You are assuming that most children who would otherwise have been aborted will grow up to be violent felons.
I’m sure that there is some corrolation, but I doubt it’s 100%
I think he means that under law, the women seeking abortions and their doctors would be felons, and the legal system would have to deal with them. (Although *Freakonomics * argues controversially (and this has been extensively debated on this board) that legalized abortion reduces the crime rate because the fetuses most likely to be aborted are those most likely to grow up in circumstances that conduce to criminal behavior).
Just like forcing a woman to have a child of a rapist or because of mental or health reasons doesn’t make one Pro-Life but pro-birth.
It amazes me how many so called pro-life people do not want to pay the taxes to support the already born, and know how many people go hungry around the world, because there is not enough food or shelter. Birth control should be free and not discouraged, then abortions would not be needed.
Seeing children live in abusive situations etc. seems worse to me than preventing birth or giving a morning pill after sex. If one tried to sell a bushel of pollenated Apple blossoms and called it apples, or gave some one who ordered a chicken dinner a fertilized egg, I wonder if that would satisfy a Pro-Lifer. The biology is the same, a sperm contains human life so every sperm that is not matched with an egg is killing?
I do not think a doctor should be forced to go against his moral beliefs, but a woman should not be forced to follow a religious belief of someone else.
Monavis
Sophistry and Illusion had it right. While Freakonomics suggests some correlation between restricting abortion and increased crime 15 years later, my point was that outlawing abortion makes a million or so American women who seek the procedure every year into outlaws. It’s all well and good to say something should be illegal, but how many cops, courts and prisons should be dedicated to enforcing such a law?
Back on topic, I mulled over some valid reasons why the Feds would not allocate funds for a particular medical procedure:
[ul][li]It’s extremely rare. If there are only four or five cases a year, it is not reasonable to pay to equip various clinics and hospitals for a procedure they might never perform. Better to give the money to a few highly specialized clinics.[/li][li]Its effect is questionable. There no point spending money on homeopathy or crystal therapy or anything of purely psychosomatic effect.[/li][li]The procedure is unnecessarily dangerous. If patients suffer fatal or injurious complications most of the time the procedure is clearly not ready for general use, let alone funding.[/li][li]The procedure is in violation of Federal law. Sure, a state might declare that cocaine therapy is now acceptable within its borders. That doesn’t mean the Feds should pay for it.[/ul][/li]
And I’m sure there are others. In the particular case of abortion, none of the above apply. The administration is making a purely arbitrary policy decision and I’m curious what punitive legal action the states can do in response. Refuse to adhere to Federal regulations? Refuse to make Federal transfer payments? Refuse to financially support any Federal institution within its borders? I don’t know.
Why assume that all the women who legally seek abortions would still do so if the procedure suddenly became illegal? There have to be many who would either decide that adoption is marginally better than a. breaking the law and possibly being jailed, and b. the potential danger to themselves inherent in having illegal/unregulated procedures.
Not to mention many would probably be a lot more vigilant and insistent about birth control & use of plan b after BC failure if abortion was no longer a safe means of ending a pregnancy; there might not be as many unplanned pregnancies. And what of men, considering these women aren’t experiencing parthenogenesis? If men know that abortion is no longer legal, would so many be as eager to forgo condoms? Claims are made that about 50% of couples seeking abortion didn’t use any type of birth control.
If abortion was illegal the “anti-abortion” movement would turn their attention to banning birth control. With pharmacists soon refusing to sell them out of religious convictions or fear of assassination ( just as few doctors are willing to perform abortions ) you’d find it more and more difficult to find any form of birth control. And probably illegal, eventually; if they are powerful enough to ban abortion, they can probably ban birth control.
I doubt it would make a difference; if they are willing to risk death from AIDS or having to support a baby now, why not then ? They can’t force her to abort after all.
So they’d meekly go through the whole nine months and the burden that follows? Some might. Many won’t, and I say this because many didn’t even before abortion became legal and safe.
