We could do literal murder this way, with fines on a sliding scale, so rich people could comfortably kill as many people as they need to, which is really how it should be.
Poors should definitely have less reproductive freedom. They haven't managed their finances well enough to not be poor, so they should certainly be priced out of controlling their family size in ways real people aren't.
Jesus, you really are good at deadpan. That's a helluva trick in text format.
Hence the alternative - community service or something, which hits rich people just as hard. In practice though, and I could be wrong about this, but - upper class people don't tend to get abortions quite as often, since they're more conscientious about contraception use.
You're not the only person I know who nearly got terminated before they even had a chance. Gonna go out on a limb and guess you're glad you got a chance at life.
Wrong. I forgave mountains of cruelty until, when I was 17, they crossed a line that made it clear they would stop at nothing to destroy me. And they had the $$ to do it.
If we'd had something like fentanyl, I would have checked out back then. I only didn't due to recognition that failure could leave me disabled & stuck with them for years or decades.
As I told a friend a few years back: 1. You don't miss what you never knew & 2. Who knows what bad karma could have been wiped clean in 1 stroke, instead of years of misery.
I did one of those ai "see what author your writing compares to" where you plug in some 5 or 600 words of something you've written, and mine compared me to Chuck Palahniuk. I was kinda pleased, since the excerpt was from an erotic horror story I was writing. Yeah, yeah. I know. Those things are about as reliable as online IQ tests. ha ha.
Not corrupt govt, not corrupt Vatican either. Should be a not for profit that provides condoms, IUDs, and BC pills to various schools, "health" facilities, clinics, etc. No Govt oversight at either Fed or State levels and no religious oversight... In fact, non-brand named condoms should just be free everywhere anyways to prevent both pregnancy and STDs.
All this said, there should be a hard no date regardless. I like this idea conceptually, but at some point, the difference between a clump of cells and a baby does exists... I'm not a biologist (ha), but there should be a hard no date when it goes from cells to being.
And as a good and decent man, the rape card will need to be dealt with too. While a small percentage of these are undeniably rape and this should be treated very differently, the elephant in the room that no one discusses is when a man is accused of rape, when he did nothing of the sort. I feel horrible for rape victims, but I feel equally horrible for males accused of rape in these instances. The punishment a man gets for rape and female should get equal punishment for falsely accusing a man of rape. (I have not been in these shoes, but a friend in college went through this experience, and it was horrible and ruined his entire life.)
I am also curious how this plays out if:
A) The woman wants to keep the future baby and the man does not
B) The man wants to keep the future baby and the woman does not
I'm not trying to complicate any of this. And I would also add that there should be a first offense, second offense, third offense to this equation as well. Abortion should not be treated the same as (in this case expensive) birth control. So perhaps a first offense is a pricey, sliding scale as proposed, until Week "X" - with fines and community service... But the second should have double the fines, triple the community service, and have to view the entire "behind the scenes" of five abortions. A third offense... Double the second offense... along snip-snip and tie-tie, depending on the sex... Simple enough.
Just some brainstorming on this. But truly, there is a point where it is undeniable the clump of cells exists. The age of adulthood is 18, the age you qualify for AARP is... Actually, I don't know this age, but damnit, it's something. So the age in the womb a clump of cells is alive, human, living, whatever... This can be defined, and then work backwards with what you proposed from there. And though I am more on the pro-life side of this... I think we need to settle on something and move on to the thousands of other problems that exist. At the end of the day, the two extreme sides of this will be miserable regardless - unless it is 100% their way - but these people tend to be miserable people in general and will never be appeased by anything anyways... So f-em. I'd say 90%+ of society could get onboard with something logical, that respects life and free choice, and move on. And honestly, if the pro-choice people have a problem with this, then they need to wear their helmets before scuba diving, copper-top that opening, or do some sort of something to prevent it from happening to begin with. Because let's be honest... (Minus the low percentage of rape victims) ...no one put a gun to their heads forcing them to bump uglies to begin with, and choices still have and should have consequences.
Overall, I give this a solid "B" grade. I think with some brainstorming and debate, we can bump it up to an "A" for sure. And I'm not saying what I proposed is "the" way to get there... But certainly it adds food for thought to consider on the way towards getting there.
The just pop by the local Vets office, cheap and quick, really... And they have tons of experience performing this sort of thing... And if you ask nicely, they'll even pack your nuts up in a little jar you can take home with you and put on your mantle.
