I never said Republicans without exception oppose increased education funding and I said “preschool/daycare”-if children are going to be taken care of we might as well have a form of a preschool.
Not just abortion for or against but gun ownership also. The simple answer is that I do not like people to benefit from something they are trying to take from others.
Keep it simple, which it is really not, abortion is legal or it is not.
If you say abortion is not OK, then when you need one, no matter what, you can’t have it.
Same with the gun debate. They were posting all the homes with guns. Why would the houses that do not have guns get a pass.
Abortion it tangled up with religion and so it can’t be separated from their belief. If you pass a law that has be historically for or against something, then, in this country for the time being, anyone wanting to force by law legal or illegal is telling a church that they can no longer be free from government interference.
So far, religions in this country do not believe murder is OK.
But yet we allow a person to be a non-combatant in the military for religious reasons, that are not just made up by for the sole purpose to get out of the military. ( yes over simplification but for the point, it does not need to get complicated at the level it is now.)
In these two areas, I feel that the Democratic Republic idea of letting elected representatives decide when they can & do go against what their people told them to do.
Popular vote is also not so good unless it is by some super majority because the the people fall into a popular position mind frame to easily and then is when the actual complications of compromise, actual facts, religious concerns etc., will have to be addressed.
I know that this should never be allowed in voting but I feel if you make any public statement is suport or against either the abortion question or the gun question, every body has no right to complain about that be outed.
Therefor a sign with an arrow that shows which houses do not have guns is perfectly OK. The circles & arrows can be on the front or back IMO. 
So no, I am not really advocating my idea but trying to get people to realize that just because you feel something so strongly that you are willing to trample other people to get your opinion to be the only one allowed.
Mans inhumanity to man knows no bounds.
Abortion is more a religious & personal opinion problem than a knowable line from science or politicians or politics.
YMMV
I’m tired now.
Out
This is not a Christian nation, and the laws should not be based on religion. Abortion is legal. It will never not be legal. Pie in the sky, your-dream-came-true it’s made illegal? The rate of abortions will not go down, and more women will die and be permanently scarred because somebody else’s religion tried to control their reproductive rights, and that’s all kinds of bad, wrong and disgusting.
ESPECIALLY since we are losing our social safety net so while it’s not okay to end a pregnancy, it is okay to starve a child to death.
-
You don’t need to be a Christian to think abortion is homicide, and the idea that an embryo or fetus is an innocent human person isn’t based on religion, it’s based on philosophy. (Informed by science of course: but while science can tell us that an embryo is a human being, it can’t address the question of what the moral status of that embryo is, that requires some moral philosophy).
-
Abortion was illegal in the not too distant past, and I see no reason why it couldn’t be again. A bunch of countries in, for example, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have been becoming more restrictive of abortion in the last few years, as have a couple of Latin American countries. Abortion laws are not a ratchet that moves only in one direction.
-
The rate of abortions was between 25% and 50%, just before Roe was passed, of what it was by 1980. So, yes, legalizing it probably made it more common. Which is obvious, really: when you ban something, whether it be black-market dollars, alcohol, foreign cars, abortions, or what have you, people are less likely to get them.
When abortion was illegal you had illegal abortion and dead women. What makes any of you smug anti-abortionists think that if abortion was made illegal again you wouldn’t have dead women again? And if you shrug at dead and maimed women how the fuck can you call yourselves pro-life?
:rolleyes:
Abortion was legal before it was criminalized. In many societies it was allowed prior to “quickening”, which was fetal movement in the womb.
Me neither. If you hire someone to kill a person and they do so, you are judged guilty of the act and subject to the same sentencing. If you believe abortion is murder, then woman getting them are guilty.
+1
Not necessarily, as mentioned below.
This wouldn’t pass basic muster. One person can’t be made accountable for another person’s actions. This is answered better below.
Why? We punish people who use drugs as well as those who sell them. Wouldn’t hiring a doctor to perform an abortion be just as illegal as hiring someone to kill someone or commit burglary? IMHO, the only consistent answer to this is that the legislation would be easier to sell.
I wish you no luck in forcing your spiritual beliefs on the rest of us.
lol
I deeply respect your position, and your right to encourage others against abortion.
Bingo.
I think you misread Skammer because you’re not contradicting what he or she said.
That’s a consistent, but necessary conclusion. However, why would we decide that the legal status of an individual begins at conception?
Why are pro-lifers so worried about the small percentage of pregnancies that are intentionally terminated, but totally unconcerned about the 33% of conceptions that terminate due to fetus nonviability? If human life begins at conception and is sacrosanct, then why isn’t there an enormous drive to fight this huge loss of human life? Instead, … crickets …
Good point.
I agree. It’s a mistake to attribute the pro-life movement to malice; Der Tris overstates the case with emotion-laden terms.
Right.
True, but that begs the question of whether the legal protections of a human should begin at conception. I agree with you that if everyone agrees that the definition should be based on conception, then that would be the appropriate point. However, we do not agree, and those who believe that the legal status should begin at conception are almost always guided by religious or spiritual beliefs, which those who feel otherwise do not share.
