Sexual Health
+1 y

The Polarized Abortion Debate

Recently, I watched a documentary about the Abortion debate. It clearly portrayed abortion from a liberal/democrat perspective. As the presidential election is coming up, one big topic is abortion, which is kind of strange. You would think that the abortion debate is a dead debate, already resolved with Roe vs Wade. But nope, the abortion debate, as the documentary highlights, is still ongoing in the courtrooms and in the general population. Conservatives are not giving up in the anti-abortion regulations. So, even though abortion is fully legal, it has become so difficult to obtain that it's no different from being outlawed. Liberals want to make abortion fully legal and accessible to all pregnant women who want abortion, because abortion is the only choice in a desperate environment.

I reject both political stances and can't understand why both parties just won't come together and work out their differences. I propose 3 different politically moderate solutions to the abortion debate.

The Polarized Abortion Debate

Solution 1:

All abortion clinics should be privately funded. This will resolve the debate about defunding Planned Parenthood and other publicly funded abortion clinics. People tend to get very upset about spending their own hard-earned money on something they disagree with or find immoral. People who do support abortion must step up and fund these private abortion clinics across the country. That way, people can still get abortions, if they want to get an abortion. And people who disagree with the morality of abortion are not obligated to fund such a practice. It's a win-win situation.

Solution 2:

If the city, state, or federal government does not fund abortion because of the morality of abortion, then the city, state, or federal government must offer government-sponsored childcare services to alleviate the burdens of the women to look after another child or allow religious institutions to become the guardians of the children by putting the children into religious foundling homes or encourage able adults to adopt more children. The government should also invest in a comprehensive sexual education program in the schools and for people who are considering an abortion and emphasize on the economic advantages of choosing sexual abstinence and solo masturbation as free birth control. That way, people who disagree with the morality of abortion may see a decrease in abortion rates, and people who want to get rid of the child in some way don't have to abort the child to get rid of it.

Solution 3:

Any woman who is considering an abortion must be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies. Her partner must also be sterilized. Because sterilization is a permanent and irreversible procedure, this will reduce the consumption of contraceptives. Before the sterilization takes place, she must be dissuaded from the abortion by being exposed to a discussion about the negative consequences of abortion. This should decrease the likelihood of choosing the abortion. Then, she will give birth to the child. The child will be taken to a foundling home and/or adopted by another family. Meanwhile, she and her own partner must be sterilized free-of-charge, if they cannot afford contraceptives long-term.

My proposals above are just that: proposals. But the purpose of the proposals is to show you that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. Is abortion absolutely necessary? No, I don't think so, if there is some kind of government-sponsored childcare service or religious institution that will take in the child. But currently, abortion may be necessary in desperate economic situations to get rid of an unwanted child, as the prime reason for an abortion is that it increases the financial burden of the household, and taking in another child means decreasing the quality of life for the older children. Why liberals and conservatives just can't come together and figure out middle-ground solutions is beyond me.

0 0

Most Helpful Girl

  • Solution 1: Sound in theory, but would require thorough and steep government regulation. Making abortion into a for-profit industry opens it up to all kinds of issues: intentionally hiking prices to restrict access, low quality and potentially dangerous services for the sake of cost savings, exploiting desperate people by "upselling" them with unnecessary services, etc. Full private control of such a delicate and hot button area of medicine would only lead to trouble.

    Solution 2: Also interesting. I like the idea that if the state does not offer A, they offer B instead. The problem is with the abstinence-only education though. This type of sex ed has been shown time and time again to be ineffective and generally leads to increased pregnancy rates in areas where taught. People are going to have sex no matter what, so the best practice is to encourage use of contraception to prevent the consequences of the inevitable.

    Solution 3: This is certifiably insane. This is so wrong on so many levels. Disregarding how mirally troubling this is, I'll address a few of the more issues among the countless:

    -This move would set an extremely dangerous precedent that would give government control over one's body in all sorts of ways. If this were to pass, who's not to say that they next force people they deem "unfit" because of their class, race, beliefs, etc. This has happened before, so no doubt it could happen again.

    -The sterlization unduly affects men. Assuming it's fully the woman's decision to get the procedure, why does the man need to be sterilized as well? It unduly punishes him for something he was not involved in.

