Would this be a possible, livable solution for the problem of conflicting opinions in the abortion debates?

Question

I was just wondering if this would be a possible solution...

Abortions are allowed. However, you have to pay a certain percent of your income to adoption agencies for the one year after you've had an abortion.

It was just an idea. I figured it should work alright, since those whom are getting abortions would, for a year, give up some of their money to adoption agencies, where there are children who were not aborted, but, are forced to remain family-less.

The only exceptions, I believe, would be if you NEEDED to have the abortion... as in it would cause you and/or the child to die should you actually give birth. Also, if you were raped -- and filed a report with the police that you were raped -- it should be wavered. Likewise if you are under the age of 16 and have no job.

... Would this be acceptable to both sides of the debaters?

Answer 1

Even though I am a very conservative Republican I feel abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her physician (and the father ONLY IF THEY ARE MARRIED). I have a real problem with the government interfering in my business.

I wish no one ever had the need for an abortion, it is a very difficult thing for anyone to go through. Even though it was many, many years ago, I still regret my decision to abort, but I truly believe it should remain legal.

Answer 2

It's not a question of money. It a question of fanaticism. Paying some kind of tribute as an atonement for what they want to consider 'murder' would not appease a fanatic.
Compare the two positions.
If government could simply pass a law saying NO ABORTION EVER, then these fanatics would be happy. But young girls would go and get 'back alley' abortions anyway, putting their lives at great risk too.
This is the main point in having abortion legal and it is not even addressed by the fanatics.
Similarly, when talking about capital punishment it is no arguement to them to explain that it costs less to keep a man in jail until he dies than to go through with the appeals procedures.
They will simply turn around and say that it is the appeals procedures that cost the extra money, not the execution.
There is a total lack of even a semblence of logic in the fanatical arguement.
Two examples of how fanatics will never compromise.. they wouldn't be fanatics if they did.

Answer 3

I applaud your efforts to come up with a peaceable solution. Unfortunately it has been proven at the moment of conception a human cell starts to divide. If it isn't a live being it wouldn't keep growing, so if you let it alone it will form a human so to kill it at any stage is wrong. It may not have any contribution to society or capable of thought at this point but it will in time. And some of these so called needed abortions the mothers and babies come thru fine. Money should never be a factor cause if you don't have money to raise a child don't have sex! If you are a rape victim go to an agency that will help you pay for the birth and give it up for adoption. You will never get those who believe it's wrong to compromise.

Answer 4

I don't usually participate in this argument, but it occurs to me that people who believe a zygote is a "human being" will have some problems with your proposal. On the other hand, I do believe that adoption CAN enter into the argument.

For those who see the need to protect blastulas and such from "murder," it would seem appropriate to create a "pro-life" adoption registration movement. In it, people would take an oath to raise a child if it is carried to term by a woman who does not wish to have it. These pro-lifers could make this as a binding legal offer to women who might be amenable to a non-abortion solution.

Certainly this would only address a small number of cases - say one per "pro-life" family, but it would be a start. After all, in "pro-life" terms, even one embryo saved is a great contribution.

Answer 5

No, I that would not be a workable solution.

You have to understand why most people opposed to abortion hold their point of view. The real question is, "what is it that is killed during an abortion?"

Pro-life people believe the unborn child is a human being. Human beings are special, and we don't have the right to kill another human being just for convenience sake.

You might argue about whether or not we are correct in our belief that the unborn is a human being. If we are incorrect, then there is no reason whatsoever to put any restrictions on abortion. However, if we are correct, then there are very few conditions in which it would be acceptable to ever perform an abortion.

So, let's assume for a minute that the pro-life people are correct. For the sake of argument, let's assume the unborn child is a human being. In that case, it doesn't matter how old the human being is. To the pro-lifer, your question might just as well ask if it would be acceptable for a mother of an unwanted two-year old to kill her child if she promised to pay a certain percentage of her income to adoption agencies for one year. Of course they would find this to be unacceptable, as would most people.

So you see, the real question - the one most pro-abortion people refuse to answer - is what is it that is being killed in an abortion.

Answer 6

From my point of view this is not acceptable. Money is not the issue with abortions. Its the fact that a fetus is life from the time of its conception. Abortion is legal murder. It has never been right and never will be right. There have been many wise and wonderful people born who were a product of rape. They may not be here now if abortion was legalized when they were born. Nothing will make both sides agree except make it illegal again and let these babies live. God is the only one that has the right to give and take life not man

Answer 7

No. Abortion should end. Period. No exceptions.

As horrible as a rape is, the baby produced by it did not ask to come into the world and has no fault whatsoever of the rape. It is simply a new, innocent life that must be protected and cherished even if it's conception was violent. Killing the baby does not heal the wounds of the rape victim.

Killing one person to save another is also wrong. They both have the same right to life.

If someone is a minor, they can either keep in the baby or consider giving it up for adoption to someone else more capable of caring for the child.

Answer 8

What would this prevent. Chances are having the child would cost more money. People would still take the cheap way out or the back room wire hanger shops would start up again. And alot of young wemon would start geting hurt. I dont care if your pro life or choice. this is a civil issue not religious or personal rights. What ever is best for the public as a whole is what shud rule any dicisions made on this subject.

Answer 9

My side of the debate would be that killing a person is wrong and an unborn fetus is a person. End of debate. I'm not sure how to give you a link or to attach this but I got an email from a friend recently. It was about a surgeon doing intrauterine surgery on a 21 week fetus with spina bifida. There is a picture of the baby's hand reaching through the incision and grasping the surgeon's finger. Also, I once saw a bumper sticker which I think says it all - If it isn't a baby, you aren't pregnant!

Answer 10

What does the people having abortions have anything to do with adoption agencies? I don't see the connection. Those who choose to have an abortion have made a very difficult, and sometimes positive decision for their survival. Whether it be medical or psychological. Why would you have to fund an abortion agency because you have chosen to have an abortion? This really perplexes me.