I think your second scenario is typical. Generally, people who get abortions know what they are doing regardless of what label we put on it. Banning abortion isn’t going to be a matter of convincing people a fetus is this or that. It will be about convincing people that an increase in back-alley abortions, abandoned babies, unwanted kids, unwilling parents, incompetent parents, single moms, CPS cases, and waiting time for foster homes and adoptions is better for society than legal abortion.
Like Bob, I share the amazement that folks are bringing up all kinds of potential law enforcement problems and extenuating circumstances as a rationale to not codify a law.
The apprehension and prosecution of offenders of exisiting laws from rape, shoplifting, white collar swindling, flat out murder or most any other crime is just as difficult, and causes just as many headaches in re-codification of those laws and court appeals etc…
At this very moment, I would guess that thousands of companies are being ripped off from employees swindling money. For every Enron executve that did get caught, how many other executives of other companies will never get caught? Does this mean we should toss those laws because of their obvious ineffectiveness?
I disagree strenuously. While I do not believe that there is such a thing as a “typical” pro-choice position, it is my experience (and therefore just my opinion) that most pro-choice proponents do not believe that abortion takes the life of a human being.
Lionors, my point was that making sterilization easier should be an accompaniment (sp?) to any ban on abortion. I agree with your last statement also, more or less.
Also, about the issues you feel are not being addressed: I do agree that the pro-life movement should pay more attention to these things. However, some of us are.
Blalron, IMHO the abortionists should be hit a lot harder than the women. To be honest though, it’s not something I’ve given a lot of thought to.
Why should abortion providers be hit harder than the people who come to them and say “I want an abortion”? They’re physicians doing what they and their patients agree is best for that patient.
Is it because they’re the “hitman” in this little conspiracy to murder a baby? (For the record, I don’t think it’s a baby, nor is it murder, but that is one common view of the issue.) AFAIK, when someone hires a hitman to kill an adult, both guilty parties are punished equally.
Is it because they’re not under emotional duress? You show me a doctor who isn’t moved by the plight of a desperate patient, and I’ll show you a really shitty doctor.
Or is it because if you scare doctors out of performing abortions women won’t be able to get them?
I still don’t think that’s relevant. We could start with the premise that a fetus is a human being and pro-choicers would still be pro-choice. These people are simply not offended enough by the prospect of killing an unborn human to hold the act to the same legal standards as killing a born human. If you can convince people that a fetus is a born human, you may get somewhere with this, but that would probably require some sort of mass hypnosis.
If an adult is murdered, there’s the problem of disposing of the body, hiding the evidence, and the fact that others will notice he’s missing. In theft, people notice the missing money/items. Rape and assault leave a victim to tell the tale. With most crimes, people know a crime has been comitted, even if the perpetrator is still unknown. An outlaw abortion would be almost undetectable. The fetus could be easily disposed of, and there wouldn’t be an obvious evidence trail.
If a woman tells no one she is pregnant, and uses herbs which she know how to find or grow, no one would ever know she had aborted unless she fell ill. Countless acts such as these could go undetected. Even if it is known that she was pregnant and now is not, how does one prove she didn’t miscarry?
The same reason a doc who provides laetrile to a patient would face more consequences than the patient…even if the doc and the patient “agree it is best for that patient”.
The same reason drug suppliers tend to get harsher prison sentences than drug users…
As a general rule (with certainly plenty of exceptions…like prostitution in some areas), suppliers of something illegal tend to face stiffer sentences than users of that something.
I’ve read this thread, and I’m still pro-choice, and I find abortion a sad reality not because of the child, but because of the mental and physical pain the woman goes through, and the guilt she may suffer later on - or sense of loss - even if it was the right choice.
If abortion were outlawed - all the above. Richer women would go elsewhere, desperate women - and younger, less educated and experienced women - would have hot baths and throw themselves down the stairs, some women would die, more unwanted babies would be born, maybe one of two of those babies might turn out be Beethoven, but who knows? Who really cares?
I don’t. I care about the outside-womb living. I care about having personal sovereignty over my body. I care about being able to have sex in, out and around marriage, and not having to bring an unwanted child into the world should contraception fail.
If anything ever nailed the coffin in the “pro life” argument for me - it was the post where it was acknowledged that the foetus’s life “trumps” that of the mother.
"because it is less culpable for the situation than the mother in the case of voluntary sex"
WTF is “culpable” about sex?!
