Actually, that’s not what I’m arguing (although you are arguing that it does).
I am simply saying that I find it almost outrageous that you would presume to enforce your worldview on others; to the point of taking away their freedom should they stray from your chosen path - you know, the one where you proclaim, “because addiction strips you of free choice, we must ban addicting substances and imprison those who believe otherwise. Because I am Der Trihs and I know what’s best for you”. Thanks, Dad.
Are you even reading what I’ve been saying? I said no such thing. You seem to be arguing against some right wing, “tough on crime” parallel universe version of me.
And it’s not my “worldview” that addiction takes away people’s to make free, rational choices; it’s biology.
Drugs, whilst I don’t believe prohibition stops the spread of drugs I don’t believe it helps it as much as people imagine. Often prohibition comes into force once societal damage has started to occur.
Why isn’t a fetus a person? I say this as someone who supports abortion, but minimizing what abortion is, is demeaning. You are killing another human being, make no doubt. That being said, if you are going to rid yourself of something before it is conscious and aware of it, then, shit happens. It requires a woman’s body to survive and grow. If that woman doesn’t want that responsibility then she doesn’t have to take it. It’s her choice. But an abortion is killing a human, now matter what you call it.
While presently abortion is legal, and heroin is not. That doesn’t really stand in the way of me getting some if I wish.
Likewise, when abortion was illegal, women still made there way to back alley practitioners, and witch doctors.
Women will still seek out abortions, and junkies will still do junk, regardless of the laws you pass, it would seem. Just maybe it’s time to evolve to a different attitude to how to handle both these things. As the tried and true ways seem to be failures all up.
For that matter, there’s not terrible magical about birth, except that most decent people rather admire it (at least intellectually; the actual process being a bit messy*). If we’re going to be honest about what we’re actually doing in abortion, then we should be unafraid of casual infanticide for no specific reasons other than personal choice as well. People don’t like the latter because, at the bottom of it, they fear the real consequences and hesitate to admit the reality of what they do. But it’s the same underneath.
*In that sense, it’s rather like a messy eater: absolutely necessary and good, but a bit nasty to watch.
It lacks the mental capacity to be a person. It *can’t *be a person any more than my appendix can be.
No; what is demeaning is equating being a “human being” to being a mindless lump of meat.
“Person” and “human” aren’t synonyms. A fetus isn’t a person any more than my liver is, or a brain-dead body that doctors dismantle for its organs.
There’s the fact that after the birth, the baby is no longer inside the woman, no longer using her as a life support system, and all the damage caused by pregnancy and childbirth has already happened so there’s nothing to prevent. So yes, it’s quite significant.
No, it’s not. A fetus inside a woman is not the same issue as a baby outside of a woman. They’d only be the same if the fetus was being grown inside a machine, and we can’t do that yet.
I understand you’re not stating that, but I still wanted to point out that it’s the prohibition of drugs that invite gang activity and crime. If heroin and such (cheap to produce) were freely sold, organized crime wouldn’t be involved in drug sale, and addicts wouldn’t need to assault old ladies to buy their next fix.
So is your position abortion should be legal because a fetus is not a human and we can do with it what we please or that abortion should be legal because the mother has ownership of her body and the right to expel any person or thing from it?
I was being sarcastic upthread about throwing addicts in cages
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the government should work to limit addiction.
However, making it illegal to forcibly inject women with heroin so they’ll cooperate as prostitutes is limiting people’s freedom; the freedom to force addictions on others in that case. You can’t have a civilized, organized society without limits on freedom. Saying “it limits freedom!” isn’t some all-encompassing trump card over all other arguments.
The gang and drug lord violence would probably drop, but the crime of the users would stay.
If the hard drugs are available from the supermarket, people would rob from the supermarket to get their fix. Or they would rob from the grannies to get money to pay the supermarket for their fix. The next high is largely what drives people addicted to stuff like that.
At the beginning of addiction, they can hold down jobs, but as their cravings get worse, more of their resources and time goes into getting high, and it spirals downward. You can’t hold down a job, anymore, because you’re either high or jonesing. Then you can’t pay your rent because you took any rent money you had left to the supermarket to buy it. And so on and so forth.
Don’t confuse stuff like heroin, meth, or any of that stuff with drugs that actually can be used recreationally with little risk. I, personally, use alcohol as the “permissible limit”: If alcohol is LESS risky than the drug/etc, it should probably be regulated.
This is a bit of a one-sided look at the issue. Stuff like heroin/meth and the like that are used to force dependence aren’t done in isolation. It’s done as part of a larger framework of abuse. You physically beat them to make them submissive. You mess with their minds to terrorize them into submission. And you chemically addict them to something they’ve never been involved with (usually) before and thus aren’t familiar with how to get it, so they feel they have to submit to keep their high going.
Just by going “Huzzah! Legal!” you don’t get rid of the problem. You weakly attack one leg of the cycle these kinds of girls are in. Which, by the by, may make things WORSE - Legally available heroin may mean that the cost is lower and that a pimp can do it to MORE girls for the same price. (Beatings and emotional trauma are already free.)
I see the distinction is that taking heroin is (for most people) necessarily involves participating in an exterior marketplacem and a number of industries that include growing, processing and transporting the product. A marketplace and an industry can be regulated and/or outlawed based on some assessment of their role in society.
The logical conclusion of this reasoning is that if a user can grow and process their own heroin on their own property for their own use, it should be allowed.
No, theres no relation between pro-abortion values and the right to take drugs.
Choosing to assess ones current condition and decide not to bring another child into an already overpopulsted world, when it is felt by the mother that she is not currently emotionally or financially stable to raise a child who will be more than just another drain on society is one issue.
It is a completely seperate issue that infringing upon peoples free choice to enjoy substances has spawned a drug war that has created a disenfranchised mass of millions, a virulent criminal culture, a paramilitarized police, a high funded intelligence/enforcement culture with no oversight, and a crime against humanity against peoples in Mexico and other countries torn apart by druglords.
I am absolutely not an expert, but this is not my understanding of heroin addiction. My understanding, which again may be simply a mis-understanding based on foolishness, is that it’s perfectly possible to be a functioning heroin addict.
So the logical conclusion is that if a woman can perform her own abortion then it should be allowed?
Abortions do not take place in isolation from the greater marketplace. Doctors use medical supplies and drugs, pay rent on offices, buy exam tables and other office furnishings, and so on.