Abortions on the incline or decline?

I was trying to figure out how to do this as a "poll," but because the poll options are so limited (only so many characters for questions and answers) I really couldn't do it justice, so we'll have to do this the old-fashioned way.

Let's say someone develops some medical procedure whereby a woman who is pregnant can have the embryo removed at any point with minimal risk to both woman and embryo. The embryo can then be kept indefinitely "on ice" or by some other storage means.

I am curious how both those who consider themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" would come down on this, with the following questions:

1) Would you favor a law making abortions illegal, but allowing for this procedure with no restrictions -- that is, no parental notice, no 24-hour waiting period, none of the other restrictions many states are now putting on abortions?

2) If both options were to be available legally to the woman, would you favor some sort of legislation saying that if she chose this hypothetical procedure the government would pay for it, but if she chose the abortion she would have to pay for it herself?

3) Would you support making this procedure available and free to all women? If so, how would you fund it? (i.e. property tax, income tax, sales tax, "child" tax, etc.)

4) Let's move 100 years into the future of this hypothetical world: tens of thousands of abortions are prevented each year. Many of them are "adopted," but the supply is significantly greater than the demand. After 100 years, we have a significant glut of embryos, and the cost of storing them has become prohibitive, with individuals paying 30-50% of their income just to support that system. What is your solution to this problem?

Yes, I know this is completely hypothetical, and maybe a waste of gray matter, but I'm curious what others think.

Just to be fair, here are my answers:

1) I would still want abortions to be legal. No one can know what reason a woman might have for getting an abortion. I would be afraid that such a law prohibiting abortion completely may not take in all the possibilities a woman may face in every situation, and would still want to leave the final decision up to the woman and her doctor. Of course, I would want to do everything to encourage the woman to get the life-affirming procedure instead.

2) Per above, yes. I think any organization or individual that calls itself pro-life should be more than happy to pay for this procedure, since it prevents abortion. If that is the actual goal, then this makes sense. Of course, if the goal isn't actually to prevent abortion, but to control women's sex lives, then it's a different issue altogether.

3) I'd like to see a tax, perhaps inversely proportional to the number of children you have. For example, if you have 3 or more children, your tax to fund this would be lower than if you had no children. And if you actually purchased a child through that procedure to raise as your own, you were exempt from the tax. Or something like that.

4) This is a tough one, and why I'm asking the question. It really brings up an important ethical question about abortion, sanctity of life, etc., that I'm not convinced people really consider. I have no answer.

Ok...I think the question here is.....ARE YOU SERIOUS? FROZEN BABIES?!!!! Just....NO

The point is, they could be implanted by a woman who wanted one and, for whatever reason couldn't get pregnant herself, and then she could carry the embryo to term and have her own child. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Hmm, that is very interesting. Thank you for making this thread, I love posts that make me question my beliefs and think.

1) I think abortions should continue to be available, although I think the rates would go down, which is every pro-choice advocate's ultimate goal. In that respect I think this would be a great thing.

2) I'm not sure whether I think the government should pay for it. I don't know if I'm going to be able to come up with an answer for you on that one. I'd probably say no because I think such a procedure would be very expensive, but I would have to review all of the facts if this came into politics (which I doubt it will, but it's all hypothetical)

3) Again, I'm not sure how it should be paid for. It should be available to all women, but I don't know about free. Maybe there can be some way to lower the cost for poorer women who don't want to get an abortion but can't see themselves carrying a child to term. Don't know if this should be through taxes or organizations, though. Again, food for thought.

4) At this point it seems like abortion would be a better option. I might get a lot of rebuttal on here for that, but if you get to the point that you have to store embryos and there is no foreseeable future for them, well... it's something to consider. As someone who is pro-choice I don't consider embryos people, but rather a cluster of cells, so keeping them around seems the same as storing men's semen every time they ejaculate because of the potential life it could bring.

Just my opinion on the matter.

The people who advocate abortion are those who have already been born. - Ronald Regan

What's that have to do with this?

A b o r t i o n

She's not talking about abortion, she's offering a hypothetical alternative that keeps the embryo alive. Rather than nonsense quotes everyone has heard a hundred times, maybe answer the original post in this thread.

No, my problem is this:

I don't see how this is pro-life in the first place.
And that's because.... you kinda already answered this in here:


As you said, eventually there will be more babies or embryos than parents willing to adopt them. Not to mention the fact that just keeping an embryo on ice or whatever is already weird. I would see this is a step more towards deshumanizing babies and rather seeing them as something you can buy or keep in your fridge. Call me old-fashioned but I believe some things aren't supposed to be tainted by technology. My solution to this problem is....keep babies in the womb.

Lol, it wasn't my intention but I'm always happy to make someone smile God bless you!

Ummm ... You quoted my whole post, and responded with a statement that neither confirmed nor contradicted my post, but simply made a statement. I'm with batman: What does your statement have to do with my post?

First, let me say that I am against murdering unborn babies.

Nevertheless, I would like government to stay completely out of it. Those of us who love the Lord and do our best to live our life for Him would never, ever, do this. Almost all who do are lost, anyway.

What I find wrong with this thinking is the need to protect the innocent. Ideally, we need to somehow see that these children are born and then take them into our care. Ordering them to be born without being wanted or into bad situations seems cruel.

Well, if it prevents a woman from getting an abortion, don't you think that would be a good thing?

