Both Death Penalty and Abortion or Neither

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jsgoddess

Maybe we could Wasilla-ize the rest of the country and make women pay for their own rape kits! It’s PERFECT!

Sure. Nobody would ever falsely claim rape if they had to buy a $6000 rape kit (price set to reflect the gravity of the situation) to prove it, cash up front. No refunds for negative results.
I’ve described the following scenario a few times, but pro-lifers never comment on it despite my invitation: a woman says the following: “About two months ago, I forget the exact date, I went to a party. Maybe somebody slipped me a roofie, or maybe I just had too much to drink. I woke up the next day with no memory of what happened. When I missed my period three weeks later, I waited a few extra days to be sure and then took a home pregnancy test. I spent a few extra weeks thinking about it, trying to remember what happened. I think I was raped, but I can’t be sure.”

So, assuming a rape exception, can she get an abortion or not? I’d hate to think some actual roofie-victims were being forced to bear their rapist’s child simply because they can’t remember the details (which is exactly the point of using rohypnol in the first place). Is it possible to test for rohypnol exposure two months after the fact? If twenty women make the same statement, how can you tell which (if any) are lying?

This ban would do something quite insidious - forcing honest people to become liars, and good liars at that, because the bad liars (as well as those who are telling the truth, but unconvincingly) are the only ones punished. I picture a woman who tells a lie smoothly getting her abortion, while a real victim who seems overly nervous and hesitant (as anyone might be) is turned away, and it’ll all rely on the opinion of some law-enforcement officer or bureaucrat to make the call. Heck, maybe one bureaucrat lets a woman through (because she sounds convincing) while another who hears the same basic story rejects it (because she sounds too convincing, almost rehearsed). Word will get around about which bureaucrats will rubber-stamp the rape-exception application without asking questions (were I ever in such a position, I would feel morally compelled to do so), and which to avoid because (rightly or wrongly) they reject as many applications as they can.

How this represents an improvement escapes me.

[wonky]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’ve described the following scenario a few times, but pro-lifers never comment on it despite my invitation: a woman says the following: “About two months ago, I forget the exact date, I went to a party. Maybe somebody slipped me a roofie, or maybe I just had too much to drink. I woke up the next day with no memory of what happened. When I missed my period three weeks later, I waited a few extra days to be sure and then took a home pregnancy test. I spent a few extra weeks thinking about it, trying to remember what happened. I think I was raped, but I can’t be sure.”

Throw in a national DNA database to identify the “rapists” and everyone’s a winner.

[begbert2]

@Bryan_Ekers

How this represents an improvement escapes me.

It hasn’t been my impression that people who are anti-abortion are really in the business of improving things for people. They’re seeking the ideal. In their ideal world, when you casually suggest to a girl that she wait until marriage, she will, with no backtalk. In their ideal world, no rapes occur. In their ideal world, every child is wanted, and every child born will always grow up happy. In their world, if the woman would just bear the child, they would love the child, and really, they would soon realize that it was the right thing to do. Oh, and in their ideal world people and fetuses have souls and there’s a god and it matters what happens to every little blastocyst. Except the miscarried ones. They’re exceptions.

Typically there’s lots of other stuff in their ideal world too, like all poor people deserving it from their own lazy actions and nothing bad happening to good people. Regardless, anti-choice people are distressed when reality keeps constantly intruding on their lives and suggesting that their ideal world has no “L”, and is actually just an “idea” world, with no existence beyond that of a fleeting thought. So the more reality intrudes, the harder they fight back, try to act like their ideal is true, pronouncing rules that would work perfectly with no bad effects in their ideal world - but which have terrible side effects in the world of reality.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Der_Trihs

No. Dogs aren’t mindless lumps; morally, I would be perfectly happy to sacrifice a handy unwanted human fetus to save a dog. Dogs are less than people, but more than a fetus.

Dogs do not have sentinence either and unlike fetuses will not have sentinence in the future.

Then stop pushing for things that are cruel and anti-woman.

Early feminists were pro-life and I in general support women’s rights, for instance I support women fighting in combat and being drafted during wartime

Then were Susan B Anthony anti-women when she stated that she was against abortion? Is anyone no matter how pro-feminist who has doubts about abortion being perfectly okey-dokey a misogynist and anti-woman?

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, you made the point the Nevada (and Rhode Island?) has legal prostitution (which it does, except in the cities). Nevada has not turned into a lawless hellhole as a result. Why couldn’t legalization be extended nationwide? Of course, that’s an issue for another thread.
Well, I don’t think you can get your country to agree to extend the legal definition of “murder” in this fashion. Or I least I hope you can’t, because the nebulous “good” of bringing an extra million babies that their own mothers don’t want is outweighed by the significant “bad” of turning a large segment of your population into criminals. Read up on Prohibition sometime.

