Not according to the people in this thread, catsix. According to them, if you get caught, you go about your merry way.
It’s definitely an interesting way to go about stopping abortion–by not stopping abortion.
Even better.
I just obtain some RU486 through the black market and take my chances. Nobody here has suggested prosecuting a doctor for treating a hemorrhage, so I can still seek medical attention if a complication arises.
I would still like to know, from the anti-choice people, what potential punishment they think would actually deter me from aborting?
Use language like that, and no one is going to answer you.
Yep. There are other abortifacient drugs, as well, some of which are apparently used for other purposes (and are therefore even harder to prevent you from getting).
I believe it’s actually safer than a surgical abortion, though it looks like it’s more unpleasant. Still, a hell of a sight less “unpleasant” than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Have a problem with honesty ?
It is dishonest and insulting.
Y’know, I’d like to have posted something here. But after 5 pages I doubt it would make any difference.
It’s a precise description; “pro-life” is a lie.
Like Bill Hicks said, “If you’re so pro life, instead of locking arms and blocking clinics, why don’t you lock arms and block cemeteries. Let’s see how committed you are to this premise.”
The term pro-life is dishonest. The actual fact of the matter is that these people are no more anti-death than anyone else is. What they want is to remove the choice of whether or not to be pregnant from women. They want there to be no choice but to stay pregnant and have a kid. Hence, they are anti-choice.
Whether the position is precise or not depends on which side of the issue you sit. Someone who opposes abortion would consider “pro-murder” a precise and legitimate description of what you call “pro-choice”. I’m not saying I agree with that position, I’m just saying there’s no profit in getting all high and mighty about our semantics.
Well, it would be a bit late then, wouldn’t it? By the time they get to cemetary, they’re kinda dead already. OTOH, I’ve seen few Pro-lifers who don’t want to try and protect other life as much as possible. I disagree with those who also support the death penalty, but they are not being internally inconsistent; Pro-Life is a political label and their moral ideas are rational.
It’s true they aren’t always pacifists, but they seem to more accept that war happens rather than encourage it. They don’t usually like stem cell research, but generally because they don’t want aborted children to become utiliarian resource.
Oops! Forgot to add:
The point is that semantic concerns are irrelevant. The fact that you don’t like someone doesn’t mean their name for themselves is anything except… a anem for themselves. Deal with it and move on. If you can’t move past a name, then the rest of the debate isn’t going to go anywhere, eh?
There isn’t a lot of data available, but what there is indicates that people with pro-life views are much more likely to be anti-death penalty too. More here.:
No; they oppose choice for women; therefore they are anti-choice whether they like the label or not.
Well, they are wrong. Their position is stupid and vile and I refuse to respect it.
While searching for “The only moral abortion is my abortion,” I found this:
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/113/2911/printer
“The Only Moral Position On Abortion”
By Irwin N. Graulich
It’s a religous Jewish reading of Exodus, translating as “miscarriage” a phrase often interpreted as “premature birth” by pro-life Christians.
The passage treats a miscarriage caused by another against the mother’s will as a crime to be financially punished. Graulich uses this to make a point, that an abortion is not murder, but it’s not nothing.
Hm. I think the interesting thing is that Torah says bupkis about women choosing abortion for themselves.
Likewise, to them you are pro-murder whether you like the label or not. We do not have a choice to commit arson, rape, assault, neither do we have a choice to commit murder, so it’s dishonest to paint it as if it were a “choice”.
Nobody is asking you to respect it. I am pointing out that labels on both sides are a matter of semantics. You can’t pat yourself on the back just because you’ve given yourself a positive label and your adversary a negative label. It means absolutely nothing.
Er, well, everyone DOES have a choice whether they want to commit arson or not. A lot of people choose not to light houses on fire because they don’t want to suffer the penalty for committing arson. So what should the penalty be for a woman getting an abortion? So far I am hearing: nothing.
There was this recent thread in GD that explored this at some length. Does the Bible explicity mention abortion?
By and large the Bible seems to say very little on abortion being bad (nothing specific…only indirectly surmised) and (also mostly indirectly) seems to indicate in many places that the unborn have less value than those living. Indeed, it even seems to suggest in a few places that a human life is not worth much till at least a month old. The passage in Exodus is just the most overt in having some sort of “value” assigned to an unborn child.
So, the whole Bible basis for prohibiting abortions does not amount to much. That said, as noted in that thread, other religious writings and people like the Pope have said abortion is wrong.
Only if you accept their warped definition of murder.
Except that if you define abortion as murder, you’ve just defined murder as trivial. If abortion is murder, then you have a perfect right to commit “murder” as long as it’s abortion.
Not when one label is dishonest and stupid, and the other is not. “You should keep your mind open, but not so open that it falls out.”
And you do ask me to respect it, when you claim I should consider their labels and opinions as good as my own. They are not.
Well, I have a question for the pro-life people (speaking as someone who realizes that it’s not only possible to question how your opponent identifies himeself, but that it is in fact possible to do so endlessly):
I’m Big “John” McCoy and I’m as cunning an ADA as my city slicker cousin on the Law and Order show, only I’m out of Big Butte, SD. I’ve just found out there’s been an abortion in Big Butte. So I’m prosecuting the doctor for murder, because killing a baby is murder. Only thing is my gorgeous assistant is a real hardass this season, and she can demonstrate that the woman who had the abortion did, with malice aforethought ask the doctor to perform this murder, and did pay the doctor beforehand. I’m afraid my ratings are slipping, so I’m going to prosecute her. I don’t care what the wonderful people who wrote this law think, it’s 10:33 and I’ve got the doctor pleading guilty, and no one’s going to spend the next 25 minutes watching us argue over takeout. What are you folks going to do to stop me?
Bonus question: suppose New Jersey passed a law that stated that Italian-Americans could not be prosecuted for Capital Murder. Would that be constitutional?