Spain prohibits abortion? Man, that’s going to be news for our politicians, have you told them?
It’s banned in the third trimester, but I wouldn’t call that “prohibited”.
You’re absolutely right in every respect. I bow to your formidable knowledge and intellect and count myself lucky that I can bask in the light of your wisdom.
In other words you still aren’t going to seriously respond.
It’s banned except for life/health of mother, rape and incest according to Guttmacher.
Perhaps someone needs to explain the concept of a hypothetical to you. If it were true that making abortion legal reduces the number of abortions, it logically follows that making abortion illegal increases them. In my next post I said I agreed that access to birth control explains the data, but since you got so bent out of shape by the rape example, the abortion hypothetical was similar.
But the question was about deterring criminal acts by eliminating the law.
True, but it was a great hypothetical, and it nicely illuminated the thought process of at least one conservative. He appears to be infuriated at the prospect of people not getting punished, even if the incidence of the act goes down.
Maybe it explains why conservatives like to spend money on prisons but hate to spend money for social programs, jobs and education which keeps people out of prisons.
It is a great hypothetical.
But look at the idea that rape goes down from some meaningless number like 100 to 90.
The hypothetical would say that we have a ten percentage point drop in rape. But that could easily mean that 90 rapists–of whatever variety–rape without consequences.
How can you speak to those 90 women and say: "Well, " ( fill-in-the-blank ) " "
There is no answer that would satisfy a person who, like you, actually and vehemently believes that you can only (or mostly) be against abortion out of malice and hatred to women; you’re too invested in that idea. In the same way that you will not be able to convince me that what you believe about abortion is right (at least not with “they hate women”).
It’s more the facts supporting me, and the hatred of the anti-abortion movement and their general agenda against women being blindingly obvious. You are in the position of someone trying to argue that pro-segregation people weren’t really anti-black.
You can sue for civil damages …
Obviously legalizing rape is not going to reduce it. Even if it did by a little bit there would be collateral damage, such as respect for women. And the question would be, how many additional rapes are okay to allow criminal revenge by the wronged party.
Facts? Or do you mean “I can show that a few anti-abortion people hate women and I know that the rest simply say they don’t hate women but they really do”?
All the pro-life people I know love and respect women, but, of course, if by your definition it is impossible to be pro-life and not hate women you will call them deluded or misguided.
Right, we’re speaking in the increasingly incomprehensible, unimaginable hypothetical.
Four?
I’d normally and cheerfully jump right into a discussion on abortion, but this legalized rape tangent is too far out there for me.
Yeah, suuuure they do. It’s merely a coincidence that everything they do involves harming and oppressing women.
If this was a discussion on segregation we’d be hearing about how “some of my best friends are black people”.
I said that the number of legal rapes goes up while the number of illegal rapes go down. I didn’t think it was all that hard to understand.
…Yeah. Perhaps you need to learn this concept of “remembering what you wrote out” and “being able to discern what the actual claim is”. You said-- and I quote you verbatim:
Unfortunately for you, the claim in the OP was NOT that making abortions illegal drives their instance up or that making them legal drives their instances down.
It was not even close. And the response remains exactly the same, anyway. With that being said:
This is a big time straw man. Me being “infuriated” has nothing to do with the prospect of someone not getting punished; it’s the fact that your proposition says that you would legally allow some given segment of the population to be raped in exchange for fewer overall rapes, whereas prior all rapes would occur illegally. I made this point earlier and it went ignored, and I’ll make it again. That’s an acceptable (<-again, sarcasm) position to take, so long as you-- or someone you know-- are not part of the segment who is allowed to be raped. I highly doubt you or anyone taking this “greatest-good-for-the-greatest-amount-of-people” stance would ever say to someone, “Well, sure you were raped, but it was his/her right to do so! Besides, because the law allowed you to be raped, Susie/Joe/whoever over there won’t be raped!”
Everything?
Do you accept the posibility that a person can be pro-life and not hate women? Or do you think it’s like liking blacks and being a KKK member?
Cause if you do, thre’s is no point in talking about it.
Incest isn’t considered separately, those people may have gotten their terms confused between incest and statutory rape (1) and “health of mother” means “the mother wants to have an abortion” in practical terms; they’ve completely missed “ill-health of baby” (for example Down’s syndrome). And even by your own terms, “partially allowed” would not equal “prohibited”. “Prohibited” is what we had when being the matron or obgyn who performed an abortion would have meant an automatic ban from practice (equivalent to “losing your license forever”) and several years in prison.
1: there was a seminal case in which a girl was denied abortion because the term used in the complaint was estupro, statutory rape (by her grandpa, aren’t grandparents nice?), the law did not include that specific term and the first-instance judge was a rat-asshole. The family found itself in the conundrum of changing the charges to rape (lower sentence) or not being able to get the abortion. Higher instances very-speedily informed the aforementioned judge that “rape by someone who’s in a position of power” does, indeed, constitute rape even if it happens to have its own name.
I believe that if it is not hate, then it is certainly disrespect for woman, not to give her credit enough to know what is best for her own body, and the situation of her own life. Anti choice individuals do not respect a woman’s ability to think freely.
Do you believe that someone can respect you and at the same time not consider you capable of independent thought?
You may answer that you are saving the pre born, as if a woman’s body, is just something that gets between you and your own goal. Does that sound like anything close to caring? To me it sounds invasive, it is control, it is not love or care for anyone. It is a form of hate.
So, you see? The answer is that for you and Dre trihs: pro-life = woman hater.
As much respect I have for a woman’s right to decide for her body, the right of a human to live is of a higher priority.
Except that a fetus isn’t a person, and opposing abortion means you want to treat her as less important than a blob of flesh. As less deserving of rights than a dog or cat, and barely above a house plant.