A large portion of the million (probably less as if abortion is banned sexually promiscuous women will probably be less stupid and use birth control or abstain) or so babies will be raised in government-run orphanges and the rest in foster homes.

@Guinastasia

First, I’m guessing prostitutes would be required to be of age. Second, way to treat women (and men!) like children! Besides, if you want to talk about prostitution, start another thread.

So obviously, I’m guessing you’re against the morning after-pill, no? What about IUDs?

Yes I am against the morning after pill and IUDs or any form of birth control that destroys the fetus after conception.

@elbows

You’re wrong Curtis, I do have the right and it was granted to me by the democracy in which I live.

You may believe that ethically it’s wrong, but it’s the law because your opinion is not in the majority.

Anytime you want to stop living in a democracy I encourage you to move, there are many countries where abortion is illegal.

I can see that you find it challenging to live under a system that is at odds with your belief. Stop and think about all the women who, for hundreds of years lived under a system that was at odds with their belief.

No one is forcing you to live by any other beliefs than the ones you value, when you have an unwanted pregnancy you may choose to do as you believe. However your suggestion would indeed force all women to live not as they feel is morally correct, but as you do.

Rail away about how wrong it is to have to live with a moral practice you so disagree with, but recognize that women have 2000 years of it under their belt. We’re just not that impressed with your outrage.

Than what about states where pro-lifers are the majority? Do you support their democratic right to excercise their votes to ban abortion in their states? Also if a million babies are being murdered every year than by my moral beliefs I cannot just stand there and do nothing; I must fight actively to ban abortion.

@Revenant_Threshold

Then, while I disagree with your view, I have to say it does seem consistent on that point. But your point was one of something inevitably becoming something else. A fertilised egg, at the moment of conception, is not inevitably going to become an adult human. That’s exactly the correct implication, and indeed, by that logic, that would be the natural result. But it is not my logic; I do not base my opinion as to how to treat beings based on what they will, in the future, be. That’s your argument, and it is your logic. You must come up with a reason why it is reasonable to treat a fertilised egg as a fully grown human on the basis that it will one day be that thing, and yet unreasonable to treat a fertilised egg or fully grown human as a corpse, on the same basis.

That is because there will be life between the egg and natural death. They will be sentinent and live thus for that seventy or so odd years they have the right of the human beings to live out their spans of natural life. Also if one believes in the soul than though humans die physically on Earth they will live on.

@Bryan_Ekers

Actually the alternatives I was thinking of involve women being injured or killed in unsafe abortions, infanticide and abandonment, criminal enrichment of people who add mifepristone to the drugs they already traffic, not to mention the logistical infeasibility of a ban. I use Prohibition as my example of something like this, i.e. a ban on something a great many Americans very much want and will ignore laws to get. Further, I compare the U.S. (and other places where abortion is available) to countries where abortion is banned, and the latter group tends to be places where individual rights have far less respect.

Additionally, there is some evidence of a drop in crime rates 15+ years after Roe that can be attributed to fewer babies growing up unwanted and in poverty.

Not really, abortion rates peaked in the mid 1980s yet the crime rate is still going down and down.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Curtis LeMay

A large portion of the million (probably less as if abortion is banned sexually promiscuous women will probably be less stupid and use birth control or abstain) or so babies will be raised in government-run orphanges and the rest in foster homes.

Ah, so the ban is an anti-stupidity measure. And orphanages are a solution. Right.

Not really, abortion rates peaked in the mid 1980s yet the crime rate is still going down and down.

And I thank you for supporting my point. What do you think will happen 15 years after an abortion ban and the first wave of unwanted foster- and orphanage-raised babies hits their teens?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Bryan_Ekers

Ah, so the ban is an anti-stupidity measure. And orphanages are a solution. Right.

And I thank you for supporting my point. What do you think will happen 15 years after an abortion ban and the first wave of unwanted foster- and orphanage-raised babies hits their teens?

No, since the 1980s abortion rates have gone down than why hasn’t crime gone up in any measurable way?

[wonky]

@Bryan_Ekers

Ah, so the ban is an anti-stupidity measure. And orphanages are a solution. Right.

When people start channeling Mr. Bumble, I get a bit worried.

[Der_Trihs]

@Curtis LeMay

Dogs do not have sentinence either and unlike fetuses will not have sentinence in the future.

Neither will anyone “in the future”. And dogs feel; they are fairly emotionally complex. That gives them a fair amount of moral weight all by itself.

@Curtis LeMay

Then were Susan B Anthony anti-women when she stated that she was against abortion? Is anyone no matter how pro-feminist who has doubts about abortion being perfectly okey-dokey a misogynist and anti-woman?

