Ban abortions?

[candida]

just keep those mome raths from outgrabing, OR ELSE!

[candida]

I know “Pro-life for serious abortion tourism’, just sign up, we’ll save you from loonie Christian woman-hating freaks!”

We can do that stuff.

[beagledave]

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.

It would be like, for example, suggesting that all pro choice folks are like…ohh…say the previous poster.

[candida]

Thanks beagledave!

It’s nice to be a stereotype for carpet-chewers.

Meanwhile, just as a reminder, the beagledave’s of this world can only intimidate and bully the poor. Congratulations, O beagly one, it must make you proud.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
Please provide the evidence for this contention [that wealthier women will be able to get abortions out-of-state or abroad].

Hmmm, money + unwanted pregnancy = abortion. That seems pretty self evident to me. Banning certain behaviours typically encourages people with money to find ways around the ban.

I mean… duh.

You’ll notice, however, I try not to piss all over the belief systems of those who don’t share that belief.

I’m not trying to piss all over your belief system, either, but you’re using your belief system (and not much else, it seems) to rationalize some pretty intrusive laws. I’m not even challenging your beliefs, just pointing out that using them as the basis for unenforceable laws is piss-worthy.

Your points were and are weak regarding the possible impracticality of enforcing this ban as being reason enough not to ban it.

Well, heck, we can just fill the books with unenforcable laws that make us feel good. Want to outlaw frowning? Go for it! Want to make it a felony to hate kittens! It’s done!

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.

One of us must be taking stupid pills, then, because this earlier statement of yours still mystifies me:

I’d start by banning, which by itself will resolve the majority of the cases, IMO.

“Resolve”… how? By making the unwanted pregnancies magically disappear? By causing a magical flip-flop in the attitudes of these women, making them go from “I don’t want this pregnancy” to “The government says I should love my baby, so now I do” ? How does banning an activity solve the problem of all the people who really really want to engage in that 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.

Ah, but you’re choosing to define the fetus as a “child”, and I’m not.

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.

Okay, I oppose a ban because it takes away individual rights and freedoms for no good reason that I can discern (because I don’t grant a fetus civil rights).

Plus it’s unenforceable.

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.

Fallacies? Where? What problems are solved by banning abortion and what problems are created? I’ve given plenty of the latter, can you supply any of the former?

Please try a little harder.

I don’t have to. I have no illusions that I’m going to argue you out of your beliefs. I just have to point out that your attempts to legislate your beliefs are unworkable and pointless (and actually kind of offensive, but that’s irrelevant).

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.

Huh? Your statement is confusing, so I’ll try to clarify my own views as clearly as possible.
[ul][li]Axiom: law enforcement is necessary[/li][li]Axiom: personal freedom is desirable.[/li][li]Axiom: Passing laws becomes a trade-off between ensuring as much evil as possible is discouraged and/or punished while not stepping too hard on personal freedom.[/li][li]Personal Belief: abortion is not evil.[/li][li]Conclusion: Attempting to outlaw activites that are not evil only manages to restrict personal freedom without offering any benefit whatsoever.[/li][/ul]

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.

Okay, I’ll say it outright: it’s my belief that the unborn are not people deserving of protection. So you and I have opposite and arbitrary beliefs. The main difference is that you want to pass laws and I don’t.

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.

Hey, you’re the one claiming an abortion ban should be passed; changing the status quo. The onus is on you to provide evidence that such a change is necessary or desirable. And saying “keep trying” is just a ploy to stall for time, in lieu of offering viable counter-arguments.

[robertliguori]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**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? **

What distinction would that be, exactly?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
1. It’s not a baby.

In what sense, and how do you determine this?

[Blalron]

A fetus may be human, but it is not legally a person. A fetus does not have a lifetime of memories, feelings, thoughts, and interactions with people. A woman does. The rights of a woman outweigh those of a fetus.

[Apos]

1. It’s not a baby.

---

In what sense, and how do you determine this?

Oh PLEASE you guys, don’t waste everyone’s time with this. It’s obvious you place not only different meanings and connotations on these terms, making them pointlessly prejorative on both sides. You can’t prove something just by playing around with definitions (it is a baby! it’s not a baby!)