    -Environmentally friendly? How? Medical procedures produce a lot of waste, especially invasive ones like tubal ligation. To name what I can think of: medical gloves, disposable medical garments, sterlization chemicals, metal tools like scalpels and gauze, plastic tools like clips and suction hoses, containers for all these things, and so on. One sterlization creates far more waste than you think.

    And on a side note, you seem extremely concerned about being "environmentally friendly" and all, so I ask you this: isn't a few dozen condoms a lot more environmentally than a child? What about the thousands of diapers, hundreds of containers of formula, dozens of new outfits every few months, hundreds of gallons of water for laundry, bathing, etc., and the list goes on. And that's just the first year or two!

Most Helpful Guy

  • I agree with @Saoirse_Nua. You're "solutions" (cough cough) are extremely cynical.
    Also, "people tend to get upset about spending their own, hard-earned money about things they disagree with" --> You know what? Too fucking bad. This is part of being a citizen. As members of western democratic states, we don't just have rights, we also have duties. One of these duties is paying taxes. We pay taxes NOT as a punishment but as a way of keeping our societies from falling apart. Do I care about the military? Absolutely not. Do I care about farmers? No. Do I care about big businesses paying low taxes? Nope. Yet, I accept to give away some of my money for all of these things to keep my country functioning. In return, conservatives pay taxes for education and research and health, which I cherish. Here in Switzerland, they write a sentence on tax forms that I find very fitting: "We thank you very much for your contribution and though you may not pay it with pleasure, we sincerely hope you pay it with conviction."
    In America, too few people have this conviction unfortunately. There are far too many selfish pricks, particularly on the conservative side of the aisle.

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

4 9

  • The simplest way to describe this graph: As the science of what's really going on becomes more aware, conservatives feel more affirmed in their position than ever.

    Liberals suddenly find religion, but it's not scientific nor is it that which is on the conservative side. Instead, fearful that they will lose money and power, they adopt the worldview of ancient pagan demon-worshiping cultures, to find a way to philosophically keep abortion alive. The unborn as the new slavery is a critical money train that they can't afford to lose.

    As the anti-abortion position becomes stronger, the pro-death side becomes shriller to compensate.

  • I will never be ok with killing babies. I'd rather die then kill my baby. Even in rape that baby is innocent and apart of you. Do you people even know how inhumane the procedure is. They suck out the amniotic fluid leaving the baby to suffocate and if that doesn't kill the baby first imagine how painfull it must be to be dismembered alive. I think it's sad that animals have more rights then unborn babies. And now abortions are so easy to get that girls use it as a form of birth control. Let's just have unprotected sex cuz I can always get an abortion. I'm against all together but I would at least be happier knowing a women would have to show good reason in court to have an abortion and the doctors need to find a humane way to abort a child. At least then you don't have women abusing their so called rights and the babies don't have to suffer. People are irresponsible and the child suffers for it. They could have used a condom, birth control, or had an iud put in knowing they were gonna be sexually active. Hell you even have the morning after pill you could take if you did mess up, noticed the condom broke, or you were raped. And now people want to have the right to kill their babies in the 3rd trimester. If planned parenthood is gonna get funding for anything, it should be for birth control, the plan B pill, and giving free iud's.

  • I don't agree with any of these solutions. The debate if whether it should be legal or not. And solution 3 would actually probably cause more of an uproar.

  • You missing big points. Sometimes abortion is a must.
    1. Pregnancy is the result of rape.
    2. Pregnancy is life threatening for woman
    3. I don't know what about the USA, but in Europe all foetuses being tested for mental illnesses ( Down syndrome, etc.) If tests are positive, woman goes for another test and if again positive, abortion is suggested. Not all people are able to deal with care about disabled child some people are not willing. If parents put this baby in social care, it cost money of taxpayers.

    • Abortion bepof disability should carry the death penalty.

    • @bobbyxx you have no fucking clue what you talking about

    • Fuck off you sick cunt. Your runt of a mother should have aborted. You are probably the product of a transaction.

    • Show All

  • Solution 1: Many people disagree with buying bombs, but they have to put up with it.