Yes, whether they intend to be or not. Just like anyone who rapes women is acting against women, even if they tell themselves it’s for their own good ( rapists of lesbians, for example ).

@Curtis LeMay

A large portion of the million (probably less as if abortion is banned sexually promiscuous women will probably be less stupid and use birth control or abstain) or so babies will be raised in government-run orphanges and the rest in foster homes.

In other words, they’ll grow up lonely and unloved, knowing they were forced into the world solely as a weapon used to punish women.

@Curtis LeMay

Than what about states where pro-lifers are the majority? Do you support their democratic right to excercise their votes to ban abortion in their states?

No I don’t; no more than I would regard it as their right to legally require the rape of women.

@Curtis LeMay

That is because there will be life between the egg and natural death. They will be sentinent and live thus for that seventy or so odd years they have the right of the human beings to live out their spans of natural life.

Irrelevant.

@Curtis LeMay

Also if one believes in the soul than though humans die physically on Earth they will live on.

Belief in the soul is baseless and foolish. And I could claim with just as much evidence that god sends all unwanted children to Hell to burn forever, so that refusing women abortion means you are condemning millions of children to burn forever.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Curtis LeMay

No, since the 1980s abortion rates have gone down than why hasn’t crime gone up in any measurable way?

Because people are smarter now about contraception and the number of abortions has gone down because the number of unwanted pregnancies has gone down. I’m not aware that birth rates in the U.S. have spiked lately (or spiked 15 years ago, though it looks like they reached a relative high of 16.7 per thousand in 1990).

I don’t know what you’re arguing for or against.

[wonky]

@Bryan_Ekers

I don’t know what you’re arguing for or against.

Up with babies, down with sluts!

[Revenant_Threshold]

@raindog

Perhaps.

Except I’ve ventured into too many of these abortion discussions where there seemed to be an inability to understand the underlying argument----that this is a child; a human being. (even if they disagree)

Could you give some examples of the kind of thing that leads you to this idea? I mean, what might a hypothetical generic abortion debater on my side say that would lead you to think that they don’t simply disagree, but don’t understand?

So the central question----in my mind—must always be “When does life begin?”*

I mean no offense, but I doubt that that is the question. If it was, you would be in favour of similar protections for all life. It’s quite possible you are, but I would tend to guess that there are more qualifiers to the question than simply “life”.

If you simply skip by that question (or it’s answer) and proceed to questions about individual rights, than it should not be surprising that someone is bound to assert the rights of the other human in that equation: the fetus.

… which kind of lead into here, because it seems as though you’re skipping a question yourself.

But I disagree with your analysis. For me, and in general from what I have noticed of others, it is not simply a skipping of questions. The question, for us, is as answered as it is for you. The answers simply are different, or they hold less importance as compared to other answers which you might hold as less important. It seems an unpleasant insinuation on your part; that those who disagree with you do not do so because they simply disagree on things, or they have a different view to you, but because they do not fully think through their arguments, because they (consciously or not) leave themselves gaps in their reasoning.

In doing so, we’ve exposed on many occasions the fact that, for many Dopers, the point at which life begins is irrelevant. (and they have been strident in making the point)

Certainly it is for me - and, I would wager, for you too.

Here too I think you may be stating things rather unpleasantly for the other side - that we’ve “exposed” such a thing suggests that these Dopers would prefer their feelings on this to be hidden, which imparts on them the notion that they, as you do, feel that such feelings are unpalatable (at best).

For them, even if it a human life, simple inconvenience is enough to end a life.

But for them, and for me, and indeed for you, “life” does not have the same definition. When a Doper says that simple inconvience is enough to make abortion acceptable, they aren’t using the same terms as you, nor do they have the same opinions as you; they are not saying “I am happy to murder a child for the sake of convenience” (excepting a considerable minority). If you are correct, then indeed that may well be what they are doing, but they do not believe it to be so.

[Der_Trihs]

@Revenant_Threshold

But for them, and for me, and indeed for you, “life” does not have the same definition. When a Doper says that simple inconvience is enough to make abortion acceptable, they aren’t using the same terms as you, nor do they have the same opinions as you; they are not saying “I am happy to murder a child for the sake of convenience”

Yes; to me, regardless of the opinion of people like Raindog a fetus really is just a mindless mass of tissue. As such, the inconvenience or simple whim of the woman carrying it is enough to justify its destruction; just as if it was a tumor or a wart. Is it alive? Is it “human” in the sense of having human DNA? Sure; but so is a tumor, or a wart, or my appendix.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Curtis LeMay

That is because there will be life between the egg and natural death.