Incidentally, you can join AARP at any age as long as you are married to an old fart...There are 18 year old members in AARP. Some guy or gal has it all together...(Post picture of cougar here...)
Touche... But the aforementioned old fart/cougar has hit a certain age. And apparently had done well in life enough to have a trophy for years served. Personally, I am a 43 YO man... I couldn't put up with a twenty something year old... The generation gap is far too much for me to accept... And even if I could, no way I'm including them on my years served of AARP discounts I finally get to receive. I draw a line there... LOL.
Community service? Would only be imposed if you wore the wrong suit to trial or the judge did not recognise the old school tie.
As for the upper classes being more conscientious, you are being uncharacteristically naive. The physician's discretion when he prepares his bill is just another part of his service.
Could you imagine the crowds that would form for taking a selfie besides someone in the stocks for an abortion? Or the behaviour of a crowd filled with blue haired or pussy-hat wearing feminists?
Funny thing, Menonites practised this very thing. Land, power and family size are granted to the hardest working smartest men in the community. What is the term for that again.
Jan 8, 2023·edited Jan 8, 2023Liked by John Carter
You beat me to this.
On a long enough timeline, everything becomes irrelevant. I think we're closing in fast on this one. Billy-boy's next pandemic, scheduled for '25, oughtta do it.
I can't bring myself to watch the US version. Firstly because my prior is that it will be dumbed-down dreck; secondly because I would be horrified if it was as good as the original UK version - because that would confirm my suspicion that I have aged-related cognitive decline.
Neil Maskell was almost TOO good as the sociopath/assassin Arby. The only analogous performance - that perfectly captures the menace of a person who is genuinely indifferent to social behavioural constraints - is David Wenham's performance in the Aussie small-bidget "The Boys" (1999).
(Speaking of "The Boys": it's hard not to feel a bit of reflected glory that the 2 main protagonists in the recent TV series of the same name, are Kiwi boys: Karl Urban and Antony Starr).
I like the premise of the idea but your price calculations are hard to make sense of and you lack awareness of certain intricacies of female reproduction. Nobody could or would get an abortion on day one of conception, for example, and this is for several reasons. First off without blood tests a woman would not even know if she is pregnant until her period is missed, which would be when she is normally two weeks along, but pregnancy is dated from the first day of her last period, so she is already considered 4 weeks pregnant before she even finds out and that's if she's on top of things taking pregnancy tests from the first day of her missed period. A lot of women have uneven periods or aren't tracking their periods meticulously, so a fair number won't even have a positive pregnancy test in their hand to work with until they are already dated as five or six weeks pregnant. There is a morning after pill for possible conception that must be given out within 72 hours of intercourse, but it doesn't always work. I've also known many women who got pregnant on birth control, including one whose periods were extremely messed up by said birth control, who thus didn't find out about the pregnancy until she was three months along. D&C, as horrific as it sounds, is also frequently used on women who are having natural miscarriages. I like the premise and concur that there is a big difference between a first trimester pregnancy and a fully developed baby who can live outside of the womb in the third trimester. The prices are quite high early on though....
All really great points, and that's exactly why I specified that the exact details of how this works should obviously be open to a lot of debate - the example I laid was illustrative only.
To my mind, no matter how you swing it, being pro-abortion is if not directly, then adjacent to, an anti-life philosophy. In that regard, maybe we need to approach the problem of abortion from a different angle and start asking the question, "Why do people seek out abortions in the first place?" If we can solve that riddle, then we may be able to drastically reduce the number of abortions.
For example, if a young woman is considering abortion because she is concerned the baby dad is going to peace out leaving her with all the burden and responsibility, and that is a reasonably assumed outcome, how do as a society redress this situation to make alternatives to abortion seem more reasonable? Is financial redress enough? Is harsher penalties on the absent father necessary?
What if we instead incentivized child birth? I have heard that there are Countries experimenting with different policy interventions that have kept abortion legal but drastically reduced the number of abortions. One being, giving mothers an income tax credit increasing with every child she bears. This seems to me to be a pro-life position and one worth considering.
I think we need to consider more deeply how we got to a point in our history where abortion is so widespread as to warrant serious cultural and political considerations. It may be time that we start addressing the root problems instead of arguing over the symptoms.
Not a fan of abortion. I think it is lazy, stupid, cruel and unethical.
