It’s either right or wrong. It can’t be right when it suits her (rape, birth defect) and not, when it doesn’t (13yrs old, already have 6 kids, etc).
If its okay for reasons SHE thinks are valid, then why can’t it be okay for the reasons I think are valid?
If only there were a solution that would let each, choose for themselves what are valid reasons!
Agreed…this is a great rebuttal argument/stance.
Of course, OP, if your friend is as an astute debater as you’ve painted her to be, she’ll immediately retort with something along the lines of, “Since only women can die from having a botched abortion, it’s different when coddling THIS type of criminal who gets what they deserve after having an illegal abortion.”
This strikes me as a philosophical difference, rather than an instance of correct or incorrect reasoning. If making something illegal results in “collateral damage” to people who try to go around or break the law, is that an argument against the law itself? Is the responsibility for the harm they suffer in breaking the law entirely on their own heads, or does the law bear some of that responsibility?
Exactly. And where you place the responsibility will probably align very well with how reasonable you feel the law is in the first place.
Mm-hmm. Just like we should let everyone make their own choice on armed robbery, wife-beating, child-buggery and bumping off inconvenient elderly relatives.
I have no problem whatever with providing hospital care for the criminal who blew his own fool hand off with his illegal firearm, but my position is that he should not have been sticking up the liquor store in the first place, not that I should have provided him with safe legal weapons with which to do so.
Even if some mean spirited person were to construe the “least of my brothers” in that fashion, it would not excuse the OP’s mean spirited acquaintance who says, “sluts deserve what they get”.
Well, no. But in truth, I don’t really care about appealing to someone who is pleased that desperate women might come to harm at the hands of backstreet abortionist. I think the appropriate response is to shun them, much as one would a person who declares that, for example, transpeople deserve to be bullied.
Also, while the dog might have been killed by accident (which, of course wouldn’t stem my condemnation, but rather change its nature), abortions don’t happen accidentally. Further more, in abortions, there is often an outside element - financial pressure, societal pressure, health concerns - that don’t appear in a dog (or a child) left in a car.
2. While it’s true that there is disagreement on the status of the fetus’ humanity - one side of that disagreement is basing their arguments on personal religious beliefs and the other side is basing their arguments on science and medical fact. The two sides are not equally worthy of respect, any more than, say, the side that thinks coffee enemas can cure cancer or the one that thinks vaccines are dangersou.
You think there are valid reasons for doing those things? :dubious:
“Mm hmmm”
Not everything is as black and white as bank robbery, wife beating and child molestation. Abortion is such an issue.
But you already knew that, didn’t ya?
I can see the logic in your position.
However, robbery-while-armed is not typically a crime with the death penalty on the table; murder is.
In this hypothetical case of ‘IF abortions are illegal’, part of the consequences OF having an illegal abortion is the death penalty, as for abortion to be illegal, a necessary component is that it would have been deemed a [type of] ‘murder’. It’s a way of specifically-targeting a segment of the population (51%, in this case) for a particular punishment…kind of an “institutionalized sexism”, rather than the other institutionalized ‘ism’ of which we’re so fond.
Praise Allah such a thing could never happen here, in the good ol’ U.S. of A., where women have finally earned that equality we, too, have wanted since the inception of our Constitution!
Absolutely- but that wasn’t the question I was answering.
I wasn’t answering the why abortions should be legal but working within the hypothetical- if they aren’t legal why should we care if people die from them.
If the pro-life person against whom manson1972 was debating was arguing that abortion should be illegal and we shouldn’t treat those who get illegal abortions, then it would have been a good answer.
But the counter “but then women will die from illegal abortions” assumes that those deaths are unavoidable. They aren’t, necessarily - even as medicine was in 1972 they were quite rare. If she is arguing a return to the status quo of pre-Roe v. Wade, then she isn’t arguing that complications of illegal abortion shouldn’t be treated - and also the argument that abortion has to be legal because otherwise lots of women will die from illegal abortions falls apart. They wouldn’t - so outlawing abortion does not imply that lots of women will die.
That’s kind of my point - if we agreed on the status of a fetus as we do the status of a dog, we would not cite Jesus’ injunction not to judge others either if the fetus died or if the dog died. Or even against murderers.