I mean, far be it from me to assume I speak for all Christians, but my understanding is that pretty much every human -- Christian or not -- agrees that general abortion is not a great thing. Some people want to see it made illegal, others want to see it remain legal, but even those don't particularly "like" it.

Maybe I'm mistaken about those who call themselves "pro-life," but I thought their end goal was to save as many un-born babies as possible. If you don't really want to save the unborn babies, then the only reason you would be against keeping abortion legal would be because you don't think women should have the right to make their own decisions concerning their own lives.

The thing is there already ARE more babies than parents willing to adopt them. Even without this magical procedure, there are more children out there waiting for a good home than people who are willing to provide homes for them.

You feel this would be more dehumanizing than abortion? More dehumanizing than adoption? Why? I certainly see it as less dehumanizing than abortion, and certainly no worse than adoption, but in fact significantly better. For one thing, as a "frozen" embryo, the child does not age and go through months or years in the welfare system wondering "why won't anyone adopt me? Why doesn't anyone love me? I must be an awful human being, even my mother didn't want me." (Which seems horribly dehumanizing to me!) For another, we have saved the woman from going through 9 months of morning sickness, extreme fatigue, back-aches, sore breasts, and all the other complications that go along with being pregnant. Thinking of a woman as an incubator seems exceedingly dehumanizing to me.

So I can concede that my scenario may be "weird" -- yes, it's hypothetical and complete fiction, and I could see how it would be seen as "weird" by some.... But I don't get how this "weird" procedure would be any more dehumanizing that what already happens in the world today. Abortion and adoption both are more dehumanizing, and forcing a woman to take care of a baby that she cannot afford doesn't help the baby, the mother, or society at large.

So you would favor abortion?

Thank you for this. You've said it very well.

What do you think about the "fantasy" procedure posted in the original post? Do you think that would help, allowing more women to choose a healthy option, neither abortion nor being born unwanted?

Thanks again for your calm demeanor in this often hot-button issue.

Here fishy fishy fishy...

Cute picture.

I'm curious, who do you think is "baiting" whom? Clearly, I am looking for a discussion, but I am honestly trying to find some middle-ground, some place where both sides can maybe agree. I'm not sure I would call that "baiting."

Or were you referring to someone or something else?

Quote TheGrunge: What do you think about the "fantasy" procedure posted in the original post? Do you think that would help, allowing more women to choose a healthy option, neither abortion nor being born unwanted?

Click to expand...

The fantasy I have about solving this problem has everyone going back to the rituals God gave the Hebrews for living out love, but doing this through the HS so the rituals are only used to live what the HS tells them. How is THAT for fantasy. Both our fantasies have a lot in common.

My fantasy was lived out in the dark ages when the Jews used the rituals God suggested. They stuck together and helped each other. God compared these instructions to a person who protected children. Sometimes I think we could all use these instructions in addition to the HS we have been given.

God has always left choice up to us. Gentiles could always join with the Hebrews, but if they didn’t choose to they were not included.

I see where you're going here.
Adoption is not the same as abortion, and to imply that adoption is dehumanizing just doesn't make sense. I know a little girl who was adopted and she has the most loving family she could ever have. She knows she is adopted, and she also knows that her parents love her so much, even if they are not her biological parents. How is that comparable to tearing apart a baby in the womb?

Now, back to your first question. I don't think it would be a good thing because it won't save lives. It will kill more lives (assuming this hypothetical situation was real). We have abortion already, we dont't need more procedures where babies can be thrown away to the trash because they are a burden to society.

This right here is manipulating words. I already explained that, for starters, I dont think this would save unborn babies. I'm against abortion because of the babies' sake, not because I think women shouldn't have the right to make decisions. I mean, I AM A WOMAN, I'm pretty much pro-women . Of course there are situations, like when you have to decide between saving the baby or the mother, and in those occasions I think it's up to the mom or the family to decide. But these are exceptions, not the rule.

I know there are many babies waiting for parents to adopt them. The problem I see with this hypothetical situation is that 1) We will have teenagers abusing this procedure and hence thousands of babies being removed from their mother's womb to be storaged on ice(or storaged by any other means), and 2) it dehumanizes babies. It does.

A woman was made to give birth. I didn't know we needed to ''save '' women from this...disease?? Btw, before anyone goes crazy, I'm not saying ALL women are called to have babies and MUST have babies no matter what. But we are made that way, and we can't deny it. If you get pregnant, you will have pregnancy symptons.

I agree that there are a million things in the world that are dehumanizing. Murder, rape, abuse, greed,etc but I don't think the answer should be fighting fire with fire. You are saying that abortion is dehumanizing to mothers, while ignoring what it does to babies.
I believe that we should try to help pregnant women to consider adoption if they don't want to raise the baby instead of making abortion look like the ultimate and best solution.

I don't even know how you would think abortion has to be the solution to this hypothetical problem. But I had the feeling that that was what you were trying to prove from your first post.





I wanna add that I don't like something about Christianity when it comes to the topic of abortion. I believe many Christians are more focused on making abortion illegal rather than helping pregnant women consider adoption (by paying for their expenses or simply being loving towards them). If we as a Church did everything we are called to do, I'm sure we would have a different scenario. But maybe that's another hypothetical situation one that I wish would come true.The government could play a significant role here too....instead of paying abortions for EVERYONE they could be paying for the mother's expenses and help them find a family that wants to keep the baby. I don't know I just don't see myself ever advocating abortion when there are other ways.