Your proposal looks sound. Then the abortionists are going to say you are denying poor people the right for a late term abortion and will scream to the high heavens you are a racist mysoginist. (Even though they are racist by inferring that minorities have no money)
So, your career as a politician would be over very fast.
Late to this. I like it. No idea whether anyone had already pointed this out but your system is akin to the medieval tort system that was in place in Germanic influenced areas (many others too, no doubt).
Obvious objection: only the rich will get away with abortion.
I should have made clear that this wasn’t my objection, it’s what you get anytime you suggest similar measures, for non-violent crimes for instance. There is a significant part of the population which favours punishment over restitution, to the point of sadism.
I can't top Guttermouth, but we were thinking along the same line.
I will say that the 'heartbeat' laws are a way to draw the line between 'fertilized egg' and 'very small human'. It's a good line. Once there's a heartbeat, you're killing someone. Just make sure you've got a good reason to kill someone.
Well everything's arbitrary. A heartbeat is definitive, however. Living people have a heartbeat, things that are not living people do not. I think it's a clear delineation.
I'm also not sure we should be avoiding cultural conflict. You simply cannot find a solution to abortion that will please everyone and some people -the selfish and the evil- we shouldn't be trying to please. We have to live with them but we sure shouldn't be catering to them.
My own personal definition of a living person is a human that's breathing their own air, keeping theirselves alive.
A fetus in the womb in my eyes is an organ in a woman's body until it pops out and starts breathing(FYI I'm against 3rd trimester abortions, I do feel that's pretty gruesome).
The only living people that don't breathe their own air to keep them alive are people in comas that we are allowed to pull the plug on.
Curious as to where would you draw the line there? Are the moral implications similar or is it apples and oranges.
In response to your heartbeat thought I believe a detectable heart beat is 5 or 6 weeks after the last period. That's about 2-3 weeks into pregnancy and probably a week after the woman found out she was pregnant. I don't believe abortions should be a forced impulsive choice. There's a lot on the line from a mental health standpoint and there's no way to tell if the baby will have severe genetic defects.
Are you in support of more mongoloids and people suffering horrible genetic defects in the world? Do you believe that will be the solution to any problem we are currently facing in the world?
I guess I'd say that organs in a woman's body usually don't require you buying school supplies for them in a few years. As I said, once there's a heartbeat, I consider a fetus to be a person and if you want to kill that person, best to have a good reason to do so.
As for the rest of your questions and statements, I'm not sure they are painting a picture you'd want to hang on your wall.
I’m glad to get your writing again. It seems like it has been awhile. Always look forward to what i learn from you. In this matter, couldn’t agree more. I think the tragedy is to let women have a choice, and yet make men who simply f**ed a woman for 10 minutes be on the hook for the rest of his life for child support, when he has no control over anything. If women were responsible for their kids, and “fathers” who simply had intercourse were not, then women would be very careful about who they had sex with, and not to get pregnant, and if pregnant to end it very quickly. I have no problem ending a pregnancy by killing an “embryo”. As you say it’s not a black and white situation, but at some point in the spectrum it IS black and white...it becomes gray with some time, perhaps a few months...within that time frame I don’t think anyone really has a problem with abortion other than some very religious die-hards...and if people saw what happens in later stages of a pregnancy to “abort”, e.g. murder, they wouldn’t be for it at all at that stage of the pregnancy. It’s all about nuance.
Jan 9, 2023·edited Jan 9, 2023Liked by John Carter
Given the results of series of social/behavioral studies performed decades ago, the proposed remedy(s) may be academic. In the late 1960s and early 1970s John B. Calhoun performed a series of studies called "Universe 25". This study was repeated multiple times in succession with the same final results each time. The study consisted of a society of mice that was set up to have every need attended to in a veritable mouse utopia, but the society eventually wound up eating itself alive (literately) and succumbing to an apocalyptic end. "Universe 25" is well worth one's consideration as the final solution to the age old problem of humanity.
Worry not my friend. The mouse utopia is just a fairy tale.
Have you ever seen chickens in the coop say, 'Gerlz! It's enough, we are done here'? Has it ever happened in the few thousand years of agricultural history?
On a more serious note, I'm pretty sure it's just propaganda. A modern myth created by corrupted or retarded science. What about other universes besides the 25th? I didn't see any good replication. It smells like the others in the replication crisis.
