Yes, and Yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

When abortion was illegal before R. v. W., it wasn’t murder. It just wasn’t legal, except in a few jurisdictions, and in a few other places where you could get permission from a hospital board if you made a good case. People clearly thought of abortion without a reason other than “I don’t want to be pregnant” as wanton, but more like child abandonment than murder. Child abandonment is serious, but it does not rise to the level of murder.

I think that really, most people actually still see it this way, or there wouldn’t be exceptions, but they need to tell themselves they are defending real lives, just like throwing themselves in the line of fire, and saving a real child. Otherwise, they can’t keep upping the ante like they’ve been doing. It was one thing to write letters to the newspaper, another to bomb clinics, even empty ones.

Deleted because I really need to read more closely.

Are women who terminate their own pregnancy (let’s say before 20 weeks) breaking the law?

I’m on my phone, so this will be short. What I was referring to on the strident pro choice side as illogical is the idea that an advanced fetus can be torn to shreds , but a fetus of the same development is a person if delivered naturallyor by c-section. The point at which the fetus has “rights” is up for debate, and I am uncomfortable with either strident end of the spectrum. I realize my somewhat reluctant pro-choice stance isn’t fully logical, either, but it’s the best I can do.

It’s just like prostitution. It’s the hooker’s fault, not the John’s. The John is the victim here and the hooker needs to go to jail.
Count me among those pro-choice who didn’t realize the current pro-choice stand and how logically bankrupt and pandering it is.

There’s nothing illogical about it. It’s just not a very appealing position, since under that regime a woman who is eight months pregnant can terminate the pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all, and a lot people would be uncomfortable with that regime, and few if any societies have actually accepted it as the basis for their laws or customs.

The “abortion-at-any-stage-is-murder-and-women-should-be-prosecuted” stance is equally logically consistent, but equally unappealing.

And this is generally true with extremist ethical positions, where we assert one value to be absolute and ignore all other values. Given the premises, the stance is logically impeccable, but it doesn’t reflect many people’s moral instincts.

If alcohol was illegal then the blame is on the bartender.

It’s been the way we deal with the issue in Canada for close to 30 years and there doesn’t seem to be any appetite to change it.

It is, among other things, assigning powers to the law and legislation that it simply does not posses in a moral sense. She is only a victim if the law gets in the way of her abortion (including fear of getting caught - so that basically includes every case if it is illegal). In this she is a victim like everyone is as everyone has committed something that is against the law which was also morally OK or even the right thing to do at some point. So yes we are all victims of the legal structure at some point.

The issue stated here is not the immorality of abortion but of laws, in which case the statement is correct.

Except in the drug war we have, both the consumers and dealers are considered criminals. ‘Dry Agents’ who worked for the Bureau of Prohibition during Prohibition would arrest potential alcohol customers who came to fake speakeasies all the time.

Well, I would point out that you more-or-less fell into that situation because of a Supreme Court decision which struck down the existing law, followed by political deadlock between those who favoured a new law introducing greater restrictions on abortion, and those who favoured more permissive new legislation, with the result that no legislation at all could be passed. Which doesn’t suggest that people arrived at this position because they were compelled by the logic of it.

The position does seem to enjoy, if not universal support, at least general assent now. But it may be that the current situation, under which the law does not restrict late-term abortions, is politically sustainable only because few or no doctors are willing to provide them, or are willing to provide them other than in extremely limited circumstances. Which, if you think about it, is not a pro-choice environment; a woman seeking a late-term abortion cannot get one, or can only get one if her reasons for seeking it seem good to someone else.

I suspect that if you were to ask Canadians “is it right that the law does not prevent a woman from aborting a viable foetus for a trivial or indefensible reason” the answer might be “no, it’s not right, but that’s not a huge real-world problem because, in the real world, women rarely or never do this”.

A quick glance at the Wikipedia article on this subject shows that in a 2010 opinion poll, 53% of respondents described themselves as pro-choice, and only 27% as pro-life. But in a 2008 poll 46% believed that abortion should be permitted in all cases, while 48% would subject it to (varying levels of) legal restriction. Now, I grant you, different polls, different respondents, different years. But it does accord with my suspicion that “pro-choice” doesn’t necessarily mean absolute pro-choice, that the law should permit a woman to have an abortion at any time, in any circumstances, for any reason, and many people who consider themselves pro-choice, and many more people who don’t claim that label but generally favour the idea that women should be able to access abortion would nevertheless agree with the imposition of some restrictions.

Abortion is an issue where the ideologies switch up, with all the attendant BS that goes with it. Conservatives suddenly get statist and liberals suddenly become hardcore libertarians. And much like a good statist, the conservative wants to end abortion by passing laws against it, and then I guess hoping that no one breaks the law. But any good conservative knows that all laws are force. If you pass a law against something, eventually you’re going to have to use violence against someone who breaks it. Not all lawbreakers go along with their punishment willingly. Never outlaw something you aren’t willing to kill over.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

If men could get pregnant, abortions would easier to get than herpes at Mardi Gras.

Not sure about that, given that women are as likely to be pro-life as pro-choice. I think a more accurate view would be that if there were no married people, abortion would be easier to get. It seems that it’s not so much men, as married people who oppose abortion.

Have you been away for the past 35 years?

I don’t think its a stretch, laws can definitely be unfair. In this country there are few overt examples, depending on your political viewpoint, but imagine if this was North Korea or Saudi Arabia. One has a point if they consider gays executed in SA or anybody executed in NK to be a victim, even knowing the law, because the laws itself are unfair.

So too do most Americans, who happen to support the right to choose, consider the woman a victim if she gets pregnant (oftentimes not her fault) and is unable to get a cheap, easy, and accessible abortion. Abortion is popular in that most people want the ability for women who need it to be given access to it without jumping through the insane loopholes that GOP state legislatures have tried to create in the past decades. The alternative is never to say to them to stop getting pregnant, it must always be resolved through the freedom to choose. Anyone denied that is a victim of overly harsh and unfair laws

I’ve no doubt there are a significant population who want to make abortions illegal who are taking this path because its more palatable to more Americans than punishing women. One thing we know about these people, they’ll do and say anything to stop abortions, that is, except fully fund women’s health care, give children comprehensive sex ed, and freely distribute contraception. Its almost like they don’t really believe what they say and just want to punish women…

I think the argument is not that currently only men oppose abortion or all men oppose abortion, but that if male pregnancy had been possible throughout human history, abortion would now be taken for granted as a valid and legal choice.

Pardon my naivete, but wasn’t the thrust of making abortion legal to prevent women from suffering from botched procedures? I believe most people thought that abortions would/could never really go away, so just make it safer. Have people actually forgotten, or never really knew, that many women suffered grievously, or died, in their pursuit of abortion “outside the medical community”?

Actually, yeah, I think they have; same way they’ve forgotten iron lungs and death from whooping cough, and won’t vaccinate their children.

He started the thread with:

Trump is fair game.