, it would open up jobs too, allowing new therapists to gain credibility.

The other thing it will do is charge a 10% tax on all earnings of abortion clinics. Although there might already be an abortion tax, I haven't read anything about such a thing, so it would work well to be included in my petition.

So, discuss. I will be making this petition no matter what, but I want people's opinions on it first.

 

To be frank, a petition probably won't do anything unless you get a significant amount of people to sign it. Like, at least 75% of the population. You're talking state-wide here. Do you think you can get that many people? And even then, not much will probably come of it. I wouldn't waste your time.

As for your suggestions regarding therapists:
The decision to get an abortion is not only that is taken lightly by anyone. It's not like a girl ****s around, gets pregnant, gets an abortion the next day and continues on. And if there are people like that, well, then I doubt a therapist speaking to them is going to make any difference, not to mention that it would be very expensive for every abortion clinic to hire enough therapists to cover everyone who comes in.

If a woman is going through post-abortion depression/anxiety, then she should by all means get help, but once they've done the deed it's no longer the responsibility of the clinic, but rather the responsibility of the woman.

It would open up a few jobs, but it's not a great option. It'd be pricey, as I've said, and there are a lot of things that would open jobs that we don't do.

And it just seems wrong to me to put such a high tax on abortions. If that was done, clinics would have to charge more, and people would have a harder time affording an abortion. I hate to think of what women who want/need an abortion may turn to if they cannot afford to get it done properly.

 

I do intend to go around and do as much as I can. I've got friends who live practically everywhere in the state, so if I can convince them to take my petition then I'm sure I can get enough. 75% will be difficult, but I'm certain I can get it if I give myself a year or several to actually get through to people. I'm very adamant about this. And if I manage to save at least one life with this, then it's not a waste of time in my opinion.

I know that the decision is not taken lightly by any person who's even just barely sane. However, I think that having therapists on hand in an abortion clinic will give a mother one more chance to think twice about it. And I don't expect abortion clinics to hire enough people to cover all their customers. My thought is that it should be at least a one to two ratio depending on the number of doctors. For example, if there are six doctors, there should be at least three therapists. My petition, once finalized, will only require two therapists per clinic. The point is to have the option available.

And it may not be the responsibility of the clinic, but if post abortion therapy is offered, more people are likely to take advantage of it rather than paying significantly more for private therapy.

And that's the point of the tax. If abortion is discouraged, then it will be less likely to occur, which means saved lives.

 

Well, that gets down to the abortion debate itself, on whether or not you consider the fetus to be a life. But that's not the point of the topic, so I won't address that.

I suppose that's reasonable, but the doctors are there to do a service. When you're buying a new TV, there's no one there that sits down with you and discusses if it's the correct option for you. Not to say that getting a television is in any way on par with an abortion, but you get my point. It's a business. It'd also drive up the price of the abortion, which I'll get to later. It'd be just the same price as private therapy.

Okay, think about that for a second. When alcohol was banned in the US, did that make it stop happening? No -- if anything, it made it worse. If someone discourages you from having sex, in a lot of cases, it'll make you want to do it more. Just because you discourage something or even ban it entirely, there will always be someone who does it. And if someone cannot afford the abortion, I reiterate my point before: they'll use other, dangerous methods. Just Google "self-induced abortion".

What we really should focus on is not abortion, but on teaching children proper safe sex. If people were better educated on using condoms and birth control, there would be a significant decrease in the demand for abortions.

 

I'm just saying that the option needs to be there. I know you'll sort of hate the analogy, but it's sort of like how many jails offer therapy and spiritual counseling. They don't have to do it, but it's widely encouraged. Maybe, and this is just a thought, the state should offer some sort of reward for offering pre and post-abortion therapy. Sort of like how the federal government refuses to offer highway budgets to states with drinking ages under 21. It'll be allowed to not have a therapist, but you'll be at a disadvantage if you don't. Would you agree to that being a better idea?

The difference is that alcohol was banned whereas this will only discourage abortion. And I don't care if people have sex, just as long as they take responsibility for the result. And in my opinion, anyone stupid enough to get an abortion deserves the dangers involved.

Here's a thought. Instead of encouraging safe sex, let's encourage lack of sex before marriage entirely. Quite frankly, I consider condoms and birth control pills to be just as horrible as abortion. All three are preventing life by the natural means of reproduction. Pregnancy isn't just an STD that you can get treated for and move on. That in mind, I also hate invitrofertilization and other forms of artificial reproduction. That's why I'm all for gay rights, but not gay sex.