It was more like mouse hell. It doesn't matter if you give them infinite food without enough space, they will suffer. There is also a problem with inbreeding and the lack of circulation of genes.
Fortunately, this nightmare seems fake. There is nothing to lose sleep over.
I am a bit surprised of this utilitarian proposal coming from you, as well as some of the comments that seems to belong to a Dostoyevski's novel. I share the impression that on a visceral level we assess the issue as a ''clump of cells versus a fully developed baby''. But that's just a facet of being. Your are missing potentiality. A bunch of sperm released to the atmosphere would not transform on itself into a person, neither an embryo on a tube. But once it is growing in the womb is a different story. As somebody else said, the abortion is done because people KNOW it will turn into a person otherwise.
Do you think rich women should have an easy time killing the unborn?
Community service is okay, although there should be a period with no penalty. Whoever runs community service isn't going to be ready for millions of day trippers.
Interesting idea. But why stop at birth? If we can apply the same calculation to older children, even adults, that would provide opportunities to remove many more inconveniences. I've experienced teenagers and often considered them undeserving of civilized protections. Seems hypocritical to allow killing babies who might not deserve it, but prohibiting killing teens who often do. For older people, where the tax would be very high, we could use crowd sourcing or build a case for economic benefit, and invite investors. The same calculation could be used for damages in civil homicide cases. Everybody would know exactly how much they're worth. Of course, it would also apply to suicides, individual orcassist3d.
You say women intolerable slavery like it's a bad thing. Nature's way, apparently. But a wild card we didn't expect in July is the apparent vax induced reduction in fertility, both male and female. Babies are probably going to become more valuable. We'll probably have a clearer understanding of it in 2 years, when we'll probably flip the senate and white house. I expect increased tax incentives, and federal restrictions on abortions. The insidious forces who want population reductions will continue to advocate abortions, suicides, and lethal pharmaceuticals, approved and unapproved. Everyone who wants to survive is going to need to learn to defend themselves. Exciting times.
Maybe the tax money could go into a fund for buying diapers and what not for the low-income mothers who keep their babies? Or for buying contraceptives for those who don't want a baby?
Of course, the increased financial cost of abortion would give the Alphabet Rainbow Pride Coalition another recruitment tool, since contrary to what some politicians have said, trans women don't ever need abortions. That would make it very DEI/ESG friendly, which could be a great selling point to get political support for it on the Left.
This was the lingering sub-theme I could hear in the background as I read the article. While a brilliant idea and concept (no pun intended), the reality is it would undoubtedly morph into another 'opportunity' for the government to take more of our income, and spend it on people who make bad choices.
We could do literal murder this way, with fines on a sliding scale, so rich people could comfortably kill as many people as they need to, which is really how it should be.
Poors should definitely have less reproductive freedom. They haven't managed their finances well enough to not be poor, so they should certainly be priced out of controlling their family size in ways real people aren't.
Jesus, you really are good at deadpan. That's a helluva trick in text format.
Hence the alternative - community service or something, which hits rich people just as hard. In practice though, and I could be wrong about this, but - upper class people don't tend to get abortions quite as often, since they're more conscientious about contraception use.
"You exist because the fine would have ruined us."
"We wanted you to be an abortion."
Other than that specific statement, that is why I'm here.
Aborted, but for a meddling aunt, go I.
You're not the only person I know who nearly got terminated before they even had a chance. Gonna go out on a limb and guess you're glad you got a chance at life.
Wrong. I forgave mountains of cruelty until, when I was 17, they crossed a line that made it clear they would stop at nothing to destroy me. And they had the $$ to do it.
If we'd had something like fentanyl, I would have checked out back then. I only didn't due to recognition that failure could leave me disabled & stuck with them for years or decades.
As I told a friend a few years back: 1. You don't miss what you never knew & 2. Who knows what bad karma could have been wiped clean in 1 stroke, instead of years of misery.
I did one of those ai "see what author your writing compares to" where you plug in some 5 or 600 words of something you've written, and mine compared me to Chuck Palahniuk. I was kinda pleased, since the excerpt was from an erotic horror story I was writing. Yeah, yeah. I know. Those things are about as reliable as online IQ tests. ha ha.
Based!
I wonder who I'd be....
So hot. That scene getting left out of the final cut was a cinematic crime.
