The same justification that differentiates between an infant and a skin cell in determining the right to life. Do you disagree with that distinction as well?
You can speculate as much as you’d like regarding what people will do. We know for certain that abortions increased after Roe v. Wade. Keep disputing, though, as silly a notion as that is. Outlawing abortions will not result in any decrease in abortions. Gotcha.
You can also make snotty little melodramatic comments to your heart’s content, and that won’t change the fact your axioms (e.g., the unborn do not deserve equal protection) are NOT a given, as much as you’d like them to be within this argument.
I think we’re going around in circles here. I’d start by banning, which by itself will resolve the majority of the cases, IMO. What else would I do? I don’t know. I’m as inexpert as I would be if you asked me what I’d do to reduce theft nationwide if there were absolutely no infrastructure in place to do so. I’d concede that it would be challenging, but I see no reason why this is unique among all banned behaviors we could possibly discuss.
Okay, so there will be a decrease (for the sake of argument). The wealthier women will travel to states or countries where the procedure is legal, and the poorer women will be forced to carry their children to term; children they don’t want and can barely afford. A ban will create many more problems than it solves.
Why is it (apparantly) a given that they do deserve equal treatment?
“Resolve”? Is this some new-fangled use of the word “resolve” kids are using these days? An abortion is a fairly quick procedure with (typically) no lasting physical or economic effects. Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child, however, puts her on the hook for 18 years of legal and economic responsibility. Were you under the impression that making an action illegal magically dispels all the problems associated with that action?
Trouble is, you’ve yet to provide a reason (aside from your sense of moral outrage) why this particular behaviour needs to be banned. We’re not really moving in circles so much as we have a definitional divide. You feel a fetus has civil rights and I feel it doesn’t.
You offer no evidence that life in the U.S. would be improved if abortions were banned. All your position does is take away a woman’s freedom to consult with her doctor and travel as she chooses (despite your attempts at evasion, enforcing abortion laws would by necessity impose these kinds of restrictions). You’re advocating passing laws that exist only to hassle a segment of the population, and in that sense they’re not far removed from “Colored” drinking fountains.
Got any evidence that life in a post-ban America would be better than it is now? I’d like to hear it.
I have a simple solution. Any anti-choice (or pro-non-fetus-butchering/anti-pro-anti-God-like-human-misery-I-decide-what’s-right-for-you/whatever other label etc) person who wants to make abortions illegal should be put on a list to forcibly adopt any child brought to term by a woman who wished to terminate the pregnancy.
Boom! Baby is born. Baby gets to be raised by a morally upright and obviously happy and content family.
**Please provide the evidence for this contention.
**It is axiomatically a given for me that they do. You’ll notice, however, I try not to piss all over the belief systems of those who don’t share that belief. In fact, in this thread, I responded only to certain specific notions/facts raised by other posters. As it relates to your contribution, I don’t believe my posts are dependent upon a particular belief one way or the other in the morality of abortion (though I do not wish to obscure the fact that I am firmly pro-life). Your points were and are weak regarding the possible impracticality of enforcing this ban as being reason enough not to ban it. You can be pro-choice and still see that.
**What would possibly make you believe I was asserting this? If you’d like to rail against this belief, feel free, but unfortunately I won’t be able to keep up the other end (your point is an example of crafting a “straw man,” in case you’re taking notes). I am inferring from your posts that you are intelligent enough to know exactly what I meant by “resolve” when I was answering a question regarding the impracticality of restricting a particular activity. And, BTW, the effect is indeed lasting upon the child, so, again, you are offering as a given the fact that the unborn do not deserve protection when you have not already established this by argument.
**Trouble is, I was responding to a very particular notion you were advancing, which was that the impracticality of this ban was reason enough not to pursue it. My response does not depend upon any particular belief. My response still stands. You have not provided a convincing argument as to why this is so uniquely impractical.
**This is laughable. You argument is so rife with logical fallacies, I don’t know where to begin. These laws would not exist “only to hassle a segment of the population,” so I will not engage this straw man. Please try a little harder. I have not evaded anything, since I concede that it would be (just as it has always been) the province of the rich to travel wherever they’d like to pursue activities that are legal “there” but not “here.” Women cannot currently consult with their doctors regarding the most efficacious ways to poison their husbands. Your point is not logical–i.e., the very restiction of a given activity is not bad simply because a restriction has occurred. The restiction itself is either just or it isn’t. Pointing out that it would exist if a ban were in place isn’t helpful, nor is it an argument.
