This isn’t a debate, at least not meant to be, but I had a question about how to respond to a certain point of view with regards to abortion.
A friend of mine is pro-life, and wishes all abortions outlawed, except for cases of mother might die, or rape, or baby will be born with low chance to live or something.
Putting that aside, she stated she hoped abortion will become illegal again so women wouldn’t have them. I stated women will STILL have abortions, only they would become done by back-alley doctors and such, with the resulting chance of terrible complications.
Her response was “Well, that’s too bad if they are doing something illegal, they get what they deserve”
I couldn’t think of a good response to that. Is there a good response, or is that just the end of the conversation?
Your friend has a valid point, its the same with any other poor choice. Choices have consequences, by your logic we should make theft legal or murder legal because people are going to steal anyways even though its against the law, people are still going to murder even though its against the law.
If some hoodlum sticks up a liquor store with a Saturday Night Special and maims himself doing it, I don’t think the solution is to make more reliable firearms available to criminals. I still don’t think it’s the solution even if there are quite a lot of criminals maiming themselves this way. But is this a “general” question of fact, or a debate?
Without getting into the debate of whether it should be illegal, let’s suppose it is and answer her question:
We provide care for people who do illegal things all the time- treat drug overdoses, provide needle exchanges, take care of people who weren’t wearing their seatbelt or were drunk driving. So people “getting what they deserve” has never been part of the equation.
I believe at its core this is the start of a debate. With that said the counterpoint to your statement is to give the store owner/clerk a firearm and train them how to use it and by doing so even the playing field. A firearm is only as effective as its user, alone and by itself it is nothing more than inanimate object. It is the input of the user and their expertise in use that renders it to be dangerous or otherwise.
I don’t really have a logic here that is “mine” I really didn’t have any response to her answer.
No, as I said, this is not a debate, just looking for a response to her statement of “Get what they deserve” I’m not looking to debate legality of abortion or anything.
This is what I was looking for, just for some reason I couldn’t come up with it. I’m sure the Bud Lites had nothing to do with it Thanks!
[QUOTE= IvoryTowerDenizen]
We provide care for people who do illegal things all the time- treat drug overdoses, provide needle exchanges, take care of people who weren’t wearing their seatbelt or were drunk driving. So people “getting what they deserve” has never been part of the equation.
[/QUOTE]
Drugs are still illegal, however. Therefore, we could still treat the complications of illegal abortions without making abortions legal.
That was essentially the status quo before Roe v. Wade. In1972, the number of maternal deaths in the US from illegal abortions was 39 (pdf). So the argument that we have to allow abortion because otherwise hundreds of desperate women will die from botched abortions is rather one of the excluded middle.
I believe the appropriate response would be to unfriend her. But if you’re looking for something more verbal, try this:
"You can’t call yourself pro-life if you don’t actually care about the lives of the real, live, living women involved.
Also, isn’t there kind of a famous saying in your religion about “judging not what other people deserve”? Golly. Who was it who said that? His name’s right on the tip of my tongue? Oh yeah, and there was something about “what you do to the least of my brothers, that’s what you do to me?” Man, what was his name?"
That’s why I often invite someone who proposes a ban to describe the penalties they have in mind. If comparable to what existed in 1972, sure, deaths might likely stay under 100/year and abortions would continue anyway. If the goal is a serious effort to end abortion and massive law enforcement resources are dedicated to that end, look for casualties to rise.
Is inconsistent with the position that there could be some exceptions, surely? And purely empirically,
is simply not the case, as history shows, while
is about revenge, not hoping abortions would stop if they’re made illegal.
And if all this is being argued in the name of Christian morality, well, where does one begin with tracking down the inconsistencies?
I don’t think anyone thinks abortion is ideal; better if there were no reason for it to happen, better (if it has to happen) that it happens as early as possible and under medically controlled circumstances. But the question is, who is best placed to decide whether it has to happen or not? Who is entitled to say what makes continuing a pregnancy compulsory or not?
Yes, I believe her position is inconsistent. And yes, the exceptions I stated were vague because I didn’t want to look up exactly what she said, it was just background for my question, not something that was vital to it.
Her position is “if a woman is raped, then abortion is justified murder because she didn’t choose to be pregnant.” and “A child who will be born incapable of living any type of normal life for the year or so it will live until it dies of some horrible disease is justified murder” and so on of that type. I didn’t want to just say “Your argument is stupid” so I tried to state it in “taking care of woman” way, and her response was pretty much “Fuck them if they choose to do something illegal” I couldn’t come up with a response, again, other than “You are stupid”, so I asked here.
I don’t think that is an argument likely to appeal.
It is like arguing that we ought not to condemn someone who left his dog in a car on a hot day, and the dog died. Unless you agree that the death was of something with no rights that ought to be respected, it doesn’t really work.
It boils down to the usual disagreement over the status of a fetus - human and worthy of respect, and therefore a set of rights that should be balanced against those of the woman in question, or no rights and no problem.
Actions may have consequences, but the consequences should be in line with the severity of the action. Someone running a stop sign shouldn’t get beaten by the cops. While complications are not directly caused by the state, they are indirectly caused by the state because they forbid or make it difficult for proper surgical procedures to be used.
You might ask her if she believes in civil disobedience, like at Selma. If she does, ask her if she thinks a doctor who believes abortions should be legal has a moral obligation to prevent complications by doing them.
Then she admits that argument stems primarily from hate rather than love.
As to the statement that they are acting illegally and so get what they deserve, you could point out there are many regions in the world where Christianity is outlawed, and yet people still practice it and in so doing get punished by the government. Would she agree to whatever punishment they received? After all what they were doing was illegal and so perhaps they got what they deserved.
Thanks!