So, having rejected the argument that there is a difference between a dog in a hot car and a fetus in a uterus, we can reject the argument that Jesus does not want us to condemn actions that threaten both.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m pro choice but the logic in this thread is hurting my brain.
If you think abortion is murder, then a mother getting hurt or killed in a botched abortion is instant karma. Just like if a mother tried to shoot her two year old and the bullet ricocheted and hit her in the head. Do you feel sorry for her?
You have to attack the premise, because assuming the premise is true the rest follows.
It’s often illegal to do something, except when it isn’t. Killing people, for example. Or drinking. Or…(insert a billion other laws with exceptions and loopholes).
What they said, especially marshmallow.
I’m pretty far out there in committed prochoice opinion-land but the fault lies not in your (the OP’s) prolife friend’s logic.
When you’re talking about what someone ‘deserves’ or not, that really is sheer opinion, to be honest. As a matter of public policy you can raise the negatives of back alley abortions, but your friend wasn’t making a public policy argument at that point, but expressing an emotional opinion for which there is no real counter because it’s not a point of debate.
Yeah, while the term “back alley” is popular, most illegal abortions prior to legalization were done by people fairly competent and following pretty safe procedures. As safe as modern abortion? No, but pretty close. A lot of them were done by fully trained physicians. Physicians are frequently involved in illegal stuff from doping athletes to drug peddling and etc, so it’s no surprise some were involved in abortions. Plus, abortion as a procedure is not akin to an open heart surgery, that’s why it isn’t typically done in a hospital.
In the pre-antibiotic era, there probably WERE hundreds of deaths every year from botched abortions. Gloria Swanson was almost a casualty at the height of her career in the mid 1920s, and on top of it, she hadn’t wanted to have that abortion in the first place but had just gotten married and knew that if she were to give birth 7 months after the wedding, her career would be over. I’m glad THAT’S not the case any more.
She said in her autobiography, published shortly before her death in the early 1980s, that her only regret in life was that she didn’t have that baby. 
Women have “back alley abortions” nowadays too. Anyone who works in an emergency room will testify to that, and they even take place in cities that have a clean, safe facility. I will tell anyone who PMs me what the most common method appears to be; it really is too grisly to post here, and it’s not one I would personally have thought of.
And there are the doctors who are so incompetent, women would be better off doing the job themselves. :mad: Remember the Dr. Gosnell disaster in Pennsylvania a few years ago? There have been others too.
As for me, I consider myself pro-life but I do believe it should be legal because women are always going to want them, and if they are going to do that, they should be able to have it done safely, by a competent practitioner, and without harassment. It was never a decision I was faced with, but I’ve had friends who had them and they have stayed my friends, too.
That’s not how I read it. She wants it illegal. He was arguing that if it was illegal women would die from the botched abortions. She says “good, they deserve it because they were doing some illegal”. The OP, as I read it, wanted a reason why these women didn’t deserve to die or be maimed even if it was illegal. I saw it as he was looking for a response why it’s ok the women would be harmed if it was illegal. My response was that even people doing illegal things don’t deserve whatever they get.
The OP liked my response, so I’m assuming I’m interpreting the way he was too.
To say things slightly differently: “they get what they deserve” is a almost a tautology or circular logic. If someone does something bad, and they get punished, they deserve it. In this person’s case, bad actions (getting an illegal abortion) deserve punishment. But it doesn’t actually establish that abortions are bad.
So if one disagrees that abortions are bad, then they are getting something they don’t deserve, because they would be breaking an unjust law.
Try asking her if all lawbreakers deserve to be punished. She might say yes, at which case you can ask if Martin Luther King deserved to be arrested something like 80 times for protesting against racist laws.
If she says yes, she’s not worth talking to. If she says no, clearly she understands that unjust laws do not validate punishment. So, you don’t have to agree that a woman deserves punishment for breaking a law you find unjust for outlawing what you believe to be a woman’s right; no more than a protester deserves punishment for breaking racist laws.
Isn’t that kind of the definition of “pro-choice”? Sure, you may be personally opposed to abortion but you’re clearly not “pro-life” if you support a woman’s right to choose.