Hey, look, I support just about any plan where we give the government our money for the right to act freely.
If it makes you feel better, the fine could be paid to the Vatican Bank.
I can at least hold out hope that my descendants will sack it someday and get my money back.
My Danish blood warms at the prospect.
Just spit milk out of my nose! LOLx 1000
Skol.
Abortion patients could feel real good about themselves, knowing they're contributing to the settlement funds to compensate traumatized altar boys.
Resettlement funds.
Common mistake.
Not corrupt govt, not corrupt Vatican either. Should be a not for profit that provides condoms, IUDs, and BC pills to various schools, "health" facilities, clinics, etc. No Govt oversight at either Fed or State levels and no religious oversight... In fact, non-brand named condoms should just be free everywhere anyways to prevent both pregnancy and STDs.
All this said, there should be a hard no date regardless. I like this idea conceptually, but at some point, the difference between a clump of cells and a baby does exists... I'm not a biologist (ha), but there should be a hard no date when it goes from cells to being.
And as a good and decent man, the rape card will need to be dealt with too. While a small percentage of these are undeniably rape and this should be treated very differently, the elephant in the room that no one discusses is when a man is accused of rape, when he did nothing of the sort. I feel horrible for rape victims, but I feel equally horrible for males accused of rape in these instances. The punishment a man gets for rape and female should get equal punishment for falsely accusing a man of rape. (I have not been in these shoes, but a friend in college went through this experience, and it was horrible and ruined his entire life.)
I am also curious how this plays out if:
A) The woman wants to keep the future baby and the man does not
B) The man wants to keep the future baby and the woman does not
I'm not trying to complicate any of this. And I would also add that there should be a first offense, second offense, third offense to this equation as well. Abortion should not be treated the same as (in this case expensive) birth control. So perhaps a first offense is a pricey, sliding scale as proposed, until Week "X" - with fines and community service... But the second should have double the fines, triple the community service, and have to view the entire "behind the scenes" of five abortions. A third offense... Double the second offense... along snip-snip and tie-tie, depending on the sex... Simple enough.
Just some brainstorming on this. But truly, there is a point where it is undeniable the clump of cells exists. The age of adulthood is 18, the age you qualify for AARP is... Actually, I don't know this age, but damnit, it's something. So the age in the womb a clump of cells is alive, human, living, whatever... This can be defined, and then work backwards with what you proposed from there. And though I am more on the pro-life side of this... I think we need to settle on something and move on to the thousands of other problems that exist. At the end of the day, the two extreme sides of this will be miserable regardless - unless it is 100% their way - but these people tend to be miserable people in general and will never be appeased by anything anyways... So f-em. I'd say 90%+ of society could get onboard with something logical, that respects life and free choice, and move on. And honestly, if the pro-choice people have a problem with this, then they need to wear their helmets before scuba diving, copper-top that opening, or do some sort of something to prevent it from happening to begin with. Because let's be honest... (Minus the low percentage of rape victims) ...no one put a gun to their heads forcing them to bump uglies to begin with, and choices still have and should have consequences.
Overall, I give this a solid "B" grade. I think with some brainstorming and debate, we can bump it up to an "A" for sure. And I'm not saying what I proposed is "the" way to get there... But certainly it adds food for thought to consider on the way towards getting there.
I especially like the part in this plan where the government sterilizes people as criminal punishment.
Will there be jobs available for holding them down? Or will we outsource it to machines as usual?
The just pop by the local Vets office, cheap and quick, really... And they have tons of experience performing this sort of thing... And if you ask nicely, they'll even pack your nuts up in a little jar you can take home with you and put on your mantle.
Incidentally, you can join AARP at any age as long as you are married to an old fart...There are 18 year old members in AARP. Some guy or gal has it all together...(Post picture of cougar here...)
Touche... But the aforementioned old fart/cougar has hit a certain age. And apparently had done well in life enough to have a trophy for years served. Personally, I am a 43 YO man... I couldn't put up with a twenty something year old... The generation gap is far too much for me to accept... And even if I could, no way I'm including them on my years served of AARP discounts I finally get to receive. I draw a line there... LOL.
Your deadpan is better than Steven Wright's!
Possibly the scariest on the Internet. Eventually, others will discover this...be afraid...be very afraid...
Community service? Would only be imposed if you wore the wrong suit to trial or the judge did not recognise the old school tie.
