The Free Joy State wrote:Universil-Unoyz Wintarros wrote:A win win. The sacrifice is negligible, two good things happen and one bad thing happens
Good: no abortion for a millenium and I am rich. Bad: rape and incest cannot be aborted.
For you, the sacrifice is "negligible". For the women and girls whose lives will be destroyed as a result of your decision... not so much. Nor for the women who will be unable to leave abusive partners due to being forced to remain pregnant.
Would you still have made the same choice if everyone who had to suffer for a thousand years knew that the reason was because you -- personally (as in knew your name and where you lived) -- opted to take money to take their rights away?
EDIT: I ask because some feel that anonymity imbalances the taking the money side, giving it no apparent negative for pro-lifers (unless The Lone Alliance is right, and it turns out that you do help bring about the birth of Satan).
Rape and incest etc. make up a minority of abortions, something like 1-2% of them in the US if i remember correctly.
What I personally vouch for (reverting back to hunting and foraging etc.) would be significantly more unfair, in that uncommon statistic occurrences such as above are not accounted for.
Are these rare cases unfair? Certainly.
Do I personally believe they ought to hinder the broad benefit? No.
Though if this debacle were less strict, I would have it so that these occurrences were accounted for.