 

But my point is that it is not the responsibility of an abortion clinic to provide this service. If you'd like to expand the definition of "abortion clinic" to include therapeutic services with this petition, then fine, go ahead. It's a nice idea, I don't argue that. But it would be very costly to do that to every abortion clinic everywhere.

I feel you're ignoring my main points in this: no matter how discouraged you would make abortion, it would still happen in some form or another. You cannot *truly* stop anyone from doing anything. My other point in this is that if abortion was discouraged by raising the price, people would find other "home remedies". It happens already: a quick look at the Wikipedia page will show you all of these methods used by women who cannot get an abortion for whatever reason but still need/want one, that can have very serious implications for both the woman's health as well as the health of the fetus, if the abortion is unsuccessful.

I believe that the American school system -- at least, over here -- is encouraging waiting until marriage already. But unfortunately, this is no longer a practical approach. The method that many schools use is scaring kids into it, and people cannot be ruled by fear. Sex is becoming a much more open subject, and while it'd be nice if everyone just waited until the wedding night, I'd rather make sure that they know all the facts and all the precautions they can take against disease, infection, and pregnancy rather than rely upon their own self-restraint.
As for being against condoms and birth control pills, they can be used for things other than simply preventing pregnancy, such as preventing the spread of disease or to cut down on the number of periods / length of periods that a woman would have. Premarital sex is going to happen, and I'd rather that people were disease and baby free (unless they want a child). This may just be an opinions thing though.

 

You're currently preventing natural life by not having sexual intercourse at this very moment. If you look at it that way, every moment you're not banging away, excuse my language, you are preventing a life from existing. I don't expect that with this knowledge you would go and have sex at every waking hour of your life. Nor do I expect couples to make a baby every year because they want to be intimate. It isn't fair to them, and it isn't fair to the potential children.

Schools way back when used to encourage "abstinence only". But the thing is, not everybody wants to refrain from sex until after marriage. Not very many at all, actually. Do students like to do as they're told by teachers? Certainly not. Would they all obediently abstain from sex before marriage? As much as some people would like, that's just not going to happen. Not giving students information of how to have safe sexual relations is doing way more harm than keeping them ignorant. The more logical thing to do is to encourage abstinence, while giving students the sources and knowledge of how to have protected sex if they so feel the need to participate in it.

 

This is true. But preventing reproduction in cases where it should happen is different. Sex should be for the purpose of procreation, the pleasure being the icing on the cake. In fact, if there were a way to remove orgasm and pleasure from the sex act and still keep the ability to reproduce I'd go into debt several times over to make it happen. When sex occurs, you have to allow it to do its job as a bodily function. Otherwise there's no point. I'm not really against sex before marriage, I'm just against sex without the possibility of a child.

@Misty: But do you agree with my other proposition? To give abortion clinics with therapists a competitive edge over those that don't?

And I did get what you said. All I'm saying is that even if it does happen, the person who does it deserves the danger involved in the process. And this way at least there would come to be less of a demand for abortion clinics, and that would prevent people from getting paid to kill babies.

 

I like your idea a lot. It helps with both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice and it prevents stupid and hasty descisions from being made about this thing. It's a touchy topic and personally I don't care if you were 15 year old girl who got raped man. Killing is killing no matter how old you are (even if you're still just a fetus). If you kill a pregnant woman and her baby it's a double count murder but abortion is totally legal. That's insanity to me and if it's gonna be legal I hope more people think about the reprocussions (can't spell it right) of this choice first.

 

That's fair enough. And I see your point. I personally feel that intimacy on that level is important in relationships. Not just to have children, but on an emotional level as well. To take that away, it would leave a hole in a serious relationship. I don't mean to say that it's the most important thing in a relationship. It's definitely not. But intimacy is still important nonetheless.

 

A teenager, raped, is going to have a baby. Her parents are religious or just simply unsupportive. She'll be kicked out, bullied, ignored, etc if she have this baby. That baby thus will ne neglected, abused, live in a run-down apartment, homeless, or passed through foster home after foster home or a mixture of those. A life of torment could of been avoided if this child was aported. It's not like the baby is asking to be born anyway. So which is better? Dead before the torment or born into a horrid life which can lead to the child killing him or herself? This is just my thoughts as I know many people like this and my mom had my at 18, my brother at 17 and was kicked out by her religious parents. And then abused by my dad who is a pyscho-path, who is now in jail and apparently "found god." Good for him and all but that is besides the point.

That child may turn into a really nice kid and live a nice life once they are on their own, but the odds are against it.


