Pro-life ad to air during Superbowl

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Seekster:
In my view both are living.

I don't believe I ever said they weren't both living. I said that an actual human being has more value than a potential human being.

Seekster:
Again, abortion should be considered only in worst case scenarios just as the death penalty should only be considered in worst case scenarios, that is what I believe at least.

What is a "worst case scenario" that justifies the execution of a prisoner over permanent incarceration?

Blablahb:

Seekster:
Its simple logic Amne. Abortion is not something people need to survive

This had better be something that came out totally wrong and different from what you meant to say...

A person needs food and water and such to survive. Abortion is not something that you need to survive.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
So if you make abortions harder to get my banning the practice simply logic tells you that the number of abortions will decrease because the availability has decreased. This decrease in availability will be made up somewhat in the form of illegal abortions but there would still be at least some drop. We can quible over how much of one or whether it would be significant later. All I am saying right now is there would be one. As for going abroad to get an abortion, not everyone can afford to travel to Canada or wherever just to get an abortion.

Uhm, small question: Why on earth would someone want to reduce the number of abortions? For someone to make that argument, they'd need proof that there are frivolous abortions. And despite thousands of anti-choice fanatics digging for that proof like their life depended on it, there is not.

Worse yet, there are strong indication that the religions that the anti-choicers spread is in large part to blame for the number of abortions. After all, sex being taboo, women being regarded as inferior (and thus okay to be raped), and contraceptives being frowned upon are major causes for people to need an abortion.

So it would seem the only way to reduce the number of abortions without blaming and harming innocent people, would be to ban all religion.

Logic can be a bitch sometimes...

Because that someone sees abortion as something that has little to no place in a civilized society. Plus I regard it as legalized murder and I want to lower the number of murders if not eliminate them (which isnt likely to happen I know but still).

Blab I know you are traumatized by religion but you are saying a bunch of things about it now that just arent true (not sure why I put "now" in that sentence). Not only is your assertion not logical, its also false.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
I regard them as equal. The value of one life is equal to the value of any other.

No you do not regard them as equal. A woman is worth less than other humans in your eyes, because as a consequence of being pro-life they don't own their own bodies, and men do.

In the face of that harsh but true conclusion, perhaps a change of point of view towards not judging others is a good idea? After all, it's a bit weird in the first place to pass judgement over something none of us here understands because we've never been through being raped, being pregnant against one's will, and so on.

Not to mention standing up for the freedom of other people even if you disagree with them is one of those old ideals that still hold true today.

Um no a woman's life is worth no more or less than the life of a man.

Ok I am not even going to bother respond to the rest of your post, its purposely insulting and based on calling blatantly false assertions facts.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
In my view both are living.

I don't believe I ever said they weren't both living. I said that an actual human being has more value than a potential human being.

Seekster:
Again, abortion should be considered only in worst case scenarios just as the death penalty should only be considered in worst case scenarios, that is what I believe at least.

What is a "worst case scenario" that justifies the execution of a prisoner over permanent incarceration?

No you didnt, sorry I misread the last part of your last post.

An unrepentant, repeat, or mass murderer and a traitor are two types of criminals off the top of my head who I could justify capital punishment for. With the death penalty though its very much a case by case basis because every case is different.

Seekster:
An unrepentant, repeat, or mass murderer and a traitor are two types of criminals off the top of my head who I could justify capital punishment for. With the death penalty though its very much a case by case basis because every case is different.

But why is execution justified over permanently incarcerating them? Once they've been separated from society, and placed behind bars; once they no longer pose a reasonable threat, what justifies taking their life as well?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
An unrepentant, repeat, or mass murderer and a traitor are two types of criminals off the top of my head who I could justify capital punishment for. With the death penalty though its very much a case by case basis because every case is different.

But why is execution justified over permanently incarcerating them? Once they've been separated from society, and placed behind bars; once they no longer pose a reasonable threat, what justifies taking their life as well?

Because they have done something so heinous and disgusting that society simply cannot tolerate their continued existence even behind bars on the public dollar. Yes it is more a matter of principle. I don't even think capital punishment deters others from committing crimes, but it is 100% effective in making sure that the executed does not ever trouble another living soul again.

Seekster:
Because they have done something so heinous and disgusting that society simply cannot tolerate their continued existence even behind bars on the public dollar.

So, revenge then? Because, when you factor in the cost of appeals and whatnot, a death row inmate costs the people more than one jailed indefinitely.

