Shame on me:rolleyes: You, my dear, are judgmental. So why don’t you take a nice look in the mirror before accusing me of doing something you do yourself.
Now what do you suggest I do for my penance?
Shame on me for wanting to stop the killing of unborn children.
If you actually wanted that, you’d do something more likely to stop it than posting on this message board in such a way as to convince no one.
She’s judgmental? Aren’t you the one who said all women who have an abortion are selfish bitches?
I don’t respond to losers like you.
[/QUOTE]
LOL… apparently you do.
Sure, for the sake of argument, if an action is wrong. I’m unconvinced that abortion is morally wrong. In all fairness, you’re not likely to convince me that it is morally wrong, either.
And this is the problem with pretty much all your attempts at transitive logic thus far - your premises aren’t solid. I mean, I trust it’s obvious to you that abortion is morally wrong and thus deserves to be treated like all other things that are morally wrong. It’s rather less obvious to me.
It’s not just the first premise, either; sometimes in one of your chains of two or three premises leading to one of your conclusions, all the premises are suspect, and sometimes the conclusion is as well.
Well, laws (as opposed to commandments) don’t just magically appear - they are written by humans, and debated and voted on in legislatures full of humans, and interpreted and enforced by humans… it’s not like a physics formula. Somewhere along the way, some humans had to venture up a personal opinion that there should be a law and how it should be written and other humans have to puzzle out how it should be applied, and this can vary significantly from state to state, city to city, DA to DA or judge to judge.
And if there’s a law somewhere that defines abortion as murder, I guess we could debate the merits of that law. That is not that current state of law in Canada and, I trust, in most of the states even going back to pre-Roe.
I realize (or at least I assume) that to you abortion = murder. It isn’t so for me, so I don’t see why any arguments using the term “murder” are relevant, and my view is not an odd one, nor have I grabbed onto a belief just to be contrary.
Basically, I can’t say arguments about the morality of abortion have much interest for me. I’m more interested in the contrasts between venues that have easy/legal access vs. venues that don’t.
I’m okay with it being at birth. At that point, the baby is not physically and solely dependent on a specific person - the mother could transfer responsibility immediately to someone else. Prior to that, though, while her body is intricately involved in the process, I side with her choice to control what happens to her body. I don’t really see the need for the law enforcement to intervene prior to birth. Canadian law enforcement doesn’t, and nothing bad has happened (or as far as I know will happen, in fifteen years or otherwise) as a result.
After the child is born, yes, I see a prevailing state interest which, by extension, is my business. At that point, if she really doesn’t want to care for the child any more, there are remedies available to her in which she can transfer the responsibility to someone else (and if she’s mentally ill, the state has procedures to take custody). Before birth, though, this is quite clearly not an option. If she wants the fetus removed from her body, the intact fetus cannot (yet) be signed over to someone else.
You may as will give up on trying to gotcha me into making some kind of pro-child-killing statement. I’m just going to keep reminding you that before birth and after birth are two distinct states, with different options.
They should, but I figure my definition of “responsibility” is slightly different, perhaps broader, than yours.
I daresay that makes a good argument for not bothering to outlaw abortion in the first place. The existence of such a law isn’t gong to make women feel differently about unwanted pregnancies, and enforcing said law would either consist of a few token gestures while ~90+% of law-breakers carry on as before, or a serious crackdown which will cause more harm than good.
I’m okay with ignoring those effects, or at least considering them over-ruled by other effects.
I’m not convinced you know what liberty is. Perhaps you were being facetious or impatient in your earlier statement because, seriously, if an individual wants to do something, they should check with higher authority first because wanting to do something means you can’t trust your own judgement about it? That’s pretty exactly how communist societies end up functioning - the individual mattering less and less.
You didn’t define. You just tried basing an argument on some bizarre misinterpretation of it, and I’m not the only one who objected.
By “here”, you mean this thread? I don’t see any real extremity… there’s classylady’s childishness, but that’s about it. In fact, I think you’ve gotten more than a fair hearing on your views.
I don’t see the contradiction, myself.
Well, freedom of speech and all… but I’ve shown the courtesy of calling the opposing side “pro-life” because that’s apparently what they want to be called, and I don’t see the need to argue over labeling.