Misty have said most of my thoughts but I'd still like to add more. Some people have kids because they are against the idea of killing that child before birth... Perhaps the best course of action is putting no pressure into this choice. There's always going to be people against it but I think it'd be better if those people weren't the majority. So the tax idea is awful, in my opinion, and in the end pro-choice is the best way to go, even if it will take years to gain the majority vote.

Either way... Knowing all the ups and downs to everything and thinking all major choices through is the best thing to do no matter what the topic is.

I believe I got all down that I wanted to, but the thoughts are kind of mixed in my head. I might edit this to make more sense if need be.

 

There can be intimacy in ways beyond just sexual activity. To say that lack of sexual pleasure would leave a hole in a relationship is extremely ignorant. When I was with Victoria, we talked on Skype about everything, and it gave us an intimacy beyond what sexual pleasure could bring. Granted, we broke up, but that's only because she wanted me to have the option of sexual intimacy, so that's behind the point. My point is that sex may be a good tool for building intimacy, but there are much better ways.


@Random Angel: So you're saying that children of rape deserve to be punished just for existing? Better to let them live and decide for themselves what to do. At least if they become suicidal it's their choice to die.

 

Good point. But I see how much people like that suffer... Most wish they were never born. And most can't bring themself to commit suicide so they live their entire life unhappy. Crying themselves to sleep, pushing away anyone who tries to help, doing drugs, drinking, etc. Not saying it's like that in all cases. But still... I guess by that point it's really too late, but I believe in the idea of rebirth. Perhaps they can be reborn into a normal family without these worries and skip the life of torment altogether.

And what you said... It's like it's so much better for one to kill themself. No one should have to go through such a life which leads to that.

 

. .

 

I don't plan on trying to make a federal law. That's way too much work that I know I could never get done in my life time. Just a state law.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, perhaps a better option would be to give abortion clinics with therapists a competitive edge over those that don't. Perhaps a tax cut or government funding for certain equipment.

Considering that abortion clinics are in the more backwater neighborhoods, the counseling from a therapist working for a clinic would most definitely be cheaper.

Well I don't have much else to say on the bulk of your post, but the whole thing on fetuses not being human is the one part that I can argue thoroughly.

If they aren't human, why is killing a pregnant woman considered a double count murder? And if you don't think they're human, couldn't you say the same about the views of the Nazi party? They believed that Jews weren't human. So in saying that the fetus isn't human, you've just justified the killing of over 6,000,000 Jews, members of my mother religion. Congratulations ya Nazi. As I've said before, pregnancy shouldn't be considered an STD that you can get rid of with surgery or drugs. And you're wrong on an unborn baby being no more human than a sperm or an egg. The sperm and egg only contain HALF of the genetic material required for human life. Thus, that point is invalid. If you can prove through scientific fact that a human fetus isn't human, go right ahead.


@RA: Suicide is better than abortion in my opinion. It should be up to you whether or not you die prematurely. You know how many women argue, "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it?" The same should go for everybody else. If the baby isn't meant to live, God will allow for a still birth. Now this is assuming that there is a God, so don't rage at me if you're an atheist.

 

Stop trying to make this competitive. There is absolutely no call for that and all it's going to do is pay crappy therapists extra money to talk to people who need dedicated professionals. Do you really want to make a difference? Sink some money into an ad encouraging people to talk about it with their friends and family. A person facing a dilemma that taxing is not going to want outside help, she's going to want people she knows and opinions she trusts, and more than anything she'll want support from wherever and whomever she can get it. Plus, what's the point of having therapists at the abortion clinic when you go to an abortion clinic to get an abortion? If they're trying to convince the girl not to get it, they'll be fighting an uphill battle already. Better to encourage the pregnant woman to seek help and know her options before she takes the plunge.

You have no business being in a forum for intelligent discussion if you're going to make wild implications, slanderous remarks and stabbing comments at someone else's intelligent and well-thought-out views. I've said it to Rho and I'll say it to you: Take that shit to the Spamzone. It's not changing anyone's mind and it's not helping your point in the slightest. If you can't treat views opposed to yours as equal and deserving of respect, you're not debating; you're arguing. And there is no forum for argument here.

