No. I’m suggesting that you’re concentrating your efforts on the wrong one. Your protest is meaningless if you only want someone else to enforce your version of right and wrong.
I don’t oppose laws against crime. Crime needs a definition that is consistent with a cultures own version of what it is. It is subjective. I think you actually dodged my last question, but I’ll re-phrase it. Do you think that all acts that cause a new life to cease to exist are crimes? Any exceptions. Where is the line in what is considered, and where does your version of good and evil become the standard for someone else’s.
I think in order for me to know how to respond to this, I need to clarify what, in your honest opinion would be a suitable law and what punishment would be appropriate. Otherwise this argument is abstract. My main point was new law should be consistent and equal for the majority and also in the majorities best interest. Just stating that abortion should be illegal is a knee-jerk reaction and doesn’t indicate a well thought out alternative or plan of action. So answer this and then I will be able to answer your questions, knowing what your point really is. To put it another way, I need to know if you have a valid point or just a judgment?
[quote]
Can you tell us what other “crimes” you wish to decriminalize?
No.
Husband or wife?
No
No
No
No
There is a difference between striking down all law and being reluctant to make a law that is not in the majorities best interest. And yes I do think we should have compassion for people who commit crime. It is in our best interest that we help and not just condemn. How would you write this abortion law to make it enforceable and fair?
**I’m not sure what your point is here, and I’m also not sure how you know what I’m concentrating my efforts on. Let’s try this. Crimes include activities that cause egregious harm to other people. Does that help?
**I believe that all deliberate acts that would stop a new life should be prohibited, except to the extent that it may be required to save the life of the mother. In those instances it may be possible that the best outcome is one that saves the mother at the expense of the unborn.
And I see that you did finally answer my question, in response to Dave. He must just have a way with words that I lack, I guess, that old smoothie.
**I’m not sure there’s a bright line, but I do believe that the killing of innocents crosses it. I believe society has a compelling interest in prohibiting activity where someone violates a greater right of another. I believe the right to live is the most fundamental right that exists. No other right exists without it. No other right has meaning if the right to live is not real.
A suitable law would be one that bans abortions. Law enforcement and punishment should concentrate on providers, IMO.
**What does “equal for the majority” mean? There is no shortage of laws on the books that impact different segments of society in enormously different ways, and you yourself are on record here as stating that at least some of those laws should not be overturned. That fact does not by itself render a given law inappropriate, by your own admission.
And do you count the unborn in determining “what is best for the majority”? If not, why not? In fact, if you do not count the unborn, what exactly do you find objectionable about abortions at all? And if you do account for the unborn, please explain how an abortion ban would not be best for the majority of those affected.
Right, so you’re really just struggling with the practical details of an abortion ban. The fact that the issues you cite exist for countless other laws is not a major concern for you, at least not to the extent where you’d want the laws off the books. :rolleyes:
Here’s my position. An abortion ban, similar to the ones that existed 30 years ago, would eliminate a majority of the abortions currently taking place in the U.S. That would be a good thing overall. Individual circumstances should be taken into account in determining how to punish, just as it is with every other law on the books. I don’t think that throwing women in prison should be an objective, and that providers should be the focus of law enforcement. I also believe society has an obligation to assist women in desperate circumstances as best it can, e.g., social programs, etc. Is that specific enough for you?
I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of women who feel abortion is the answer. Hell, there are people I love who have had abortions.
But I’m not advocating the rhythm method only. It is in addition to whatever birth control that normally is used. I can understand the mindset that since one type of birth control is being used, another *in addition to *probably isn’t necessary. However, the argument for abortion on demand is because there is still a risk present. If you know you do not want a child, then you need to further eliminate any risk of pregnancy. That is what I’m advocating when I stated:
Perhaps I should have said “additional” instead of “extra”.
CrazyCatLady I agree with you that sterilization shouldn’t be so difficult to obtain if you don’t fit the “right profile”. That should be changed.
Well that’s nice and warm-fuzzy sounding. Unfortunately thats not what you said earlier. You did NOT just say we need to help and condemn.
You said we should not “self righteously condemn” somebody for these criminal acts. You specifically mentioned mugging as an example.
My goodness, what the hell does criminalizing an activity do but to condemn it (self righteously or not)? It says THIS is a bad thing. It forms a moral or ethical judgment that said activity is a bad thing that should be punished.
When called on specifics for your statement you backpedal away.
I’ll try again
Should muggings be “self righteously condemned”?
Should rapes be “self righteously condemned”?
Should shoplifting be “self righteously condemned”?
And what happens when someone uses multiple forms of birth control and still gets pregnant?
There will always be a risk present. You could have both parties sterilized, use a condom, the pill, and the rhythm method all at the same time, and there is still a risk of becoming pregnant.
You are correct that using more forms of birth control will lessen the demand for abortions, but it will not eliminate it.
Sterilization should be for those who do not want any (more) children and those factors are what you are to consider before having the procedure done/ Doctors do advise you about this.
Always wrong, because it is murder. (Enough people have explained why WE think it is murder).