Seekster:
Yes it is more a matter of principle. I don't even think capital punishment deters others from committing crimes, but it is 100% effective in making sure that the executed does not ever trouble another living soul again.

I can't think of the last time I heard of a death row inmate escaping, can you?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Because they have done something so heinous and disgusting that society simply cannot tolerate their continued existence even behind bars on the public dollar.

So, revenge then? Because, when you factor in the cost of appeals and whatnot, a death row inmate costs the people more than one jailed indefinitely.

Seekster:
Yes it is more a matter of principle. I don't even think capital punishment deters others from committing crimes, but it is 100% effective in making sure that the executed does not ever trouble another living soul again.

I can't think of the last time I heard of a death row inmate escaping, can you?

Yes it costs more, but again, its the principle of the matter. There are a few types of the most heinous criminals who I would rather pay more in taxes to have them executed than to have my tax dollars go to provide them with free food and board and possibly internet access for the rest of their life.

Also I would add that before you execute someone you have to know beyond any reasonable doubt that they did what they are accused of doing. If there is any reasonable doubt left then just to be safe sentence them to life.

Not escaping but ive read enough stories about a prison guard either getting killed or more likely seriously injured.

Seekster:
Yes it costs more, but again, its the principle of the matter. There are a few types of the most heinous criminals who I would rather pay more in taxes to have them executed than to have my tax dollars go to provide them with free food and board and possibly internet access for the rest of their life.

Also I would add that before you execute someone you have to know beyond any reasonable doubt that they did what they are accused of doing. If there is any reasonable doubt left then just to be safe sentence them to life.

Not escaping but ive read enough stories about a prison guard either getting killed or more likely seriously injured.

So, here's the thing. You seem to be justifying killing a person because of how he might possibly damage a life in the future. Not for something he's done, but to prevent him from doing something he for something he could foreseeably do.

At the same time, you don't think that abortion is justifiable on the grounds of how having a child may damage a life in the future. In this case, you think it's only justifiable when the foetus poses an immediate and imminent threat to the life of the mother.

That kind of double standard seems to me to suggest that you don't think any life is equal to any other life. It seems that you think the life of a foetus is worth more than the life of this prisoner.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Yes it costs more, but again, its the principle of the matter. There are a few types of the most heinous criminals who I would rather pay more in taxes to have them executed than to have my tax dollars go to provide them with free food and board and possibly internet access for the rest of their life.

Also I would add that before you execute someone you have to know beyond any reasonable doubt that they did what they are accused of doing. If there is any reasonable doubt left then just to be safe sentence them to life.

Not escaping but ive read enough stories about a prison guard either getting killed or more likely seriously injured.

So, here's the thing. You seem to be justifying killing a person because of how he might possibly damage a life in the future. Not for something he's done, but to prevent him from doing something he for something he could foreseeably do.

At the same time, you don't think that abortion is justifiable on the grounds of how having a child may damage a life in the future. In this case, you think it's only justifiable when the foetus poses an immediate and imminent threat to the life of the mother.

That kind of double standard seems to me to suggest that you don't think any life is equal to any other life. It seems that you think the life of a foetus is worth more than the life of this prisoner.

I am not going to get angry at that because I don't think you just realized you compared the rigors of raising a child to criminal activity. Also the actions of a criminal are their own responsibility. A child is not at fault for their own existence.

No the lives are worth the same, thats why in both cases, ending that life should only be considered as a last resort.

I am pro-life, but it isn't like this is effective in saving any lives, all this will do is incur shame on those who have already aborted. Help starts on a personal level, not some ad on television.

Seekster:
Sorry Skeleon but the cases where someone actually does have a legitimate health reason to consider abortion are the vast minority of cases.

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%

TOTAL:

7%
(Approx.)

I don't care if anyone's pointed it out yet but you do understand that 7% is still a shit ton of people right?

If we just ignore those people and bar them from a choice, then that is just reprehensible. There is no rhetoric that justifies that.

Seekster:
I am not going to get angry at that because I don't think you just realized you compared the rigors of raising a child to criminal activity. Also the actions of a criminal are their own responsibility. A child is not at fault for their own existence.

No the lives are worth the same, thats why in both cases, ending that life should only be considered as a last resort.

You didn't answer my question. If a human and a foetus have the same intrinsic value of life, then why is it justifiable to take the life of a human being based on the damage it might cause to some life in the future but not justifiable to take the life of a foetus based on the damage it might do to a life at some time in the future?

Seekster:
A person needs food and water and such to survive. Abortion is not something that you need to survive.

