100 million dollars for 1,000 Years of No Abortions

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider this very simple hypothetical (inspired by a very casual conversation at work):

A supernatural entity comes to you. She says to you, “I can give you 100 million dollars… but if you accept this money, then there will be a huge social cost. Immediately all over the world, magical forces will come into play and make abortions impossible to carry out for the next 1,000 years. Any attempts by individuals to work around these magical laws will not only fail but will also result in horrifying curses being placed on them.”

If you take the money… then the entire world will suddenly be bound by these all-powerful magical rules that make it impossible to carry out any and all abortions. The ONE EXCEPTION to this rule however, is where the abortion is absolutely necessary for the literal survival of the mother (those can and will still work). The world would be fundamentally altered by these new rules of magic.

After 1,000 years, the magical rules will be lifted and it will become possible for abortions to be carried out once again.

Please assume that the money would be transferred to you in a way that is legal, non-taxable, and recognized. However, no one would know the real reason you were paid.

Do you accept the money? Or would you consider the societal cost unacceptable?

It’s a lot of money and 100 million dollars can be used to change the world, but some things shouldn’t be bought and sold. What do you say?

This a very difficult decision to make (especially coming from a personally pro-abortion political perspective), but in the end I would take the money because it is quite a lot. The most important factor here is that the ban on abortions wouldn't be permanent (it's only for 1,000 years), meanwhile, the 100 million dollars can be used to make things better immediately.

[The Blaatschapen]

Would this include spontaneous abortions? Better known as a miscarriage?

[Greater Bahland]

100 million is puny and at most you could build some parks. Easy no.

[A Salmon Named Harold]

100 million for a whole 1000 years? No way

[Infected Mushroom]

Would this include spontaneous abortions? Better known as a miscarriage?

I think (unless you can convince me otherwise and I'm open to Edits) that the scenario would work best (with the intended trade offs) if all miscarriages were eliminated by the magical rules.

It DOES make things more complicated (because now the magical rules could be saving lives too) but yeah...

[Drongonia]

easy money methinks

[The Blaatschapen]

Would this include spontaneous abortions? Better known as a miscarriage?

I think (unless you can convince me otherwise and I'm open to Edits) that the scenario would work best (with the intended trade offs) if all miscarriages were eliminated by the magical rules.

It DOES make things more complicated (because now the magical rules could be saving lives too) but yeah...

Cool, I am making an army of unstoppable pregnant women. They can't die when the fetus is not capable of living outside the womb yet, since that also counts as a miscarriage.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think (unless you can convince me otherwise and I'm open to Edits) that the scenario would work best (with the intended trade offs) if all miscarriages were eliminated by the magical rules.

It DOES make things more complicated (because now the magical rules could be saving lives too) but yeah...

Cool, I am making an army of unstoppable pregnant women. They can't die when the fetus is not capable of living outside the womb yet, since that also counts as a miscarriage.

... o... kay =)

[The Free Joy State]

Force women to remain pregnant (if they were raped, or were the victims of incest, or if they couldn't afford a/another child) -- literally selling women's bodily autonomy -- for money? No fucking way.

It would be repulsive.

The most important factor here is that the ban on abortions wouldn't be permanent (it's only for 1,000 years)

"Only 1000" years.

In other words, 28 consecutive generations (one generation is 20-30 years). That's a lot of women who get fucked over.

None of the good the money bought with the betrayal of those women may hope to do could ever outweigh that damage (considering that billions have currently failed to prevent unwanted pregnancy and fix the broken foster care system)

[Infected Mushroom]

easy money methinks

What would you use the money for?

[Kowani]

This is like a “who can be the most comically evil” test
Only it’s not funny

[Glorious Hong Kong]

No way in hell. #HerBodyHerChoice

[Comerciante]

I'd sell out for a lot of things. This ain't it chief.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'd sell out for a lot of things. This ain't it chief.

Fair enough

[Jedi Council]

Only $100 million? That really wouldn't get you very far these days.

If you want me to fuck over generations of women to come and probably destroy countless lives at least make it a difficult choice.

[Picairn]

1,000 years?

One fucking thousand years???

Even 1 trillion dollars won't be able to rectify the damages from forbidding women to conduct abortions, plus it's a gross violation of human rights.

Never, ever, in a million years will I take the money.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Enough with the damn hypotheticals already!

Magic and Abortion in the same thread is just a vortex of stupid.

[The Free Joy State]

1,000 years?

One fucking thousand years???

Even 1 trillion dollars won't be able to rectify the damages from forbidding women to conduct abortions, plus it's a gross violation of human rights.

Never, ever, in a million years will I take the money.

Exactly.

Forbidding women from exercising their bodily sovereignty -- with the promise of "horrifying curses being placed on them" if they try -- is an violation of human rights, and possible torture, however you swing it.

You could offer me a billion dollars and shorten the period to one year, and I still wouldn't take the money.

[The Republic of Fore]

I'll take the money and invest it, forget changing the world.

[The Nihilistic view]

Answered yes because whilst we would all like to think we would say no if you actually had that much money sat in front of you with no personal strings attached and nobody would know would you really actually say no? Most people's threshold for grabbing the money is significantly below one hundred million.

It's like all the people that would have done the Russian revolution without the death and how 100% of people would have resisted the Nazis or how everybody pretends they would be the three people that first campaigned against slavery. No you wouldn't be, you would fall foul of all the same pitfalls the people back then did and you would be at a very minimum complicit in the oppression by inactivity.

You are taking the money if it was real.

[The Free Joy State]

Answered yes because whilst we would all like to think we would say no if you actually had that much money sat in front of you with no personal strings attached and nobody would know would you really actually say no? Most people's threshold for grabbing the money is significantly below one hundred million.

It's like all the people that would have done the Russian revolution without the death and how 100% of people would have resisted the Nazis or how everybody pretends they would be the three people that first campaigned against slavery. No you wouldn't be, you would fall foul of all the same pitfalls the people back then did and you would be at a very minimum complicit in the oppression by inactivity.

You are taking the money if it was real.

You do not speak for me.

My right to bodily sovereignty is important to me.

Ignoring all the magic, if I ever became a person of note and pro-lifers offered me a fortune (as they did Norma McCorvey, of Roe v. Wade) to pretend to change sides, I would not do it.

On some subjects, I have no price.

[Comerciante]

I'm not proud of a lot of things that I would list that I would do for this kind of money. That doesn't suddenly mean I have no limits. This is my personnel limit.

[The Republic of Fore]

Answered yes because whilst we would all like to think we would say no if you actually had that much money sat in front of you with no personal strings attached and nobody would know would you really actually say no? Most people's threshold for grabbing the money is significantly below one hundred million.

It's like all the people that would have done the Russian revolution without the death and how 100% of people would have resisted the Nazis or how everybody pretends they would be the three people that first campaigned against slavery. No you wouldn't be, you would fall foul of all the same pitfalls the people back then did and you would be at a very minimum complicit in the oppression by inactivity.

You are taking the money if it was real.

Also this, but people on the internet love to act like beacons of morality. Humans suck, the university I went to for undergrad had to create an amnesty policy for underage drinking at parties. Why? Because a bunch of students watched a girl die of alcohol poisoning and didn't call for help out of fear they'd get in trouble. Yet I bet if you asked every one of them would claim they're totally brave enough to save a life.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Sweet moolah. Perhaps I can buy a house in the current economy. Also whats with the magic shit going on

[Comerciante]

No one here is proclaiming to be beacons of morality. Although there are clearly people proclaiming to be beacons of amoral assholery.

All anyone is saying is that this a line to far for a sum to small.