I wasn't aware that pro-lifers as a group necessarily supported abortion in the case of rape. From what I've seen there seems to be a fairly wide-spread stance of 'only if it's necessary to save the mother's life'. Earlier in this thread I posted a quote by a US Senator in South Dakota who stated that only a special class of rape victims, the virginal religious girl, would be deserving of an abortion, since she'd be more traumatised than say an atheist middle-aged divorcee.Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
The law passed in South Dakota, which was what this thread started out discussing does not have a provision for cases of rape, only for cases where the mother's life would be endangered by carrying the fetus to term (i'm pretty sure, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
And no, I don't already know the answer to my question.
Are you proposing that abortion be a financial burden on anyone who became pregnant through consensual sex? Because like I said, that could put poorer women in quite the bind. Can't afford to have a kid, can't afford to not have a kid. They'd be forced into either abstinence (I think unlikely) or black-market abortions. Which I'm sure would spring up if this scenario were to take place.
I'm fairly certain that teen and unexpected pregnancies are more common among lower income brackets (again, I don't have a specific source on this, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong), and a system like this would only make the problem worse.
Wealthy families would have much less of a problem paying the fees, which would create an unfair system where sex has fewer consequences the more money you have.
Or would there be a sliding scale to make sure that everybody had a suitably puishiing fee? i'd love to see somebody try to implement that!
i really don't see how you could make that a practical system at all. And I don't see how it's a good idea at all either.






Reply With Quote