Save everyone some time: just make your arguments from the characteristics of the particular beings in question, rather than trying to win simply by juggling definitions. Don’t argue it is or is not “a baby.” Argue that it is or is not a being that morally deserves protection from harm, based on what it is, not on what we decide to call it.

[Essured]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**Not so in your analogy. There may be other bone marrow donors, for example. **

I feel they are directly analogous, but I guess we could sit here all day while I pointed out the similarities and you pointed out the differences We’d never change each others mind.

Just curious about one part, though, Bob Cos, to clarify in my mind where you are comin from.

If a technology was available that would allow transferral of the fetus from one uterus to another, without killing the fetus, would you have any problem then ? Would you agree that the woman has the right to not donate the use of her uterus under those circumstances ? What if there was nobody guaranteed to step up to the plate and nurture the fetus in their own uterus ? Is it just the fact that there “may be other uterus donors” that makes it ok, or would the woman only be off the hook if she organised or had organised for her another ready and waiting uterus. I’m thinking of a woman who has been providing blood product or bone marrow but chooses to cease donating. Does she have to arrange a new donor, or can she just say “no more” at any time ?

[Harihat2]

Alright. This should of been placed in Great Debates.

[Harihat2]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**What distinction would that be, exactly? **

You are absolutely right. I agree.

[Harihat2]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**A fetus may be human, but it is not legally a person. A fetus does not have a lifetime of memories, feelings, thoughts, and interactions with people. A woman does. The rights of a woman outweigh those of a fetus. **

Agrees.

[Harihat2]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**What distinction would that be, exactly? **

Excuse me. I didn’t mean to relpy to this one.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**Oh PLEASE you guys, don’t waste everyone’s time with this. It’s obvious you place not only different meanings and connotations on these terms, making them pointlessly prejorative on both sides. You can’t prove something just by playing around with definitions (it is a baby! it’s not a baby!)

Save everyone some time: just make your arguments from the characteristics of the particular beings in question, rather than trying to win simply by juggling definitions. Don’t argue it is or is not “a baby.” Argue that it is or is not a being that morally deserves protection from harm, based on what it is, not on what we decide to call it. **

Apos, that is PRECISELY why I asked that question.

If one answers “It’s not a baby because it’s not yet born,” then that’s obviously begging the question. My inquiry was posed so as to determine why one would not consider a fetus to be a baby, and whether such a distinction is relevant in deciding to end its life.

[Apos]

—My inquiry was posed so as to determine why one would not consider a fetus to be a baby, and whether such a distinction is relevant in deciding to end its life.—

The point, though, is not why it is or isn’t a baby, but why it is or isn’t a being deserving of legal protection or moral consideration.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**A fetus may be human, but it is not legally a person.
**

Ah, so as long as the law says it, that settles the issue? Are you familiar with waht U.S. law once said, regarding the personhood of blacks?

**
A fetus does not have a lifetime of memories, feelings, thoughts, and interactions with people. **

Neither does a newborn baby. Neither do those people with severe mental retardation.

**
A woman does. The rights of a woman outweigh those of a fetus. **

And so, by your logic, the rights of a woman outweigh those of a newborn infant, or a severely retarded child. Shall we now advocate infanticide, and the killing of mental retards?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**—My inquiry was posed so as to determine why one would not consider a fetus to be a baby, and whether such a distinction is relevant in deciding to end its life.—

The point, though, is not why it is or isn’t a baby, but why it is or isn’t a being deserving of legal protection or moral consideration. **

Please read my post again. I wasn’t the one making any claims regarding its babyhood. Rather, I was asking why it shouldn’t be considered a baby, so as to determine if this distinction is at all relevant in discussing its legal protection.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**A fetus may be human, but it is not legally a person.

**

So what?

Likewise, gays can not legally marry in most states either…I guess they should shut their pie holes because of the current legal status of gay unions? I’m always amused that folks who (apprently) don’t consider current law to be a terminal event for causes that they believe in…have no trouble in using it as a terminal event for causes they don’t agree with.

**
A fetus does not have a lifetime of memories, feelings, thoughts, and interactions with people.
**

Neither does a newborn. Infanticide of a newborn by a stressed out mom is okey-dokey then?

[beagledave]

<shakes fist at hamsters and JThunder>