To my dying day, I will support choice. Even if I ever grow to believe religiously in the sancity of every sperm cell, I will support other’s rights not to believe this, and not to have to live their lives by my beliefs.
So, I screwed up the code on a quote block. Mea culpa. And BFD.
**Perhaps not relevant for you, but I do not agree that most pro-choicers would still be pro-choice if it were a given to them that a fetus is a human being.
That’s why (again, IMO) you hear phrases like “blobs of tissue” when many describe the victim of an abortion–i.e., this is something of no material consequence, something that will someday be a human being, but that ain’t right now. I believe that’s why we’ve often seen ambivalence over late-term abortions in polls even among the subset that self identify as pro-choice. The longer the pregnancy, the less comfortable people feel over assigning “non-human being” status to the unborn.
Again, IMO most (not all) pro-choice folks have convinced themselves that the abortions they support do not take the life of a human being. Feel free to disagree, but if that’s true, of course this is relevant. And you, of course, do not speak for “these people” any more than I do.
Fine, for the purposes of this argument, I’ll concede a fetus is a living breathing human being capable of making sentient decisions and running for President.
Nevertheless, that human being is imposing on another human being in a rather dramatic fashion, and the second human being is within her rights to end that imposition.
I’m skittish about statements like this:
…because they invite women to lie. What if a woman who is not desperate or helpless wants an abortion, a woman who makes a frank, quick and sober decision not to remain pregnant? Should she tell people that she’s deluded or succumbing to pressure, since that apparantly makes the process easier? How would you prove she was lying? Anything less than a total ban invites loopholes, which will be rapidly and extensively exploited.
Also, there is a certain condescension in the statement; implying women who have abortions are too stupid to know what they’re doing. I see no reason for such a position, unless you want to argue that women’s rights should be taken away from them for their own good.
Pro choicers: Would you change your position if it were given that a fetus is a human being?
I assume that this question is an attempt to bolster the concept that there would be dire consequences were abortion to be outlawed.
Let’s make this easy for those who wish to complicate the matter. Roll back the clock to the pre Roe vs. Wade. That is what it would look like.
Has the number of unwanted pregnacies gone up or down since Wade?
In countries where abortion is still not legal, how do their unwanted pergenacy rates looked compared to us?
As far as the “rights” of the fetus, I only want it to have the same rights PETA wants for chickens.
Do you seriously expect me to now take up the “But women really are too stupid to know what they’re doing” side of the argument? Read my post again. I stated specifically that I did not offer this as the typical circumstance for an abortion. Do you deny this situation exists at all? No reasonable person could read that passage and take from it an inference that women are stupid.
Your ability to craft strawmen has not diminished a whit since our last encounter. Feel free to infer whatever ridiculous thing you’d like out of thin air; just don’t expect me to humor this silliness just because it’s the argument you’d rather oppose. You should also feel free to now provide counterpoint to my obvious implication that all women who have abortions are secretly Nazis who cannibalize their surviving young.:rolleyes:
Fine, I’ll go on a fetus-free diet.
Man, that’s a riot. Your contribution to these threads is invaluable. By the way, why didn’t you go after Philly Style for his clear implication that all women are as dumb as chickens?
:smack:
PETA wants chickens to have the same rights as humans. I certainly have more rights then the right not to be someone’s meal.
See their recent campaign comparing factory farmed chickens to concentration camp victims.
Okay, I infer that you believe some women are stupid. Actually, I agree with that, since a segment of the overall human population (incorporating both genders) is, in fact, pretty dumb.
Here’s the kicker, though, and a large part of my argument against a ban that makes such allowances: if stupid women can get a free ride, or at least a reduced sentence, isn’t that unfair to all the smart women? Aren’t many of the smart women going to realize very quickly that in order to get an abortion (if they want one) is to act stupid? And how do you prove that a person is stupid, anyway? They could just be faking.
In that sense, I see a similarity to 19th- (and to some degree 20th-) century women who would conform to a stereotype of being flighty or dumb because that’s what men expected them to be.
Can you give us an idea of where to place abortion on the legal “kill” scale, with killing an attacker in clear self-defense being a “one” and premeditated aggravated assasination (i.e. you torture the person first) being a “ten” ? What mitigating factors would move some abortions up or down on that scale?
Because making the diet joke was funny (at least to me), whereas I find your casual discarding of an important civil right of women extremely unhumourous.