New Abortion Laws
Pages
| Author | Topic: New Abortion Laws |
|---|---|
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:Those abortions will mostly happen whether or not abortion is illegal. In addition, by refusing to allow for any legal abortions you're breaking down the ability of the state to take non-hypocritical action against late-term abortion; in other words, it's just as illegal to abort a fetus which is clearly alive as to abort an embryo which is not. This means that, adding insult to injury, you have extermination of viable life becoming more comparatively prevalent. In addition, illegalizing abortion in cases where carrying to term is impossible guarantees two deaths, whereas allowing it allows for (using your death-standard) only one. The social benefits gained from actively discouraging abortion, and undermining the social causes leading to it, would be the same as those you purport to come of illegalizing it, without the fringe costs. P.S.: I feel it's disingenious to continue referring to abortion as 'murder'. Killing certainly, because it ends a life, but claiming the life of a non-viable embryo is exactly equal to that of a full-grown man in his prime, when taken away, cheapens the act of murder and reduces the agency of the State. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 01:15: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 01:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:You can't assume that. And you shouldn't legalize murdering, for example, just because you know you can't control it. Or do you think murdering should be legal? If it were legal, murderers would have better conditions to execute their goals, providing cleaner deaths. Also the State would economize (wouldn't have to investigate and to autopsies, not judgement/trial needed, etc). One thing is sure: if abortion is not legal, the abortion rate would decrease greatly. And the State wouldn't have to support ($$$) abortions (aka murder). quote:As you may have noticed already, I already mentioned that abortion might be necessary in certain restricted cases, like the one you mentioned. (It's better to save a life than letting two lives extinguish) -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 02:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:I repeat yet again: the embryo is not the stolen property, the uterus is, and the embryo is the innocent who has come into possession of the stolen property. How hard is it for you to pay attention to what I write? In fact, the analogy applies not only in cases of pregnancy due to rape, but also in cases of pregnancy due to simple carelessness. There's a concept called "theft by finding": if you find lost property worth more than a certain value, it's illegal for you to keep it; it must be returned to its owner. If a woman inadvertently loses control over the occupancy of her uterus, she's entitled to retain it by evicting its current occupant. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 02:11: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 03:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:But she can't kill the ocupant. Let her sue her son after giving him birth and he becomes a 18 (or 21 in certain countries) years old adult to respond for his "abuse". That would be bad if someone finds your wallet and doesn't return it. Would you kill him? No. Just like there are limits for the minimum value you can keep, there are limits to the punishment you can deliver. And in this case, the embryo is inocent and the mother is the guilty side: it was she who made the embryo come to existence. You could invite a friend to your house, but it would be wrong to kill him because he is in your property. It was you who invited in the first place. It was you who allowed him to enter. You can say: but the mother didn't want to have the child. Well, there's a word called "responsability". You can't just crash into a car and say: "That was an accident, I didn't mean it. I won't pay anything. bye bye". -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 03:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:Okay. So by that logic it's wrong to actively kill the embryo before removing it, but okay to remove it from the uterus and leave it to live or die on its own? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 03:13
Profile
Homepage
No, because that would be, indirectly, killing him. When someone goes to jail, he must be fed and given minimum conditions. You can't condemn someone and leave him to die starving, etc. So until the embryo becomes a baby (on in an extreme case, a 8 month fetus) capable of surviving outside the uterum, he must remain there. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 03:17
Profile
Homepage
Failing to save a drowning man is indirectly killing him too, but that's not illegal. If I evict a tenant from my house and he dies of starvation, I'm not legally responsible, even if I knew he wouldn't survive without a roof over his head. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 03:19: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 04:18
Profile
Homepage
Thuryl, are you sure that this principalistic perspective is appropriate to the issue? The uterus is not a property nor is it rentable space. Kids depend on the society to grow up and the furure of a society depends on the kids. So it is natural that society is pushing for some say in pregnancies. However, the costs of giving birth and raising kids is mostly paid for by the parents, and it is not taxable home entertainment but involves responsibility and commitment by the parents. Now as the parents have de facto control, there is an obvious conflict of interests between the parents and the society about the control of pregnancies continuing until birth. Passing and enforcing ant-abortion laws has turned out to be counterproductive and trying to REGULATE a woman to continue her pregnancy until birth is like carrying a hound when going hunting. In addition, what is society going to do with the unwanted newborn? If the government needs soldiers so they should allocate tax money to the rearing of the children including TLC - if they can. Otherwise they should keep their mouths shut. Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 05:55