As for the upper classes being more conscientious, you are being uncharacteristically naive. The physician's discretion when he prepares his bill is just another part of his service.
I mean. I suppose we could bring back the stocks. One hour in the public square for every day after conception?
Now that I think about it I like that more than the fine.
Could you imagine the crowds that would form for taking a selfie besides someone in the stocks for an abortion? Or the behaviour of a crowd filled with blue haired or pussy-hat wearing feminists?
You people are nuts!... I fk'n Love it!!!~
Mark: "I love you."
Guttermouth: "I know."
*cue carbon freezing chamber*
Finally I can get some goddamned sleep.
🗨 Nature has given woman so much power that the law cannot afford to give her more. ~~Samuel Johnson aka Dr Johnson
Fire.
Funny thing, Menonites practised this very thing. Land, power and family size are granted to the hardest working smartest men in the community. What is the term for that again.
See also: Sparta and the helots.
Don’t the CIA carry those?
Along with DOD, DOJ, WEF….
Where do I get one? Asking for a friend.
Don't forget to add in the IRS
Or just keep pushing those "vaccines" and there will be no need for further debate. perhaps it's already been decided for us.
Oof.
You beat me to this.
On a long enough timeline, everything becomes irrelevant. I think we're closing in fast on this one. Billy-boy's next pandemic, scheduled for '25, oughtta do it.
In a few years we'll be roasting sewer rats in the radioactive ashes.
"Remember when we were worried about mRNA vaccines and fertility and abortion and stuff? Haha good times!"
Reminds me of Mr. Rabbit's final soliloquy in (the American version of) "Utopia."
Oh you think that killing people was the point? No, that was just a side benefit...
I can't bring myself to watch the US version. Firstly because my prior is that it will be dumbed-down dreck; secondly because I would be horrified if it was as good as the original UK version - because that would confirm my suspicion that I have aged-related cognitive decline.
Neil Maskell was almost TOO good as the sociopath/assassin Arby. The only analogous performance - that perfectly captures the menace of a person who is genuinely indifferent to social behavioural constraints - is David Wenham's performance in the Aussie small-bidget "The Boys" (1999).
(Speaking of "The Boys": it's hard not to feel a bit of reflected glory that the 2 main protagonists in the recent TV series of the same name, are Kiwi boys: Karl Urban and Antony Starr).
I've watched both. Unfortunately, I can confirm that the U.S. version was superior, including its interpretation of Arby.
I didn't even know there was a non-US version of Utopia (which was pretty good).
Three words:
John Cusack, supervillain.
I like the premise of the idea but your price calculations are hard to make sense of and you lack awareness of certain intricacies of female reproduction. Nobody could or would get an abortion on day one of conception, for example, and this is for several reasons. First off without blood tests a woman would not even know if she is pregnant until her period is missed, which would be when she is normally two weeks along, but pregnancy is dated from the first day of her last period, so she is already considered 4 weeks pregnant before she even finds out and that's if she's on top of things taking pregnancy tests from the first day of her missed period. A lot of women have uneven periods or aren't tracking their periods meticulously, so a fair number won't even have a positive pregnancy test in their hand to work with until they are already dated as five or six weeks pregnant. There is a morning after pill for possible conception that must be given out within 72 hours of intercourse, but it doesn't always work. I've also known many women who got pregnant on birth control, including one whose periods were extremely messed up by said birth control, who thus didn't find out about the pregnancy until she was three months along. D&C, as horrific as it sounds, is also frequently used on women who are having natural miscarriages. I like the premise and concur that there is a big difference between a first trimester pregnancy and a fully developed baby who can live outside of the womb in the third trimester. The prices are quite high early on though....
All really great points, and that's exactly why I specified that the exact details of how this works should obviously be open to a lot of debate - the example I laid was illustrative only.
To my mind, no matter how you swing it, being pro-abortion is if not directly, then adjacent to, an anti-life philosophy. In that regard, maybe we need to approach the problem of abortion from a different angle and start asking the question, "Why do people seek out abortions in the first place?" If we can solve that riddle, then we may be able to drastically reduce the number of abortions.
For example, if a young woman is considering abortion because she is concerned the baby dad is going to peace out leaving her with all the burden and responsibility, and that is a reasonably assumed outcome, how do as a society redress this situation to make alternatives to abortion seem more reasonable? Is financial redress enough? Is harsher penalties on the absent father necessary?
