Then why did you ignore the part of my earlier post where I discussed the consequences of passing an an anti-abortion law?
I grant you the organized crime issue. I use the argument myself in favor of ending the drug war, since the evil of drug use is less than the evil caused by the drug war.
Above, I presented a case that the evil of abortion far outweighs the evil caused by a law banning it. Therefore, any “organized crime” effect is far less than the good of saving millions of lives. But in order to engage in such an analysis, we need to make moral judgements regarding abortion. Otherwise we cannot measure the evil of abortion.
I’m certainly not trying to bash anybody here. I’m trying to engage in a reasoned discussion regarding morality. I have much sympathy for those who are put in a situation where they feel they must choose abortion. There, but for the grace of God, go I. I refuse to demonize people who find themselves in that position. While I am not excused from making moral judgements regarding certain acts, I am also not excused from offering sympathy and healing to the actors.
But in order to engage in such an analysis, we need to make
moral judgements regarding abortion. Otherwise we cannot
measure the evil of abortion.
In order to engage in such an analysis, you need to consider what legal structure would exist, how it would be enforced, whether it would be enforceable . . . .
I’m certainly not trying to bash anybody here. I’m trying to engage
. . . I am also not excused from offering sympathy and healing to
the actors.
You were executing people earlier on. That’s the ‘healing’ of the Inquisition, the Gestapo and the NKVD.
I am not changing the topic, I’m saying that changes may be both useless in achieving their intended effects and highly destructive in their unintended consequences.
Remember, so far, I have only arguing against the claim that
an unenforceable law is useless.
No, you’ve been saying that, not arguing it.
The question of other possible effects is another matter
altogether, and one which must be decided on a
case-by-case basis.
Where’s the justification for that proposition? Why is it another matter altogether? Why must they be decided on a case-by-case basis rather than being seen as a conceptual whole?
Moreover, unlike you, I am not talking about “THE” impact.
At no point, anywhere, did I remotely suggest that this was
the only effect that a law would have. Quite the opposite in
fact, since I emphasized that we should not be quick to
conclude that a law is unenforceable.
Oh, I’m quite sure that ‘THE’ impact is of no consequence at all to many zealots - or that they would welcome repressive outcomes.
Good grief. Do you really need this spelled out for you?
Indeed I do, I do appreciate watching strawman arguments being constructed.
Such as civil rights legislation, eh? Counter-productive and
spectacularly repressive? Good grief.
Well, firstly I didn’t take the analogy and, secondly, the horrific effects of social engineering by people who are quite sure that they know what the answer is was the story of the 20th Century.
Which does not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship by
any means. You are obviously oversimplifying the facts at hand.
It’s my turn to say “Good Grief”.
In which case, your earlier objections about unenforceability are
irrelevant.
Absolutely not. They may well be ‘enforceable in theory’ but only ‘enforceable in practice’ in the circumstances of a ‘Police State’.
As for the claim that "enforcement would be awesome in its social
effects," the same can be said of legislation in general.
This is not a question of ‘legislation in general’, it’s a case of moral social engineering.
The fact that enforcing a law would have widespread effects is not
sufficient reason to reject it
Of course, you might be prepared to accept, or even welcome, a Police State, at least where women are concerned
ESPECIALLY since, as was pointed out repeatedly, the failure
to properly enforce that law does not necessarily make it useless.
Repetition of statements does not make them any more valuable.
I quote you, candida: “I’m interested in…the consequences - both intended and unintended - of a change in the status quo.” How do you propose to evaluate the consequences of a change in status quo other than my proposed net returned benefit, which requires an estimate of total evil before passage of the law which changes the status quo and the total evil (intended and unintended) thereafter?
Never once in this thread have I offered support for the death penalty for any person for any offense. Others may; I leave them to defend themselves. I may have speculated as to what penalties may be available in some states for a crime of murder, but I offered a quick caveat that I personally could never condone the death penalty. If I wrote so carelessly as to give the impression that the death penalty was a moral option for me, let me correct that impression now. I don’t believe that mankind is capable of imposing the death penalty fairly; therefore, I cannot support it.
Does your disbelief of my compassion make you feel more secure in your position.
Quotes tags are your friend…either use the handy dandy quote button (lower right corner of the post window) or use quote tags before and after the passages you want to quote…
for example, replace the word “hijack” with the word “quote” in my intro produces this
What if there is no doctor? What about the case of a woman who takes birth control pills (“emergency contraception”) after sex, in order to prevent any new zygotes from ever implanting in her uterus?
If a woman hired someone to kill her baby after birth, would you also say she shouldn’t be punished, and that only the hitman should suffer any legal consequences?