Profile
quote:In a hypothetical world where abortion is illegal, we have this: increased risk to the mother balanced out by additional lives added. There would still be underground abortions, but a lot fewer of them, I'd wager, because of the risk of punishment and difficulty in finding the appropriate doctor. One could do a calculation making some assumptions about the increase in relative risk and the decrease in abortions performed. One could then calculate the cost or savings in lives from this policy. Go one step further and factor in normal childhood mortality rate to get to the actual change in reproductive adults. It would be an interesting calculation for someone to do. I do not have the time, but I'm willing to bet you would have a net increase in lives. So, if a net increase in lives occurs, then do the social benefits outweigh the costs? quote:This is where society has a real problem. The foster care system is a total mess. People who do adobt are often treated with suspicion because their family is "unnatural". We offer no real incentives for it other than altruism. There needs to be serious policy research in this area. I believe we cannot hope to fix the abortion issue until the adoption issue is addressed. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 06:01: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 06:29
Profile
Homepage
quote:If this were the case, why not outlaw contraception or at least eliminate contraception information from sex-education? Why restrict immigration at all? In the IIIrd Reich, Germany had an organization Lebensborn that did work to reduce abortions and promote increase in "desirable" lives including the kidnapping of aryan looking kids in occupied countries secret adoptions etc. Please look it up and tell us if you are serious. Imho, what is desirable is not a numerical increase in numbers of lives but in kids growing up within some stable family structure to avoid youths careers like the one of Jeff Weise - who found no other spiritual home than at a Nazi website and ended his life in the recent school killing rampage. I would agree with all effective measures to promote the respect for human life (all that I can think of at the moment), but an increase in numbers appears to me largely at odds with that. This would include aggressive sex-education including contraception, condom vending machines in schools, access to next-day contraception, mandatory counselling for early abortions, heavy restrictions on late term abortions, aggressive promotion of adoption and a supportive policy for families. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 07:06: Message edited by: No 2 Methylphenidate ] Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 08:46
Profile
Overwhelming- quote: quote:In case you didn't figure out from my comments I see human life as equal to that of animals. Humans are animals. We are flesh and blood just as they are. It is human arrogance that places us above them. I am Taoist and somewhat follow Buddhism, look it up. I do eat meat, but no intelligent animals. I do not eat pork, as pigs are intelligent. That would apply to any animal such as dogs, cats, rats, and before you say it humans. You never did say if you eat animals. quote:A child being molested is hardly an appropriate comparison. quote:As I also stated earlier I would never get an abortion unless it was completely necessary for my survival. I as a woman want to have the right to do so if need be. If I were raped (be in forcefully or in spirit) I don't think I would be okay with having the essence of someone who harmed me growing inside me. I would than look at the child thereafter and pray I don't see his face in my baby's eyes. Other women have a need for abortions for several reasons, and they should have the right to do so. Suicide is also technically illegal, has that put an end to it? Also I agree that labeling abortion as murder in a debate comes off as hostile. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 10:12
Profile
quote:You are not looking too deeply into this. The sheer numerical increase is not a good thing. Population versus quality of life is a curve with some ideal peak. Doing what you say would do more harm than good as it would destabalize the economy worldwide with a non-sustainable and non-controllable birth rate. In other words, a disaster. Under the restrict abortion analysis, there are still ways to control the population without eliminating life that has human potential. It is still possible to have a negative birth rate and not have abortion. I doubt it is possible without contraceptives, however. As far as the Nazis, that's a tired old argument that is irrelevant to this topic. There is no "preferred" types of people. Everyone in this analysis is assumed to be equal. As an unrelated side note, genetic purity is a good goal when it comes to eliminating diseases and other debilitating traits. Unfortunately, the methods the Nazis used were far too brutal and far too blunt. Techniques under development are lot less invasive and not cause any real restriction on anyone. Back on subject, again, there needs to be a lot more work in developing an acceptable care system for children. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 10:39
Profile