I have offered no evidence of the variety you mention since my counter-argument does not rest upon this foundation, and you have not established this “greater good for the greater percentage of people” in any meaningful way. You have not provided evidence that what you suggest is true, which would depend (it seems to me) upon arguing that the unborn, in fact, are not people deserving of protection. You are offering as a given that which you need to argue. It is not now my job to accept your unsupported thesis unless I can disprove it (this fallacy is called “shifting the burden of proof”). That ain’t how it’s done in debates. Keep trying.
Right. And anybody who supports anti-child abuse laws should be forced to accept children in their foster care whenever a child is removed from an abusive home. Of course.
Do you also believe that people who oppose infanticide should be put on a list to forcibly adopt those children?
What about people who oppose child abuse? Or spousal abuse? Or the inhumane treatment of domestic animals? If people who oppose abortion should be forced to adopt those children that would otherwise have been aborted, then should we not call for the forcible adoption of other abused children and animals as well?
What I wrote is so clearly undefendable that I’m surprised you two took it so seriously. The point I was trying to make (which I probably didn’t do a good job of) is in support of what Bryan Ekers has been saying. Namely, it’s so bloody easy for people to say “ban abortions” and then just drop the discussion there, without even bothering to consider the consequences or create solutions to such. It’s just “ban abortions, now, and the rest will take care of itself.”
Although I can’t stand the “moral” argument either - that having or providing an abortion makes someone less moral than an anti-abortion advocate. (Not that anyone here has said such, just thought I’d throw that in there since you do hear it alot).
Well gezz Bob and J…yeah rex didn’t think his “simple solution” through very well…but you have to give him props for his clever use of
It’s a stitch.
I’m not going to equivocate.
-
It’s not a baby.
-
It’s nobody else’s business.
-
It’s not a baby
-
It’s nobody else’s business.
I’m not only pro-choice, I am proudly pro-abortion and I admit it.
Abortion should not only legal, it should be encouraged and rewarded with cash, AFAIAC.
We have too many messed up kids already who are born to incompetent parents, teenagers and drug addicts.
Why is it that much of the anti-choice movement also aggressively opposes any kind of welfare or social assistance to poor parents. When I hear pro-lifers get on board for things like universal healthcare and federally subsidized daycare then maybe I’ll take them more seriously. Anyone who supports the policies of GWB has no credible claim to any moral or compassionate high ground.
Sorry, dude, but this is yet another straw man. I do not accept as a given the fact that this is characteristic of the pro-life movement.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Straw man, DtC. You have not provided evidence that this is characteristic of the pro-life movement.
Maybe they took it seriously because that same lame argument (all pro life folks should be forced to adopt all “unwanted” children) has been made…seriously…on these boards. We’ll be sure to pass along your ridicule to the pro choice folks who made that argument.
I notice on preview, DtC in another abortion debate. Damn this one does not have legislation as the main focus…so what’s your rationale now?
Back to the OP
Q: Yet another anti-choice loonie demands an answer;
A(1): Who gives a damn? On what calendar ritual does this particular, carpet-chewing, woman-hater think he is entitled to an answer (and why should anybody take this sort of silly nonsense vaguely seriously?)
A(2): bring on the next loonie Christian.
Well, please do. While it might be nice to see pro-life people say they’d be willing to start adopting unwanted children, it clearly isn’t their personal responsibility to do so. Nor can they be forced to. It’s a silly argument…and I was perhaps foolish to inject myself into this argument with that particular post as my opening statement
Then what is the pro-life movement’s stance on this? Just curious, 'cos I haven’t heard much beyond “ban abortions”.
notice how with great agility I can switch between “anti-choice” and “pro-life”. That must make me a moderate or something… 
Just tell the carpet-biters to get into interesting carpet designs, otherwise they do the ‘0.0000001800027 nanoseconds, buy the romper-suits’ trick and we all have to go into ritual yawning.
Every national pro-life organiztion in the US, including National Right to Life, endorsed GWB for president.
'Twas brillig and the slithy toves…
Cite please? And, also, keep going. That’s not all you asserted.
I don’t believe there is a uniform, monolithic pro-life belief system. I know pro-life people for capital punishment and I know some against capital punishment. I know pro-life people active in volunteer work for the poor and for pregnant women in need, and I know those who are not active. I know pro-life people who are childless and I know those who have adopted several special needs kids.
That’s why I cringe whenever I see someone make some statement about how “all pro-life people” have a particular characteristic beyond believing in the right to life. It is demonstrably not so.