Many people say, and it IS a valid point, that we pro-life guys should also care about the kid AFTER it is born. While true, it goes only so far, no one would say that Lincoln shouldn’t’ve freed the slaves because he couldn’t provide food or jobs or housing for them. Some even fared, materially, worse than when they were slaves, but freedom trumps almost everything.Living trumps everything else, even quality of life.
Is killing in self defense always wrong, because it is murder? Hypothetically, if a woman is suffering complications from pregnancy that are likely to kill her if she does not abort, wouldn’t such an abortion be equivalent to killing in self defense?
So you think it’s okay to destroy another’s life for position, social status and romantic life? Because what is being destroyed is not her body and never would be. I can’t honestly say that no abortion should ever take place, but it’s not simply a birth control method. At the rate of abortions being performed, there is a huge failure going on.
As a side note, if you think abortion has no risks, you’re very wrong. Increased breast cancer risk is just one of them.
Edlyn, could you clarify something for me please, because I’m not understanding where you’re coming from.
Are you saying that abortion is always wrong, and that people who seek abortions should instead be much more responsible with their birth control, but whether they are or not, they can’t have abortions ?
Or are you saying that if a person doubles, triples or quadruples up on their birth control, to whatever precautions are considered ‘enough’, that thenthey could have an abortion, should they fall pregnant, since they’ve obviously been responsible ?
As I stated, my question was hypothetical in nature.
Well, I doubt that such drastic birth control methods have ever been used, so it doesn’t matter. My point was that no method of birth control (other than complete abstinence) is 100% effective. You seem to believe that people should be more responsible with respect to using birth control (and I agree), but you have yet to address what you think should happen when someone uses birth control correctly and still gets pregnant. Should they be denied an abortion?
You know, you’re the one that brought up burglary, murder, rape, etc. I’m still trying to discuss abortion. So you do believe that the forms of birth control that allow fertilization should be banned also. I am just trying to get an idea of what you think a workable solution is. So you do consider the mother’s life to have more value under certain circumstances? What if she is mentally or emotionally unable to tolerate a pregnancy or child-rearing? Should it be the provider who you’re going to prosecute if he and his patient make the wrong choice.
I know it’s probably not really obvious from what I’ve been saying, but I was pro-life when I got here, and I continue to be very strongly pro-life. I agree with you here.
So we’re going to have a law again that forbids pro-choice physicians from treating pro-choice women. The woman that decides it is imperative that she end her pregnancy will not bear any of the responsibility for her actions. The provider will be the only one to blame? “Equal for the majority” as in laws that will be enforceable in general and not only for those with fewer options.
No, I don’t think we should discard existing laws off the books until we have a better alternative, nor should we add laws that will by default be flawed, exclusionary and will only exist as a legal deterent for the physicians. The dr. is providing what he considers a needed service. The woman is the one who actually made the decision to end her baby’s life. And the father, if he is aware; then should he be an accesory? I do count the unborn actually as the most important part of the equation, but what I believe or feel isn’t very important to those women who are trying to keep their lives together. As it stands, it’s hard for me to think about forcing them to do what I believe is right and yes I want to. Again, you brought up the other laws as an example that we already have flawed laws, why not more?
If you don’t believe women should should be punished, then you don’t really think she’s responsible for her crime?
I’m not unsympathetic to either the mother or the bably. I would just like to see a more workable solution. I would, at this point in time, if I had any right to, change the law to make three months the cut off time. With increased success at viability happening sooner, an abortion at the latter end of the second trimester seems particularly horrifying. I would also like to see us do everything possible to encourage adoption. That would nessecitate an attitude change from feeling like one is being forced to be a breeding machine(one of the most lame of arguments), to attempting to be unselfish and give the baby who has no personal positive value to a family who are desperate for what they can’t have. I have been involved in the adoption process and it was the most excruciating sorrow, that then eventually turned into a great joy for him and about 50 of his new relatives. I’m sure abortion is easier than adoption, but the end result is less damaging to the mother and the baby .
Well, there you go. I don’t think the answer is to criminalize abortion. That won’t solve the problem. It will just complicate it. I would rather throw more money at it. Make an unplanned baby not a rapid decent into loss of dreams and ability to get by financially. Hey, actually reward people for not getting abortions. College education, more child-care incentives, whatever it takes. It’s only money. If you think that abortion is murder, then whatever needs to be done to prevent that should be done, without complaint. As for all the other crimes on the list, which really didn’t seem the topic of this thread; yes, I believe we need to have punishment for crime, but in our best interest; we should also find ways to help, so it doesn’t happen again. I am forever aware that I do not have abortions or commit crimes because of the family I was born into and the life I’ve had. I do feel compassion for the people who didn’t have the choices I did.
If it seems like I’ve been backpedaling, I apologize. Nobody was more surprised than me to find I was arguing for a cause I not only don’t believe in; but am violently opposed to and sickened by. That’s the emotional side of me. OTOH, I intellectually can’t see passing a bad and unenforceable law, based on my knee-jerk emotional response. I was trying to be fair and honest. I haven’t made my point well because, hell I don’t believe part of what I’m saying as strongly as I should. The problem is, if someone doesn’t think their pregnancy is “really a baby” and is really intent on not carrying it for 9 months; I still think we can’t force them to. I do have a lot of contradictory feelings on this whole issue and probably shouldn’t be debating anything about it. Sorry.