quote:I have been taught that it takes two to tango. If abortions were made illegal now, those who can afford to pay will still have the proper medical care, within or without the country; those who cannot pay take a greater risk. It was like that when abortions were illegal in my country. You went to the Netherlands if you could afford their hospitals and nobody was the wiser. And when it was made legal, the abortion rate did not skyrocket. It remained what it had been, more or less. Women are not so keen on abortions, even if they decide to have one. Unmarried women who have children are not socially stigmatized over here, but they do need better working conditions during their kid's early childhood. They cannot work fulltime and halftime gets them not enough money. They need something in between and more flexible hours. Otherwise they have to choose between social welfare and abortion. Women with low salaries find it easier to accept welfare for a while than women in good positions who cannot reduce their working hours without losing the job. A woman in a good position would also never contemplate to carry a child to term and then opt for adoption. Her career and her reputation would both be ruined. Some of our hospitals have kindergardens and day care centers within the hospital's area. That is a good solution for child and mother. If corporations did the same, abortion rates would probably drop a bit. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 11:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:Nobody's going to convince anyone of anything anyway, so I may as well make interesting arguments. I think I'd have made a good lawyer. :P -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:01
Profile
Homepage
quote:If you were the one sending the man to the water, knowing that he couldn't swim, and after that you don't do anything to save him, that's direct killing. That's what a mother does. If you evict a tenant, you're not indirectly killing him, because he has other means to survive. If you remove the embryo from the uterum, he will absolutely not survive. The chances that he won't survive are 100%, so death is a sure result, though the mother is indirectly killing him. You can't say the same about the tenant. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:In case you didn't figure out from my comments I see human life as equal to that of animals. Humans are animals. We are flesh and blood just as they are. It is human arrogance that places us above them. I am Taoist and somewhat follow Buddhism, look it up. I do eat meat, but no intelligent animals. I do not eat pork, as pigs are intelligent. That would apply to any animal such as dogs, cats, rats, and before you say it humans. You never did say if you eat animals.[/quote]So, why is it wrong to kill a dog, but not a plant? BTW, what animal do you eat that isn't intelligent? You don't diferenciate human life from animal life, but you say you only eat certain types of animal. So, a dog and a human have the same value, but the animal you eat doesn't. Why? And it's not arrogance to say humans are superior to animals. We have some characteristics that no other animals have, that gives us that superiority (racionality, technology, morality, complex society, science, abstract thinking, self conscience, philosophy, etc). If you say you're no superior to your dog, then... I have to believe, isn't it? :P quote:You're right. Baby killing is even worse. But I would like to know your answer. ;) Because that line is exactly a reflection of your own arguments agains't pro-life. If you think it's not comparable, then you shouldn't do the same to me. Forget that adoption think, because that's not comparable and the central issue here. [quote] quote:As I also stated earlier I would never get an abortion unless it was completely necessary for my survival. I as a woman want to have the right to do so if need be. If I were raped (be in forcefully or in spirit) I don't think I would be okay with having the essence of someone who harmed me growing inside me. I would than look at the child thereafter and pray I don't see his face in my baby's eyes. Other women have a need for abortions for several reasons, and they should have the right to do so. Suicide is also technically illegal, has that put an end to it? [quote] Sure, the mother can't look to her child's eyes, so she kills him. Hey, since humans and animals are the same thing, what don't you shoot the kid when he grows and you see he is similar to his father? The mother should have the right to murder her child, to ease her pain. Poor mother, she just wants to kill her baby and those mean pro-life dudes don't want to let her! How horrible!! :P quote:Why? Calling things by its name is hardly hostile. Why should I use an euphemism? (does that word exist in english?) -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:24
Profile
Homepage
"Murder" is a legal term. Legally, abortion is not murder. Therefore, you're not calling it by its name. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:24: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yes. But that doesn't take responsability from her, does it? Just shares it. quote:I think murdering children should be legal too. In that way, the mother can hire a hitman to do the job for her, not having to risk her life trying it, or going to jail because of it. :P We should legalize murdering in general. That way, we give better conditions to the murderer to do his thing. If it's illegal, only rich people can afford a good hitman. :P Hey, there should be government subsidies for addictive drugs so even poor addicts have equal access to them! :P quote:That's not correct, and you know it. And that's not relevant. I could say people in general wouldn't rape another. If rape was legal, there wouldn't be any rape rate raise. And look at the advantages! The rapist could rape a woman and then drive her to an hospital! It would provide better conditions to rapists and the victims... not! quote:Oh, pity the woman who kills her child, so that she can have a career or better life conditions. That's egotistic. And doesn't make it worth the murder of a baby. And before you bring the inequality between sexes issue, let me tell you something: inequality between the sexes is one of the most bizarre arguments put forth by the pro-abortion movement. "Women who are forced to be pregnant," they say, "can't compete in employment with men and so cannot be truly equal unless they have an escape from unwanted pregnancy." Translation: Women can't be equal to men without surgery! How much more sexist can an argument become? This false equality could be stretched to include custody of born children (women usually have custody) so that a woman "encumbered" by her born children could abandon them with impunity. It could extend to government subsidies for addictive drugs so even poor addicts have equal access to them. Women will not truly be "equal" in society to men until they are accepted fully as women, with all their female potentials and attributes, not simply as an imitation of surgically constructed men. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:32
Profile
Homepage
Unwanted pregnancies are going to happen. This we can take as a given. If we want to reduce the number of abortions, we have several choices. One obvious choice is to make it illegal. This requires a certain amount of money and effort for police enforcement, investigation of claims of violation, court proceedings, etc. Another obvious choice is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place by promoting adequate sex education. If we were to take the same amount of money that would go into making abortion illegal and put it into prevention programs, I expect that we would decrease the number of actual abortions by a greater amount. Of the many justifications for not banning abortion that I can imagine, this is the one that I fall back on in the end. Even if we were to imagine reducing the number of abortions as our goal, the best way to do it with limited resources would be to go to the source: sex education. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:But that's what we're debating here, isn't it? Pluse, in many countries (such as mine), it's murder. No, it's not hostile. (Nor do I want to be hostile with anyone, although some are with me. ;) ) -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:False. I live in a country where abortion is legal and I don't verify that. In Europe there's other countries where abortion is illegal, once more, I don't verify what you say in those countries. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that they aren't significant in number. On the other side, just in USA, 1500000 abortions are considerable. And abortions cost money too. And the human life has no price. quote:Totaly agree. Prevention in the first place. But there must be a remedy, just in case things go wrong... So that's not an argument to legalize abortion. There must be sex education AND making abortions criminal. If sex education fails, that's no reason to allow baby killing... -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:51
Profile
Homepage
Overwhelming, I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to say, but you just implied that no one in all of Portugal ever violates that law, or else that law has no enforcement mechanisms. Either way, that sounds quite ridiculous. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 12:53
Profile
Homepage
No. What I said is that the "This requires a certain amount of money and effort for police enforcement, investigation of claims of violation, court proceedings, etc." are not significant. And less they are, compared with millions of human lives spared, for example. -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 13:12
Profile
Homepage
But (as is your habit) you are again missing the point. I just made a comparison of cost-benefit ratios for enforcement of a law against abortion versus funding better sex education programs, not enforcement of a law against abortion versus nothing at all. I don't have statistics for what enforcement of the law in Portugal costs, but I suspect that putting that money into sex education would have a greater effect. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 13:16
Profile
Overwhelming- Arguably plants do hold some sort of feeling and reaction to stimuli. No creature could survive without eating another. Relatively speaking cows, chickens, and fish are lower on the evolutionary chain. If a person tried to kill your dog this would not bother you? After all it's just a dog to you, and they are a human. True by societies standards a human holds more value than a dog. This dose not mean that dogs don't have feelings or sensations similar to humans. It is illegal to beat your pets, and people do go to jail for doing that. True we as a species have far greater mental capacity than that of most other creatures. This does not make you better than them. I could argue that there are some humans that not only are less intelligent than some animals, but the also behave much worse towards each other. My answer to your comment on a child being was molested was not fully answered because a born child (or animal) being abused is torture. We are talking in circles about the issue of conciseness, so it is a waste of time to talk about it over and over. Your reaction to my comment about rape shows complete lack of sensitivity to women, and it was quite an ignorant statement. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 13:19: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