What if we instead incentivized child birth? I have heard that there are Countries experimenting with different policy interventions that have kept abortion legal but drastically reduced the number of abortions. One being, giving mothers an income tax credit increasing with every child she bears. This seems to me to be a pro-life position and one worth considering.
I think we need to consider more deeply how we got to a point in our history where abortion is so widespread as to warrant serious cultural and political considerations. It may be time that we start addressing the root problems instead of arguing over the symptoms.
Excellent comment.
Not a fan of abortion. I think it is lazy, stupid, cruel and unethical.
Your proposal looks sound. Then the abortionists are going to say you are denying poor people the right for a late term abortion and will scream to the high heavens you are a racist mysoginist. (Even though they are racist by inferring that minorities have no money)
So, your career as a politician would be over very fast.
Sorry dude, that ain't gonna fly.
Late to this. I like it. No idea whether anyone had already pointed this out but your system is akin to the medieval tort system that was in place in Germanic influenced areas (many others too, no doubt).
Obvious objection: only the rich will get away with abortion.
Yes, it's very similar to blood price. Direct inspiration in fact.
As to the rich, they get away with everything in any case, so.
I should have made clear that this wasn’t my objection, it’s what you get anytime you suggest similar measures, for non-violent crimes for instance. There is a significant part of the population which favours punishment over restitution, to the point of sadism.
I can't top Guttermouth, but we were thinking along the same line.
I will say that the 'heartbeat' laws are a way to draw the line between 'fertilized egg' and 'very small human'. It's a good line. Once there's a heartbeat, you're killing someone. Just make sure you've got a good reason to kill someone.
Certainly agree with the last statement. I do think a heartbeat is somewhat arbitrary, however, thus opening up an avenue for cultural conflict.
Well everything's arbitrary. A heartbeat is definitive, however. Living people have a heartbeat, things that are not living people do not. I think it's a clear delineation.
I'm also not sure we should be avoiding cultural conflict. You simply cannot find a solution to abortion that will please everyone and some people -the selfish and the evil- we shouldn't be trying to please. We have to live with them but we sure shouldn't be catering to them.
My own personal definition of a living person is a human that's breathing their own air, keeping theirselves alive.
A fetus in the womb in my eyes is an organ in a woman's body until it pops out and starts breathing(FYI I'm against 3rd trimester abortions, I do feel that's pretty gruesome).
The only living people that don't breathe their own air to keep them alive are people in comas that we are allowed to pull the plug on.
Curious as to where would you draw the line there? Are the moral implications similar or is it apples and oranges.
In response to your heartbeat thought I believe a detectable heart beat is 5 or 6 weeks after the last period. That's about 2-3 weeks into pregnancy and probably a week after the woman found out she was pregnant. I don't believe abortions should be a forced impulsive choice. There's a lot on the line from a mental health standpoint and there's no way to tell if the baby will have severe genetic defects.
Are you in support of more mongoloids and people suffering horrible genetic defects in the world? Do you believe that will be the solution to any problem we are currently facing in the world?
I guess I'd say that organs in a woman's body usually don't require you buying school supplies for them in a few years. As I said, once there's a heartbeat, I consider a fetus to be a person and if you want to kill that person, best to have a good reason to do so.
As for the rest of your questions and statements, I'm not sure they are painting a picture you'd want to hang on your wall.
I’m glad to get your writing again. It seems like it has been awhile. Always look forward to what i learn from you. In this matter, couldn’t agree more. I think the tragedy is to let women have a choice, and yet make men who simply f**ed a woman for 10 minutes be on the hook for the rest of his life for child support, when he has no control over anything. If women were responsible for their kids, and “fathers” who simply had intercourse were not, then women would be very careful about who they had sex with, and not to get pregnant, and if pregnant to end it very quickly. I have no problem ending a pregnancy by killing an “embryo”. As you say it’s not a black and white situation, but at some point in the spectrum it IS black and white...it becomes gray with some time, perhaps a few months...within that time frame I don’t think anyone really has a problem with abortion other than some very religious die-hards...and if people saw what happens in later stages of a pregnancy to “abort”, e.g. murder, they wouldn’t be for it at all at that stage of the pregnancy. It’s all about nuance.
Finally someone who gets it.
And it's good to be back!
