1. Abortion acceptable in all cases of rape and incest.
2. One abortion allowed, but sterilization mandatory afterward. (Where no rape or incest occured)
2007-05-16 04:37:18 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Being 'barbaric' is the point. You would REALLY have to think that it is vital to have an abortion in order to go through with it.
2007-05-16 04:54:31 · update #1
There is always adoption. Also, you forgot to address the situation where the mother's life is at risk. I do not think there is such a thing as a "good" compromise when it comes to abortion.
2007-05-16 04:53:11 · answer #1 · answered by T S 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Are you advocating mandatory sterilization for the man who is involved with the pregnancy that ends with abortion as well? Or is it just the females who are subjected? Abortion is still legal -- get over it and stop treating women as criminals!!!!
2007-05-16 09:11:45 · answer #2 · answered by ninaol 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First few weeks? maximum women folk do not even understand they're pregnant in the 1st few weeks! i've got not got faith in criminalizing abortion, yet once you are going to seek for out a time cut back-based compromise, a miles greater effective one may be a cut back-off ingredient of the 1st trimester, not basically some weeks. (even nevertheless maximum abortions ensue in the 1st trimester besides). I easily agree approximately loose obtainable beginning administration and complete intercourse preparation, nevertheless.
2016-11-23 17:34:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. ) good idea - why would you make someone have a baby from such an appalling circumstance? why would you selfishly make a child grow up knowing they were made from hate and violence? Aren't there enough suicides or mental health issues? (you know - the stuff you anti-choice folks dont want to pay for?)
2. ) Sorry I dont want a limit on such things. Women have a right to control their own bodies. If men do - women do too.
what if #1 happend more than once? you are giving control to the rapist and the molestor,...... In your world, after the second "offence", they could keep raping her without her being able to ever have babies when SHE wanted to.
2007-05-16 05:01:11 · answer #4 · answered by Nitebreed MN 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually how about mandatory reversible sterilization of all members of one sex at birth. Then people would have to apply for license to breed. No more abortions from unwanted pregnancies and it would stop the stupid people from reproducing.
2007-05-16 05:18:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Mandatory sterilization is an absolutely barbaric, unacceptable option and holds no place in a civilized country.
2007-05-16 04:47:21 · answer #6 · answered by leslie 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No that is absurd. I think abortion is wrong but I do not think you should sterilize someone who has an abortion.
2007-05-16 04:53:39 · answer #7 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it would be a step in the right direction.
Mandatory sterliization is no more barbaric than killing another human being. Why not do somethign to prevent them from killing again?
2007-05-16 04:45:56 · answer #8 · answered by Gary W 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course not.
In point one, why kill the child because of the act of a raping father?
In point 2, the mother (or father, I suppose) could have chosen to have the sterilzation before coupling. Again, why kill the child because of the mistake of the parent?
There's a lot of mean people here... I've gotten six thumbs down for not wanting to kill a child.
By the way, "preserving life" is not a "Nazi-Germany" ideal. The Nazis were bent on destroying life, much like those who support abortion.
2007-05-16 04:42:47 · answer #9 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Another step towards the policies of Nazi Germany. You Cons must be so proud of your "progress".
2007-05-16 05:08:53 · answer #10 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