We are asked to prohibit abortion based on a moral equivalency between a 1-day-old baby and a zybote, embryo or fetus at any stage of pregnancy from conception forward. (RexDart several times in his post refers to abortion as killing “babies”.) Yet very few seem to be willing to actually make that moral equivalency.
How do you propose to evaluate the consequences of a
change in status quo other than my proposed net returned
benefit, which requires an estimate of total evil before
passage of the law which changes the status quo and the
total evil (intended and unintended) thereafter?
Thing is, your proposed ‘net returned benefit’ comes complete with an entire baggage of presumption, doesn’t it? An entire baggage of presumption and, that old standby, ‘loaded language’, I do really love ‘loaded language’.
Never once in this thread have I offered support for the
death penalty for any person for any offense. Others may; I
leave them to defend themselves. I may have speculated as
to what penalties may be available in some states for a
crime of murder, but I offered a quick caveat that I
personally could never condone the death penalty. If I
wrote so carelessly as to give the impression that the death
penalty was a moral option for me, let me correct that
impression now. I don’t believe that mankind is capable of
imposing the death penalty fairly; therefore, I cannot
support it.
See “01-23-2003 10:33 PM”. Paraphrase: “Hey, so some states fry the doctors, can’t say I approve but what the heck - after all it’s a matter of greater ‘evil’”.
Does your disbelief of my compassion make you feel more
secure in your position.
It couldn’t be said to matter, one way or another.
Another question I’d like to ask: does any significant number of pro-lifers also campaign against the use of contraceptives? In other words, are most, some, or few pro-lifers “abstinence-only”? I ask to get a handle on another point of this debate that’s come up quite a bit, but that I don’t know much about.
No, that’s specious reasoning. Manslaughter and premeditated murder are both supported by the moral equivalency of the victim. The victims are equally dead. No one argues for lower penalties for manslaughter because of a belief that the victim has lesser rights. Why wouldn’t circumstance be a factor in abortions, just as it is in every other prosecution?
I think (almost) everyone is eager to avoid the logical implications of the “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency, so they invent specious and rather patronizing arguments about why the mothers can’t possibly be held responsible. Abortion is almost always much more like murder than manslaughter (except that, in my opinion, the “victim” has nothing like the ethical status of the victim of a murder or manslaughter). Certainly this is the case with medical abortions. You might make the case that a woman who carries out some self-inflicted abortion–an overdose of some medicine or something like that–could do so on the spur of the moment, and thus lack the premeditation for a murder charge. But a woman going to a doctor and deliberately making an appointment to have her “baby” killed is–if the Z/E/F is in fact morally speaking a “baby”–a pretty premeditated and deliberate act. You might argue for leniency at the sentencing based on the emotional stress the mother is under (which in many states would mean life in prison rather than lethal injection), but it’s hard for me to see how such a deliberate, planned act could be seen as not being equivalent to murder–unless of course, we don’t really believe that zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses at all stages of the pregnancy are fully morally equivalent to newborn babies.
You’re ignoring again that the rights of the victim do NOT by themselves form the basis for the nature of the prosecution. Why wouldn’t the perceived moral ambiguity that seems so unique to abortion be a mitigating factor? Is there another “crime” so disputed for its moral implications?
Do you believe that there are women who would have illegal abortions who sincerely believe they would be behaving morally? I do (and that is not the same as saying it is a moral act). Does that make the act something other than the equivalent of premeditated murder? Yes, I think that’s a possible conclusion. Are there any sane people who believe that killing a toddler is not an act of murder? Bottom line, categorizing abortion as a different crime is NOT the same as saying we, by definition, consider the victim’s rights to be lesser or different. IMO, abortion is such a singular act, it is reasonable to treat it differently to at least some extent.
Bob Cos is right. The law already makes distinctions between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, “wrongful death,” and so forth, depending on the circumstances and the mental state of the killer. Should we know ignore those distinctions, for the sake of villifying those who argue against the legality of abortion?
Only the presumption of the OP (that abortion is illegal, and since I can think of no other reason for making it illegal other than that it is murder…), and the OP is supposed to limit this discussion somewhat.
No need to paraphrase, here is the quote:
“I would think that an abortion doctor would be subject to something on the order of some type of murder (1st degree, 2d degree, etc.), and a repeat abortionists might even be up for capital punishment in some states (although I do not support that either).”
I’m not sure your paraphrase accurately captures my statement.
I make that equivalency, and it makes for some very difficult and uncomfortable moral conclusions. I don’t like my morals as measured by convenience, but I feel compelled to accept those morals nonetheless by logic. Terribly inconvenient for me.