I posted the whole exchange precisely to show you what I was responding to. I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you.
I more or less agree with the rest of what you said, but I don’t really know what you mean by this part. Pre-Roe society would not have allowed it in the same way that current society will not. There has never been a time when Americans would have allowed the mass imprisonment of women for abortions.
I missed my edit window, so I’ll ask this:
Do you think that overturning Roe would make those who are against abortion content? I said:
I don’t see anything even slightly eyebrow raising about that. If Roe were overturned, those against abortion wouldn’t say, “Well, that’s enough!” Of course they wouldn’t. And those who are in favor of legal abortion wouldn’t say, “Well, we lost that one, so we’ll stick with the status quo!” Overturning Roe would only be the first action, not one that either side would be happy with as a final outcome.
You’ll note that I never said what the final outcome would be or how successful either side would be. I have no idea. And I did not say that there would be rampant imprisonment, only that pointing to pre-Roe US isn’t an argument.
And I have never, not once, said that mass imprisonment would happen! Not once!
One poster decided that rolling his eyes and a throwaway comment was sufficient. It wasn’t to me. If you find anywhere in this thread that I have EVER said that women would be imprisoned, please point it out.
I can disagree with one poster’s debating style without agreeing with his opponent’s point.
No, I think we agree on that. My point was that we ought not speak as if, by overturning Roe, we will see negative effects beyond what we saw pre-Roe. If we agree with that, then we’re on the same side.
Heh. I was responding to this:
We were disagreeing on why it wouldn’t work, I thought.
I think we might see negative effects, but I also think that it could very likely destroy the Republican party (or at least the religious right’s influence). In the short term, it could be very uplifting for opponents of abortion. In the long term, no legislation will ever be enough to dent abortion rates, but it could be enough to make a lot of women suffer. That, to me, is plenty.
What I find extremely funny is when those who are anti-abortion try to argue that illegal abortions before Roe were actually quite safe. “Nothing to be scared of! You’ll be perfectly safe getting your illegal abortion!”
What I find extremely funny is when those who are pro-abortion try to argue that if abortion were illegal there would be millions of women dying from illegal abortions, and when facts are presented to show that there is no basis for this, claim that the other side are saying “Nothing to be scared of! You’ll be perfectly safe getting your illegal abortion!”.
Nearly as funny as when a pro-abortion scaremonger tries to whip up support by screaming about 25% of the world’s women being in jail, and another one who doesn’t actually agree with this eyerollingly stupid assertion objects to a comparison with a certain well-known society in which a landmark legal decision strongly influenced the availability of the procedure, when said comparison might actually throw some light on the likely imprisonment rates.
What number of women dying from illegal abortions woud you find acceptable? Just so those hysterical pro-abortion scaremongers don’t wildly exaggerate your sensible and reasonable position, perhaps you should clarify. Clearly, “millions” is an hysterical assertiion, but what would you suggest?
That’s one of the insidious effects of criminalization. If you make having an abortion a crime, anyone who dies from it dies as the result of their own criminal actions. And like a junky who overdoses on heroin, or the drunk who drives his car off a bridge, to at least a proportion of those who support criminalization, that is a sad thing, but really the fault of the criminal.
Not exaggerating hysterically. Otherwise, “none”. All preventable premature deaths are a tragedy. Even the liquor-store robber I mentioned way upthread presumably had a mother who loved him (and if not, is that not itself a tragedy that should wring the heart?). It still doesn’t mean that those who are determined to perpetrate an illegal and immoral act should be handed the means to do so in safety. Whether abortion is illegal and immoral is not, of course, established by this argument, and I don’t pretend otherwise.
As to your question, I contend that my wife enjoys being beaten. :dubious:
What would you do with the drunk who drives his car off the bridge? Do you contend that there would be not overdosing junkies if heroin were legal?
There would be fewer. The drunk at least buys his jones with some assurance of product purity, the junkie is served by people who have no reason at all to care if he lives or dies.
So, are illegal abortions safe?
I would extract the sodden corpse from the car and bury or cremate it. And as for the junkies, there would I feel be less deaths if heroin was legal. Or at least the taking of heroin would be safer…
But after all, they are just criminals. If they bleed out as a result of their crime, does it really matter?
The question is what would you do with them? Do you think it is a good idea to make illegal acts safer for those who choose to participate in them? Or is the risk a good thing, because it further discourages the crime?
How about household current? 110v AC is a killer (we have 230v AC over here, that’s worse). Don’t you think that people who are bound and determined to stick their fingers in the socket and play with the switch should be protected from the consequences of their actions? Even one death from electrocution is too many (unless, of course, you are willing to cite a number that you find acceptable). If this is a poor analogy, in what way is it a poor one?
The risks of abortion have always been less than the benefits of abortion, even when the risks are much higher than they would be under any realistic plan.
I agree in the way I think you are talking about risks and benefits. I was thinking more broadly, as in a situation where a person is considering the general pros and cons of having an abortion. In that situation, where the physical risks of abortion increase, there will, in theory, be fewer abortions as people on the marking of the cost-benefit analysis have their decision altered.
Perhaps it would be better for me to use the term cost of which physical risk is one element…
No, I was including physical risks plus legal, social, etc.
I’d rather be in prison than to have my body be my prison. I’d rather die having a botched abortion than die carrying an unwanted fetus to term. Better to die in the pursuit of something you want than in the pursuit of something you don’t. These are deliberately extreme examples to show that I don’t think there is such a thing as enough risk to curtail abortions.
And I’m not alone, as the remarkable prevalence of abortion through the ages shows.
I agree you aren’t alone. But do you not also think there is a spectrum of opinion on this amongst people who wish to terminate a pregnancy? I thought it was the case that abortions have fallen as abortion services have become harder to obtain in many states (though I don’t have a cite handy on that).
If there is a spectrum, and if there are women who wish to have an abortion, but not if said abortion would mean certain death, or likely death, or more likely death, or more likely physcial harm, then increasing the risk of abortions will reduce the number of them. We can argue about how much, and I don’t think the likely increase in risk will cause a major drop off in the number of abortions carried out, but there has to be an effect at the margins, unless everyone thinks like you.
Oh sure. But I think an unwanted pregnancy is a really really really really big deal for most women, which drives that benefit up through the roof.
Throw in desperation and you’re not likely to dissuade women from abortion just with a risk of dying or a risk of imprisonment. People will risk death and imprisonment for much less.