So? Between the egg and natural death there will also be periods of non-sapience. Why don’t we judge the egg by those standards?

Too, between those periods, the egg will have arms, legs, and various other body parts that at present it does not. Since it will between now and death have those parts, we should treat it as though it does, and so offer it places in sporting events, the ability to get a driver’s licence, and a passport photo. These are silly examples, of course, but they are reliant on the same reasoning. You’re still asking for a huge and extremely rare exception to be made by treating the egg as what it is not yet, making it even more of an exception still by treating it so on one issue and not others, and you haven’t, as far as I can tell, been able to give a reason why such a huge exception should be made in this case, and why it certainly doesn’t apply to other cases.

They will be sentinent and live thus for that seventy or so odd years they have the right of the human beings to live out their spans of natural life. Also if one believes in the soul than though humans die physically on Earth they will live on.

Ah, but if one believes in the soul, then an aborted egg or fetus may die on Earth but they will live on. If we’re taking life after death as a reasonable standard by which to compare, then it doesn’t matter at which point the egg dies, because it will live on. In fact, if life after death is a reasonable standard to compare to, we can happily kill humans at any point in their life.

[wonky]

@Revenant_Threshold

When a Doper says that simple inconvience is enough to make abortion acceptable, they aren’t using the same terms as you, nor do they have the same opinions as you; they are not saying “I am happy to murder a child for the sake of convenience” (excepting a considerable minority). If you are correct, then indeed that may well be what they are doing, but they do not believe it to be so.

Can you murder if you don’t believe it’s murder?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@jsgoddess

Can you murder if you don’t believe it’s murder?

It probably depends. I’d guess that there’s a degree of surety of not causing harm along which murder, manslaughter and no sentence at all would probably fall. If you mean will someone still be dead regardless, sure.

[Der_Trihs]

@jsgoddess

Can you murder if you don’t believe it’s murder?

Yes; murder is killing a person. And a person is a person even if you don’t believe they are. The main reason this issue is confusing is because the anti-abortionists are trying to warp the the term murder to refer to things that aren’t people.

[wonky]

@Revenant_Threshold

It probably depends. I’d guess that there’s a degree of surety of not causing harm along which murder, manslaughter and no sentence at all would probably fall. If you mean will someone still be dead regardless, sure.

Sure, there’s a death, but the word “murder” seems to require something more than that.

[wonky]

@Der_Trihs

Yes; murder is killing a person.

No, murder is killing a person under certain circumstances. Accidents aren’t murder. Is killing something you don’t think is a person murder?

Mind you, I’m just curious. It’s not even remotely part of my stance on abortion.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Der_Trihs

Neither will anyone “in the future”. And dogs feel; they are fairly emotionally complex. That gives them a fair amount of moral weight all by itself.

What d’ you mean? Most fetuses will have sentinence in the future unless they’re miscarriaged; dogs won’t ever.

Yes, whether they intend to be or not. Just like anyone who rapes women is acting against women, even if they tell themselves it’s for their own good ( rapists of lesbians, for example ).

So you’re comparing pro-lifers to rapists now?m I think there should be a Godwin’s Law for rapists.

In other words, they’ll grow up lonely and unloved, knowing they were forced into the world solely as a weapon used to punish women.

No, I think the majority of them will be glad that they’re alive and living.

No I don’t; no more than I would regard it as their right to legally require the rape of women.

Well I could say that people have no right to murder people in abortions.

Irrelevant.

Belief in the soul is baseless and foolish. And I could claim with just as much evidence that god sends all unwanted children to Hell to burn forever, so that refusing women abortion means you are condemning millions of children to burn forever.

If God automatically damns non-Christians than aborted babies will go there and unlike the born don’t have a chance to accept God.

@Bryan_Ekers

Because people are smarter now about contraception and the number of abortions has gone down because the number of unwanted pregnancies has gone down. I’m not aware that birth rates in the U.S. have spiked lately (or spiked 15 years ago, though it looks like they reached a relative high of 16.7 per thousand in 1990).

I don’t know what you’re arguing for or against.

If birth control is getting better than the need for abortions is dying away.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@jsgoddess

Sure, there’s a death, but the word “murder” seems to require something more than that.

Yeah, and it’s where my answer would differ from Der Trihs’. Murder, to me, isn’t just killing someone, it’s setting out to purposefully kill them, taking steps to ensure it occurs, and then finally succeeding. If I run someone over with a car because I hate them and want them to die, that’s murder. If I run someone over because i’m drunk, that may be murder or manslaughter or whatever it is defined at whereever I happen to be. If I run someone over who jumps in front of my car giving me no time to stop, that’s yet another thing. A killing has taken place in each instance, but not necessarily a murder.