**This is still dodging. You are the one who has stated that a problem with an abortion ban is that it would not eliminate abortions, I think. The laws against the above acts have not eliminated these crimes either. Neither do these laws affect every segment of society equally. And still, it is only abortion, apparently, that you feel should NOT be a law. And you have still not explained why a law against burglary is OK–though it affects the poor much more than the rich, and has not eliminated burglaries–but a law against abortions would be wrong.
**I already answered this.
** I certainly don’t think it has less value.
**It’s the provider I would prosecute because that is the most politically expedient and practical way of dealing with it. BTW, a mother emotionally unable to deal with child rearing needn’t do so, you understand?
**It’s not obvious. You still haven’t answered my question as to whether or not you count the unborn in determining what is good for the majority. Go ahead and re-read it and please answer.
**I didn’t say it wasn’t possible that women could be prosecuted. But that wouldn’t be a primary objective, nor would it be common. I don’t think prosecuting desperate and deluded women is an effective practice.
**And yet you seem to have this requirement only for abortion laws. At this point, this is effectively a meaningless debating point, IMO. You hold a position, but then again you don’t.
**If it’s the law of the land, he doesn’t get to make that decision. It’s the same with euthanasia laws and countless other limitations on what a physician may prescribe as treatment.
**You count them how? Again, you have not answered my question. If they are part of your “majority,” for the second time I’ll ask you to explain how permitting abortions is the best for the majority. And why do you think abortion is uniquely a province of personal decision where society may not impose a restriction if you do believe that the unborn are people with rights? There are actually people in this world who believe that parents should be able to kill infants for any reason. Would you interfere with this decision? If so, why? They simply don’t believe what you do. Why not let them make their own choices?
**The “flaws” you refer to are an inherent nature of virtually every law on the book. There is no “perfect” law, one where every person is affected exactly the same, one that eliminates the proscribed activity just by virtue of the grandeur of the law’s wording. Those laws simply do not exist. Why would you make this a requirement of abortion laws, then?
**She may or may not be. I believe there are desperate women who are not thinking clearly where prison would serve no purpose. But I believe in virtually every instance, imprisoning women would make the possibility of an abortion ban less likely. Most people would find it distasteful. Hell, so would I, for the most part.
So, if you want an anaology, I would point to drug laws. In many jurisdictions, posession of small amounts is not a felony and would not result in prison time. For the large provider, OTOH, it’s another story. Law enforcement pursues the dealers vigorously and major dealers get big sentences. I’m not saying drugs and abortions are analogous, by the way. I’m just trying to respond to your fixation on the logistical details surrounding an abortion ban. This is how it might work.
**Workable in the sense that this law must eliminate “flaws” that no other law is required to?
**Why? Why isn’t this interfering with the mother’s personal decision? Why do you get to do so in this manner, but anything further is right out? Viability? What does that have to do with the fact that other people disagree with your morality? BTW, at what point do you stop deluding yourself? Think of what you just said. You’re pro-choice, no matter how much it comforts you to think of yourself as pro-life.
Sorry, but your philosophy regarding abortion seems terribly inconsistent and damned convenient.
IWLN, you’re a saint. I may not agree with your position, but your continued graceful responses to a truly graceless dogpiling has been a pleasure to read (never thought I’d apply THAT word to an abortion debate).
Why do people say that? I dont know any mother who would not rather give her own life in order to save her child(and I am glad that I dont know any mother who would kill their child)? Are there mothers out there who would rather kill their child in order to save their own lives?
(Note: I am not talking about people who like abortion and would kill the child regardless of whether or not it might harm the mother, I am talking about regular mothers. ) I know there are people out there who will kill others, this is not the same thing.
a child created from rape is a difficult issue, and the mother was not responsible for creating that child. I would leave it to each individual woman to decide what to do, fortunately, conception from a rape is extremely rare.
I agree that it is wrong, and I think it is murder, but I agree that it should not be illegal, just for the practicality of the situation.
When over a million babies a year are killed, it is just physically impossible to punish a million people for murder each year, unless you have the death penalty in every state. I have no problems with giving the death penalty for murder, but seveal state constitutions have to be changed to allow the death penalty for abortion. Without the death penalty, we just cant afford to put the now 30 million guilty women, plus their doctors and nurses, in prison for life terms, and anything less than life in prison for killing a child, is just lip service and rather meaningless. The cost of imprisoning 30 million people is unaffordable. It cost over $20,000 to house a prisoner, times 30 million, is what?
And dont forget to add in the court costs, attorney costs, police time, and how many judges we would have to hire and how clogged up our courts would be just to give trials to a million women a year and their doctors and nurses.
As I’ve noted before, I can’t take seriously the claim that someone believes that abortion is as bad as a cold blooded murder of a grown human being. That would mean the equivalent ofmass genocide going on all around you, every day, and yet you’re here chatting to people on a message board about it, mildly complaining? How can we take that seriously? How can YOU take yourself seriously?