And while I'm at it, you need to lay off the Nazi thing. I happen to have been acquainted with a neo-Nazi at one time. He's never killed a single person, he's just way into Jewish media domination conspiracy theories. In class we'd poke fun at him for it, but it's not like we hated the guy on principle; we may have strongly disagreed, but his point was held in due esteem (I mean, somebody's dominating the media, dunno if it's the Jews though). A viewpoint is harmless by itself; it's the people, the people who use their views as a pretext for murder, that should be blamed. And 'Nazis' as a blanket term includes the dozens of soldiers and officials in Nazi Germany who, quite frankly, didn't believe a word Hitler said and tried to assassinate him more than once. That word has no power as an insult or as an excuse, so you may as well drop it. You also need to quit hammering the "Judaism is my mother religion" bit. You being a Jew has nothing to do with those particular Jews. It doesn't make you any more special or your point any more valid than a contemporary Muslim or Buddhist or Atheist arguing the same stance. In fact, it predisposes people to assume bias on your part, unless they have the mental discipline not to do so. And it makes Judaism sound like a shallow label, the way you say it. You ought to have some respect for your mother religion and not use it as ammo.

I have no argument for the humanity of a fetus, because having studied biology more extensively than the average English major I can vouch that life starts pretty early in the womb. But time and time again this issue has been put forth, and time and time again the shoulders of the word "human" bear the weight of moral dilemma all by themselves.

First off, we kill plenty of babies. Daily. We kill so much life in the average day that we'd all hate ourselves and wish ourselves dead... if any of it was human. Frankly I think it's just the over-inflated human ego that powers most of this debate; if we crushed plant seeds for fun or if we could repurpose larval insect DNA to create cancer-killing cells, no one would bat an eyelash.

Second, what of personhood? Life is a blank slate, a malleable template able to grow and to be molded in so many shapes. But what do you value more: a dozen blank slates, or one fleshed-out story? I watched a short documentary on stem cell research where one of the scientists being interviewed said that if he was in a designated facility with his child and it caught fire, and he could either save the stem cells or his kid, he'd go with his kid hands-down. Is that really any different from what we're talking about here? People's lives being interrupted by an unwanted pregnancy is unfair. Killing a life prematurely is pretty unfair too, but it just doesn't compare to a living, breathing, thinking person with dreams and aspirations having all of that crushed by one little mistake. I say, let us control what unfairness we accept; let us spit in the face of chance and destiny and preserve the person, not the life.

I seriously think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. I'm not even going to tackle this one, because I'm already borderline hypocritical with a lot of what I've said, I've dealt with too much suicide, and I'm far too emotionally charged not to completely go against what I just told you up above, but trust me, that statement needs some work.

Because that's so much better than an abortion. Look, all you're doing here is belittling every tragedy and every unfortunate circumstance at work except the one you're arguing. No abortion under any circumstances whatsoever is not healthy; some people just can't deal with that. Believe me, I'm particularly averse to the idea of snuffing out a life before it has a chance to be somebody. Hell, I was an accident, raised in a broken home and part of a dysfunctional family for a sizable part of the time I was supposed to be growing socially and coming into my own, but I'm pretty sure I've saved a few lives that the world wouldn't have the pleasure of knowing today if I'd never been born or if I'd been aborted. So I definitely have an enriched appreciation for giving infants a chance to grow into something great. But my situation and my parents' situation is not the same for every living thing that's ever born into the world. This sort of thing needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, not generalized into black-and-white, right-and-wrong, and in extreme cases sometimes sacrifices must be made. Life can be cruel like that; there's no helping it.

 

You do make a good point with all of this. But if it was rape and the girl was trying to stop it then the parents should be a bit more understanding. Plus adoption isn't always as bad as you made it seem. It's a way of keeping the baby alive and not taking away from the girl's education and social life. Sure her life going forward won't be the same but she won't have to worry about this as much. I'm just appaled by the fact that people don't see this as murder. In reality it is and any way possible to avoid it (like say... stay away from the guys who would rape you in the first place) is, in my opinion, the better option.

 

. .

 

Nothing to say about the rest since you obviously can't see the other side, but you are completely and totally without a doubt wrong wrong wrong on "No Baptism=No Salvation." Christians (or at least Catholics) believe that a child who dies before baptism is to be entrusted to God's mercy. Likewise, we also don't condemn those of other religions or lacking religion to Hell. Such a misconception as that is so wildly wrong that it's completely and utterly insulting. I do not believe for one moment that just because you're an Atheist that means you automatically go to Hell for not being baptized or rejecting that baptism after the fact. I also don't believe that practicers of Judaism and Islam, my mother and sister religions with no form of Baptism, go to Hell. And then we have Buddhists, who are very different from Christians in beliefs. They too get to share in the possibility of Salvation. We won't even believe that Hitler went to Hell without proof, although we sure as Jesus Saved us hope he did.

Please keep this in mind the next time you use that argument.

And no, I'm not a troll. I believe that abortion is murder and that's final.