T
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.
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.