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.
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....
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or just keep pushing those "vaccines" and there will be no need for further debate. perhaps it's already been decided for us.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This might make GoFundMyAbortion a thing, with NGOs set up to pay the fines, kind of like they get Antifa out of jail.
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.
Fuzzy logic to the rescue.
https://www.holisticpolitics.org/Abortion/FuzzyLife.php
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.
Re: footnote. Just checked, and substack has a LaTeX beta in their editor.
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.