Science and philosophy can inform law, but do not dictate it. All beside the point of the thread, though, which is what the punishment should be. Since I disagree with the law, I pick the least punishment possible.
You said that there were “orthodox Republicans” who oppposed increased funding for education. Please cite this. You further claimed that preschool obviously benefitted children. Please cite this also.
Regards,
Shodan
Where did you get that figure? Most states, prior to Roe v. Wade did not allow abortion on demand, but did allow it in “dire circumstances,” and whether or not a woman qualified for one was determined by a hospital board. The fact was that most woman who actually went to the trouble of putting together a case and facing the board were granted their abortion, but few women did that-- they were women who had health problems that contra-indicated pregnancy, women who had been raped, and very young women whose parents put together the case for them. These are the abortions we have statistics on. Most women went to the back alleys, or out of the country, and those abortions aren’t countable. People have tried to extrapolate, or estimate based on surveys of women after the fact, but it’s quite likely that any attempt to count abortions before Roe v. Wade undercounts.
But so what? So what if legalizing abortion made it more common?
There was a study done in Czechoslovakia (back when there was such a country) on the results of denying women abortions, because they system of providing abortions up until the end of the nation was much like it was in most states prior to Rv.W, which is to say, a woman had to face a board that decided whether or not she would be granted an abortion or not.
The government did a follow-up on children born in the 70s and early 80s to women who had been denied abortions, and had kept the children after birth (it’s fairly uncommon to relinquish a child for adoption there). Most of them were unwed at the time of the birth, and not wealthy (yes, you still have socio-economic classes in communist countries); a few were expecting children with non-lethal disabilities like Down Syndrome. They were matched with an identical group of women who were in similar circumstances at the time their children were born, but had not sought abortions. The study found that the women who had sought and been denied abortions were hugely more likely to have faced intervention from the state for having abused their children. That is, they had had visits from the equivalent of CPS, and some had had their children removed. I don’t remember the exact number, but it was very large, much too large to be chance, or standard deviation.
So, abortions prevent child abuse. If that sounds flippant, I don’t mean it to. Abortions prevent a lot of heartache, suffering, and government money spent on CPS, foster care, and medical treatment for the results of severe abuse.
That’s not nothing. I hate when people, generally religious people, think that life is always the answer, even when it’s a short life full of suffering. I think that is cruel.
If a woman doesn’t want a child, it’s wrong to force her to have it, and it’s wrong for the sake of the child.
OK, so that was off-topic, but I can’t believe the OP didn’t know there would be thread drift. Apologies to the moderators.
No, it’s based on religious and political dogma; it’s a definition that only exists as an excuse to condemn abortion. It makes no sense; it dismisses everything that makes humans of moral value in the first place and elevates a chunk of tissue over the thinking, feeling woman it is inside.
And before you bring up the soul, the soul is a purely religious concept.
Back to the OP.
Abortion will never be illegal again per se.
Now there are restrictions on abortion providers and those are the ones who could risk imprisonment for not following state laws. Some are simpler like say a fine for a clinic not being sanitary. Other times it goes higher like not following the law for example doing abortions in the 3rd trimester if not properly equipped, doing abortions on minors, not being equipped for complications which could result in a patients death - all those could risk closure or suspension of a license. The only times I’ve heard of abortion doctors going to prison was when they were practicing without a license and did something that deliberately caused a womans death.
For example: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/13818/congressional-tea-party-republicans-vote-to-cut-education-funding
And I never claimed that preschool obviously benefited children.
I don’t know why I said “standard deviation.” I meant “margin of error.”
And, in the case of the silly bints who aspire to make their way in life by becoming reality “stars” on shows such as Teen Mom, mandatory.
You said that universal preschool/daycare actually helped children. Please cite that.
And I am reluctant to accept your cite at face value. Do you have anything less slanted?
Regards,
Shodan
I thought you were supposed to be pro choice.
Well, one problem right there is that you don’t know how many of those women, had they been allowed to have abortions, would have gone on to have children later that they subsequently abused. It’s unsurprising to me that women who are likely to abuse their children are also likely to seek out abortion. But the fact that they sought abortions at one point in their lives doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have had children later, and they probably would have abused them too.
Furthermore, I’m not impressed by the argument that ‘we must allow people to do Evil Thing X, because if we don’t, they are likely to do Evil Thing Y.’ If you abuse your child, that’s your fault, and you’re the one who should pay for it. It’s not the fault of the government that tried (rightly) to prevent you from harming your (unborn) child in quite a different way. That’s the blackmailer’s argument.
If a woman wants to kill the embryo or fetus in her womb, it’s wrong to allow her to do it.
Rivkah Chaya it’s from a study done shortly before Roe v. Wade, by a couple of pro-abortion legalization scholars, advocating for abortion rights. It’s been awhile since I looked at their book, but they did a pretty exhaustive study, and estimated illegal incidence at 400,000-800,000 in 1970. It’s “Abortion” by Potts, Diggory and Peel, 1970.
Abortions in 1980, by contrast, were around 1.6 million.