As a compromise, I suggest making abortion illegal under all circumstances but fixing it as comparable to a traffic violation (i.e. an officer can simply issue a ticket) with a five-cent fine. Is that satisfactory? It’s now just as illegal as any other crime, but for practical reasons the punishment is trivial. If I trusted that the punishment would never ever change, I’d be recommending this as a solution.
If that’s not harsh enough, I’m open to suggestion.
It’s all well and good to say “take responsibility!” and suggest this will increase the use of contraceptives, but all contraceptives have failure rates. You suggest the use of “Plan B” will increase. Are you okay with it being casually available over-the-counter? So as not to put pressure on a pharmacist with a moral objection, I’d like to see it sold in supermarkets alongside the aspirin and cough medicine.
If that’s not acceptable, I’m open to suggestion.
Sounds like the way gun-grabbers operate, and probably an accurate prediction.
Seems like they’re already headed in that direction. Conscience clauses already cover other forms of birth control, not just abortion. So it’s not just a doc who won’t perform an abortion, but one who won’t prescribe the pill, a pharmacist who won’t dispense it, and a volunteer who won’t tell you where else to go to get it that are covered.
Well, except that anti-gun people tend to be more honest about their intentions. And that they actually mean well. And they aren’t motivated by bigotry. And they aren’t killing those who oppose them. And, well, a lot of stuff.
“Gun grabbers” ? :rolleyes:
Not at all. Typically, they proceed incrementally; their intent to ban guns generally slips out on occasion but is rarely (if ever) announced openly.
A desire to infringe civil liberties is incompatible with good intentions.
In other words, you oppose the meaningful existence of rights. If the power or the ruthlessness of one side can prevent the other from indulging it’s “rights”, in what sense do those rights even exist ?
A :rolleyes: from you? I’m impressed.
That would be a foolhardy assumption: however, it would be equally foolish to assume that making abortion illegal will suddenly mean no women anywhere in the country will have any, that by passing a law, that abortion will disappear forever.
They’ll still be done. They always have been done, even when they were illegal. There have always been midwives who know how to keep secrets.
I just don’t see how banning abortions will make things better; you’d end up ruining two lives instead of one — dead would-be child and his imprisoned would-be mother. In the best-case scenario you’d end up with more abandoned babies on doorsteps, more unwanted children in orphanages.
And, as has been pointed out, the very same people who wish to make it difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion also wish to make it difficult or impossible to obtain birth control. They seemingly want women to be afraid to have sex, because their religious and moral notions of rightness dictate that Sex Is Evil and Marriage is the only cure. These are fine people for running a church but they should not, in my opinion, be using laws to foment social engineering.
Um, no. I just don’t think that there should be any such thing as a right to a gun. It’s archaic and destructive.
You must hang out with different ones than I do then.
If they opposed civil liberties, they’d probably be pro-gun. As I’ve said elsewhere, much of the point of focusing on gun rights is that you can strip away the rights that actually matter while people clutch their useless guns in the delusion that they are actually protecting themselves.
And some people don’t think there should be a right to an abortion, it also being destructive (in their opinion). See? It’s possible for you both to be wrong.
Here’s another suggestion: abortion is made a federal offense, with sole enforcement in the jurisdiction of the FBI. The newly-created FBI Office of Abortion Prevention has an annual budget of one dollar. Increasing this budget requires the approval of four-fifths of Congress, the signature of the President and a month with two full moons in it.
I figure the pro-lifers get the satisfaction of getting their morality written into law, and the pro-choicers can be satisfied that enforcement of this law is nonexistent. It’s win-win.
No, I don’t. I’m not claiming it’s God’s Will, I’m not killing people over it, I actually mean what I say, and I am at least arguably right. I honestly think that eliminating as many guns as possible will make the country a safer, more free, more pleasant place to live; they are woman haters who are simply trying to oppress, hurt and kill women. I might be wrong; I guarantee they are wrong.
It’s not the same at all.
I guarantee you are wrong, no matter how honestly you think.
Wow, this is easy.
Proclaiming that anyone against your point of view wants to kill women deserves the :rolleyes: you gave me earlier. I’m pro abortion and I find your arguments unconvincing.
Donations would be in that very day.
And they can go straight to the BATF. Heh.