    Solution 2:
    a) It's a bit late to be educating people considering an abortion about sex.
    b) People who don't want to have a baby probably don't want to go through 7-8 more months of pregnancy and childbirth instead of an abortion.
    c) I agree that paying for the care of children after birth would alleviate allegations of hypocrisy of "pro-life" people who don't care about children once they're born.
    d) Why not just give them free contraception instead of insisting they should only have sex by themselves?

    Solution 3:
    That's just sick. There are many long term contraceptives that are reasonably effective and an early abortion is a reasonable solution to failed contraception.
    Many people are not in a position to give a child a good life when they are young, but that may change over time. It makes more sense to be able to plan when you have babies in order to be able to give the ones you have love and security.
    "19 kids and counting" is a good way to destroy the human race.

    • If many people are not in a position to give a child a good life when they are young, then they should not have sex. If they do have sex because "they can't help it", then they should be sterilized.

    • People don't have sex because they "can't help it", they have it because it feels good and it's (usually) free and it's an instinct. Maybe they would be able to give a child a good life if there was a decent minimum wage.

  • WTF - That was the biggest Pro Life Anti Poor stealth piece I have ever seen

  • It's not a debate. People are just too lazy to do case by case analysis to determine whether it is ok to have an abortion so they just pidgeonhole shit to avoid intelligence and work

  • The first two could work hypothetically under normal circumstances, but the 3rd solution is just absurd. Why should they be sterilized because they chose to have an abortion? Can't they just go on birth control or have their sexual partner use a condom to prevent future pregnancies at their own will? That just seems overly complicated for no reason.

    • 1. A condom is not environmentally friendly. 2. A condom is temporary, not permanent. 3. You have to purchase a pack of condoms and wear a condom every single time you have sex. Again, not environmentally friendly. It's not a green solution. 4. Forced sterilization may sound cruel, but it is the best, environmentally sound solution to make sure people don't have any more kids. 5. Condoms fail, because too many people do not know how to put on one correctly, and when they do, they don't maintain it well. Or they may choose a condom of the wrong size. Sterilization erases all of those problems.

    • And what about birth control pills?

    • It sounds kind of immoral to force people to sterilize themselves...

    • Show All

  • Solution 1 is ignorant because abortions are many times life-saving for the woman. We fund life-saving procedures regardless of religious beliefs. Just like the Jehovah's Witnesses can't take away funding for a blood transfusion.

    Solution 2 is even more ignorant because we already have that stuff and it doesn't work.

    Solution 3 proves you don't know the reasons behind abortion. Should a victim of rape or a woman who nearly died in pregnancy not be allowed to have a child?

    Thanks for proving that every pro-life person is completely ignorant on the subject of abortion.

    • 141plus.files.wordpress.com/.../...ion-reasons.png

      Even in the pro-choice documentary, it acknowledges that most women have an abortion because of stressful economic times. There are many reasons, but one big reason is the economics of raising a child. Your remark proves that you haven't done your research.

    • I never said it was the main reason, I said it was one of the reasons. You still haven't answered why a woman should die just so you religious people can feel superior.

    • Actually, you didn't say it was "one of the reasons". You just said "you don't know the reasons behind abortion", even though I already showed you the *prime* reason. Then, you gave a question. Here is my question for you. Why do you use a minor reason when the major reason is economic?

    • Show All

  • cool

  • there is no abortion debate
    its wrong

    • in every case? no... what about rape? should the woman be forced to keep the baby then?

  • there is no abortion debate. abortion is the right thing to do in so many cases. there's too many ugly people around.

  • Lol "come out" ? Its always easy to tell if someones gay even if they dont know it. LIke my childhood friend Gary, I started calling him Gay Gary cause I knew he was from when we were at elementary school together. I totally called it and when he came out to us it was no big deal because we all could tell he was bent as a hoop. Though he's more like a heterosexual guy in that he gives dick but doesn't take dick. There was this incident on a camping trip one time in which he went off with a couple of college lacrosse players that were a bit drunk, long story short there was a bit of jealousy over the incident and the two lacrosse players came out of the tent the next morning walking funny.

Home >  Sexual Health  > The Polarized Abortion Debate