If you want to call the pro-choice side “pro-abortion”, that’s your right, but your linguistic reasoning is unsound, and if you really do want a more accurate descriptor, why not something like “pro-abortion-legalization” and “anti-abortion-legalization”? Grammatically, these are opposite labels. If you prefer that both sides be described in terms of what they support (i.e. each gets a “pro” in their name), you could try “pro-abortion-legalization” and “pro-abortion-criminalization”.
If accuracy is your goal, that is.
Sure, I guess. And a number of unwanted pregnancies will turn into unwanted babies. It’s not clear to me that this is an improvement and in fact may cause serious harm.
And you don’t see a potential problem with this? When abortions are legal, doctors can openly train in the procedure and openly practice it. When it becomes illegal, will doctors who perform the procedure be jailed and/or delicensed? Will formal training in the procedure abruptly cease? Since there will still be women with unwanted pregnancies, won’t the demand drive them to medical professionals who are not formally trained? Who cannot handle complications? Serious, injurious complications from legal abortions are extremely rare. Would you expect this rate to climb when experienced specialists stop performing them? When doctors won’t perform them at all for fear of losing their licenses, leaving the market open to nurses, orderlies, med-school dropouts…
Now that you’re talking about a ban, my follow-up questions are how aggressively would you want this ban enforced, and what plans do you have for disappearing gynecological services when the OB/GYNs leave a state where enforcement is especially aggressive?
Sure, lower, but still higher than today, and not just from abortions. As I asked earlier, what happens when OB/GYNs leave states where enforcement is toughest? The women in those states will find it harder and harder to get prenatal care, even for wanted pregnancies. I predict more complications - untreated eclampsia, hypertension, diabetes and other ailments. In the name of forcing woman to carry unwanted pregnancies, are you prepared to accept the deaths of women with wanted pregnancies?
It doesn’t have to skyrocket, just go to, say, 200 a year. Heck, huge lawsuits have been based on far lower death-tolls than that.
I think individual X being inside the body of individual Y presents a sufficiently unique and distinctive condition that I don’t see the likelihood of “worth creep”.
Well, the same year that 1m “babies” died, 4m babies were born, so it’s not like the U.S. is facing a critical baby shortage. Of the 400k extra babies you predict, I figure a disproportionate number will be born into poverty, since wealthy women with unwanted pregnancies will simply travel elsewhere to terminate them (unless you have some law-enforcement ideas about that). I could wade through a lot of demographic info about cycles of poverty and such (I believe the book Freakonomics touches on this in detail, describing how crimes rates fell 15 years after Roe, with the hypothesis that unwanted kids were more likely to commit crimes - abortion’s effect on crime has been studied elsewhere as well) but ultimately I figure woman’s body is hers, and she doesn’t want a pregnancy, I’m not comfortable telling her she has to continue it. She is not a vessel for the state and the state has no business telling her that she must have a child when he doesn’t want one.
[quote]
You know an ever better way? It’s called not becoming pregnant. Yeah, startling, I know.[/quiote]
Well, you’re ignoring reality, again, which startles me not at all. Birth-control methods fail (and fail at a fairly predictable rate), so just by random chance, several thousand “responsible” American women are going to get unintentionally pregnant in a given year. I don’t see the value of a law that punishes the unlucky.
You claimed that in ~15 years, my country’s policies regarding abortion would lead to some group losing its civil rights. If you have no evidence to support it, why not man up and admit it? I get that you might feel that in an just world, a country that allows an evil like abortion must be eventually punished in some way, but that’s not evidence. You’re “letting” me believe that you said something bold while having no ability to back it up. That’s not really a victory of any kind, as far as I can tell.
If you think about it, a fifty percent chance would be terrifying. How about a 33 percent chance? Who decides how much a woman should take with her own life to have a kid. Should the law determine a 20 percent risk is fine?
No, shame on you for being deliberately hurtful. That using rhetoric like “anti-life” so gleefully reduces the people that disagree with you to a caricature. I have explained a number of times how people who believe in the sanctity of life can still be pro-choice. That you choose to not believe it is your choice. That you continually cast such aspersions on the belief systems of every pro-choice person makes you lose credibility.
