What about a compromise?
Now, this is probably gonna evoke cries about Big Brother Is Watching You... but if so many people are up in arms about it, then I see the following as being a reasonable and rationale compromise.
First off, accidents happen. We all know this. A few of my brothers were 'accidents'. And at times they can come at the worst possible moment. Therefore, it can be said that denying someone the right to abortion in cases such as these is walking the moral boundary, as is carrying the child to term and trying to care for it with insufficient means.
The trade off would be a sort of point system. One strike against you per abortion. Three Strikes.
Now, depending on the situation, getting an abortion won't always gain you a Strike. Such examples would be rape victims, life-threatening conditions, or even a biologically non-viable fetus.
Strikes WILL count against teens that have consensual sex. Even if they used contraceptives - if they're using them then they should know the risks.
To further clear up moral ambiguity, Strikes can be divided into two classes. A 'Class A' Strike is the nastier sort. This is given to mothers who are healthy, are pregnant through consensual sex, the fetus is biologically viable, and they have the means to care for the child. In other words, they have no excuse save that it would be 'inconvenient'. Three of these and you face prosecution.
A 'Class B' will be given to people who have everything under a 'Class A' applicable... except they DO NOT have the means to care for the child. Three of these will result in the Government getting involved in a non-judicial manner. Why? Three abortions, each time because you can't care for the child? Something is seriously wrong with that picture and that person most likely needs some kind of help. They could be prostitutes, battered housewives, or any number of things. Bottom line is that it's a red flag and they need help.
Also, the male parent gets a Strike as well, whether or not he's in support of the abortion. Why so stringent? Because if he's sleeping with a woman then he knows the risks as well. He needs to be held responsible for that - even if the woman gets the abortion against his wishes (she could just give the child over to him to care for and leave him if she doesn't want to take care of the child).
I know that this is kinda invading into the lives of other people, but let's face it - we're already there if we're considering making abortions outright unlawful.
Thoughts?
Now, this is probably gonna evoke cries about Big Brother Is Watching You... but if so many people are up in arms about it, then I see the following as being a reasonable and rationale compromise.
First off, accidents happen. We all know this. A few of my brothers were 'accidents'. And at times they can come at the worst possible moment. Therefore, it can be said that denying someone the right to abortion in cases such as these is walking the moral boundary, as is carrying the child to term and trying to care for it with insufficient means.
The trade off would be a sort of point system. One strike against you per abortion. Three Strikes.
Now, depending on the situation, getting an abortion won't always gain you a Strike. Such examples would be rape victims, life-threatening conditions, or even a biologically non-viable fetus.
Strikes WILL count against teens that have consensual sex. Even if they used contraceptives - if they're using them then they should know the risks.
To further clear up moral ambiguity, Strikes can be divided into two classes. A 'Class A' Strike is the nastier sort. This is given to mothers who are healthy, are pregnant through consensual sex, the fetus is biologically viable, and they have the means to care for the child. In other words, they have no excuse save that it would be 'inconvenient'. Three of these and you face prosecution.
A 'Class B' will be given to people who have everything under a 'Class A' applicable... except they DO NOT have the means to care for the child. Three of these will result in the Government getting involved in a non-judicial manner. Why? Three abortions, each time because you can't care for the child? Something is seriously wrong with that picture and that person most likely needs some kind of help. They could be prostitutes, battered housewives, or any number of things. Bottom line is that it's a red flag and they need help.
Also, the male parent gets a Strike as well, whether or not he's in support of the abortion. Why so stringent? Because if he's sleeping with a woman then he knows the risks as well. He needs to be held responsible for that - even if the woman gets the abortion against his wishes (she could just give the child over to him to care for and leave him if she doesn't want to take care of the child).
I know that this is kinda invading into the lives of other people, but let's face it - we're already there if we're considering making abortions outright unlawful.
Thoughts?