Given the results of series of social/behavioral studies performed decades ago, the proposed remedy(s) may be academic. In the late 1960s and early 1970s John B. Calhoun performed a series of studies called "Universe 25". This study was repeated multiple times in succession with the same final results each time. The study consisted of a society of mice that was set up to have every need attended to in a veritable mouse utopia, but the society eventually wound up eating itself alive (literately) and succumbing to an apocalyptic end. "Universe 25" is well worth one's consideration as the final solution to the age old problem of humanity.
The rat utopia keeps me up at night. If it doesn't disturb your sleep you aren't paying attention.
Actually I thought that's what humanity is presently living in... our own unique version of a rat utopia.
Worry not my friend. The mouse utopia is just a fairy tale.
Have you ever seen chickens in the coop say, 'Gerlz! It's enough, we are done here'? Has it ever happened in the few thousand years of agricultural history?
On a more serious note, I'm pretty sure it's just propaganda. A modern myth created by corrupted or retarded science. What about other universes besides the 25th? I didn't see any good replication. It smells like the others in the replication crisis.
It was more like mouse hell. It doesn't matter if you give them infinite food without enough space, they will suffer. There is also a problem with inbreeding and the lack of circulation of genes.
Fortunately, this nightmare seems fake. There is nothing to lose sleep over.
This might make GoFundMyAbortion a thing, with NGOs set up to pay the fines, kind of like they get Antifa out of jail.
Anything that siphons money from them I'm all in favour of tbh
I'll pay the momentary lapse of reason fine.
I am a bit surprised of this utilitarian proposal coming from you, as well as some of the comments that seems to belong to a Dostoyevski's novel. I share the impression that on a visceral level we assess the issue as a ''clump of cells versus a fully developed baby''. But that's just a facet of being. Your are missing potentiality. A bunch of sperm released to the atmosphere would not transform on itself into a person, neither an embryo on a tube. But once it is growing in the womb is a different story. As somebody else said, the abortion is done because people KNOW it will turn into a person otherwise.
I was waiting for someone to make that argument, which indeed, is probably the only good argument against this proposal.
Fuzzy logic to the rescue.
https://www.holisticpolitics.org/Abortion/FuzzyLife.php
So I'm not the first one to think along these lines. Even his proposed solution is similar. Most excellent.
Do you think rich women should have an easy time killing the unborn?
Community service is okay, although there should be a period with no penalty. Whoever runs community service isn't going to be ready for millions of day trippers.
Realistically, the law doesn't apply to rich people anyhow, so.
That sounds a "binary distinction".
Interesting idea. But why stop at birth? If we can apply the same calculation to older children, even adults, that would provide opportunities to remove many more inconveniences. I've experienced teenagers and often considered them undeserving of civilized protections. Seems hypocritical to allow killing babies who might not deserve it, but prohibiting killing teens who often do. For older people, where the tax would be very high, we could use crowd sourcing or build a case for economic benefit, and invite investors. The same calculation could be used for damages in civil homicide cases. Everybody would know exactly how much they're worth. Of course, it would also apply to suicides, individual orcassist3d.
I'm just gonna leave this here.
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/a-moderate-proposal
You say women intolerable slavery like it's a bad thing. Nature's way, apparently. But a wild card we didn't expect in July is the apparent vax induced reduction in fertility, both male and female. Babies are probably going to become more valuable. We'll probably have a clearer understanding of it in 2 years, when we'll probably flip the senate and white house. I expect increased tax incentives, and federal restrictions on abortions. The insidious forces who want population reductions will continue to advocate abortions, suicides, and lethal pharmaceuticals, approved and unapproved. Everyone who wants to survive is going to need to learn to defend themselves. Exciting times.
Re: footnote. Just checked, and substack has a LaTeX beta in their editor.
Hot damn. Good find!
Maybe the tax money could go into a fund for buying diapers and what not for the low-income mothers who keep their babies? Or for buying contraceptives for those who don't want a baby?
Of course, the increased financial cost of abortion would give the Alphabet Rainbow Pride Coalition another recruitment tool, since contrary to what some politicians have said, trans women don't ever need abortions. That would make it very DEI/ESG friendly, which could be a great selling point to get political support for it on the Left.
This was the lingering sub-theme I could hear in the background as I read the article. While a brilliant idea and concept (no pun intended), the reality is it would undoubtedly morph into another 'opportunity' for the government to take more of our income, and spend it on people who make bad choices.