What I judge in you is the deliberate cruelty you choose to inflict by your word choice. You take no responsibility for the vitriol you bring to the debate, while chastising others for the same. I have had deep conversations with pro-life people I deeply respect. People of integrity and complexity. We differ, but we recognize that to differ does not mean that one party has less humanity.
Shame on you for deliberate hurtfulness.
I am out of here. This is the pit, so this type of conversation is completely allowed. However, I’m trying to have a different conversation that Classy and OMG are having.
Thank you gonzomax, that’s exactly what I was hoping she might acknowledge.
<never mind>
You’re the retard who sent me the PM.
What really pisses me off is tha tI’ve actually worked to reduce unwanted pregnancy. I worked in college as a counselor on campus educating students on BC options, going with women to Gyn exams when they were scared to get fitted for diaphragms and did peer-counseling for couples about the importance BC and protecting themselves against STDs. I’ve escorted women in Planned Parenthood who were going to PRENATAL care because the chose to keep the baby, past asshole picketers and judgmental morons who just don’t get it.
I’ve done my time preventing more abortions through BC education. I’ve made a difference in this debate. Yet, people who have no idea what they are talking about get to shit all over the place. Absolute nonsense.
ETA: I know I said I was out… but man, I feel so passionately about the need for safe, legal and accessible abortions and treating people accessing legal medical procedures with a modicum of dignity. Just pisses me off.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Shame on me.
Give me a fucking break. I’ve done nothing to be ashamed of.
The more I think about. The more I agree with OMG’s term of anti-life.
Just because anti-lifers feel guilty about something don’t take it out on me. Hopefully one day you will realize the unjustice of what you support.
Then you’ve learned nothing.
ETA: For the last time- I don’t care if you change your position. You are entitled to it, as harmful as I think your position is. I was focusing on the way we choose to engage people who disagree, even about the big issues. The lack of respectful and educated discourse is what’s ruining this country.
Because of abuse by idiots like you I had to block my PM’s thanks a fucking lot you arrogant moron.
Why so offended by the term retarded? It’s because you are retarded. Again, not my fault.
I don’t recall you posting much on this thread but surprise surprise here you are to stalk me yet again. First you PM me then I block the PM’s because you frankly creep me out and now you follow me here.
I have nothing to learn. I do not and I WILL NEVER support the cruel and callous killing of innocent lives by the very mothers who are supposed to love them.
I guess you were kidding when you said you were leaving.
Then why the hell are you posting in the pit miss goody two shoes:rolleyes:
Lack of morals is ruining this country.
HER DOCTOR should decided for FFS. I will not give a fucking % and I explained several times why I cannot give a %. However, it seems like I’m writing in Chinese.
Stamping your teeny tiny feet again classy? You really ought to watch that blood pressure. But puberty does that to young men, so I guess we’ll have to wait for you to grow up.
Have you shaved yet?
We’ll buy you a razor.
Yeah, that’s a common arrogance among teenagers.
But, CLHP the doctor doesn’t decide. The doctor uses their experience and skills to make a judgement about risk and to present that in a non directive way to the woman, unless she specifically asks for their opinion on what she should do.
The woman then uses that information to make a choice, hopefully after discussing the situation with friends, family and spiritual advisers.
There are women who will choose to continue pregnancies that have a 90% of causing them death or disability.
There are women who will choose to end pregnancies where that risk is much lower.
I would support them in whichever choice they feel is right for them.
In my ideal world there would be no abortion- all pregnancies would be planned and wanted, all foetuses and women would be healthy.
We will never live in that world.
For that reason I support abortion rights- because safe, legal abortion saves the lives of women.
I support charities which work to reduce child marriage and FGM- because both involve grevious violations of the human rights of young girls and lead to the deaths of young girls and women and their children.
I support charities which encourage the education of girls in developing countries- because a child with an educated mother has double the chance of reaching their 5th birthday.
I support charities which provide family planning in developing nations- because women die from unsafe abortions and childbirth and motherless children are more likely to die before the age of 5.
I am pro-choice, but I am definitely not anti-life.