So that came out wrong and you didn't mean to say someone who needs an abortion deserves to die. But you're wrong there. In case of severe complications being on the way it is necessary to save the life of the prospective mother. In the case of rape or incest also pretty much in a more indirect way.

Then again, what would you ever know about those things? You can't pass judgement over that.

Seekster:
Because that someone sees abortion as something that has little to no place in a civilized society. Plus I regard it as legalized murder and I want to lower the number of murders if not eliminate them.

Why not outlaw showers and bathing instead then? Those kill a lot more human cells than abortion ever will.

And what to think of ethics? How is ruining the life of both mother and child better than preventing any of that from happening?

Seekster:
Blab I know you are traumatized by religion but you are saying a bunch of things about it now that just arent true Not only is your assertion not logical, its also false.

Why would it be? The connection between sex, contraceptives and such being declared taboo, and people getting pregnant unwantedly is obvious. The less people know, the more problems there.
Also the inferior position of the women is often cited as a cause, because she's not in a position to demand contraceptives against the 'superior' man. And there we obviously have religion to blame for it.

But the main point behind it is that pro-life or you in this case, ignore the cause of abortion, and proceed to blame innocent people and opt to ruin their lives over something that was not their doing. Blaming the victim in it's purest form.

Seekster:
Um no a woman's life is worth no more or less than the life of a man.

So you've changed your mind and are no longer opposed to abortion? That's a good decision.

Also one that moves you away from being opposed to freedom to being in favour of it. That's nice as well.

Seekster:
The value of one life is equal to the value of any other.

So...Hitler = Martin Luther King?

Yeah?

Logic is a bitch. Like Amne said.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to choose what to do with their own bodies?

Sure, ending the life of an unborn baby is sad and should only be used as a last resort if adoption isn't available as an option, but while it's still the mother's body, it's the mother's decision whether to gestate to term or artificially induce a miscarriage.

Seekster:
No games and your opinion is just as reversible as mine is so I fail to see the point. No I cant state that abortion is murder as an objective fact (at least not yet) but in my view it is murder and I am sharing that view just as others are sharing theirs. Then we discuss it. I don't see what the problem is.

Except you're the one who started it with the highly inflammatory and faulty slavery comparison. Don't try taking the high ground after that.
It's not so much the view itself as the false equivalence employed that I am pointing out.

I am arguing to fight the practice of abortion because I do not view it as a practice that should be legally practiced in a civilized society.

Which (the ban) would cause even more harm and not achieve your goal, is my point.

What causes exactly are you talking about? I am all for fighting a problem at the source but whether the problem is solved or not I do not think we should continue with legal abortions for another day. The lives destroyed because abortion is legal far outweigh the lives destroyed if and when the practice was illegal. I have seen the coat hanger argument (as I call it) made before and I think it is a gross exaggeration where a relatively small number of horrible incidents are highlighted.

The causes lie in aspects you've mentioned earlier, bad access to contraception, bad understanding of contraception, religious argumentation against contraception, but also in broader socio-economic issues. Unwanted pregnancies overall are often a problem of worse education and socio-economic standing and, frankly, the root-cause is the widening gap of rich and poor in many respects. These are issues that are not easily solved, but putting a ban on abortion is not the way to solve them or their consequences.

If abortion were banned (lets say in all cases except where the life of the mother is in danger) I believe that abortions would drop significantly (I must have missed your "empirical evidence" to the contrary) but sadly it will not go away completely. I have a hard time imagining that any woman who would be willing to go to a clinic to have an abortion carried out by a medical professional would be equally willing to go to an alleyway and have an abortion carried out in unsanitary conditions by someone who is untrained. Surely you have to admit that there would be at least some drop in the number of abortions if the practice were made illegal?

Why'd you ignore the journal quote I gave earlier? But here is more, if you really need it:

Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America-regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
- Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide in brief, Guttmacher Institute

And:

The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, including investments in family planning services and safe abortion care, are crucial steps toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
- Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008, G Sedgh ScD, S Singh PhD, S K Henshaw PhD, A Bankole PhD, The mother-effin' Lancet, January 19th 2012

This right here is what I'm talking about, the socio-economic standards are generally better in Western Europe, which is the actual determinant in my view for reducing abortions through family planning. This is what you need to focus on, availability of family planning, not infringing on people's rights in short-sighted actionism.

In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.
- Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide in Brief, Guttmacher Institute

Note that this is not just talking about developed countries with generally high medical standards like the USA but a comparison between different developing countries, making the comparison on the issue of unsafe abortions more valid.

I see no reason why we can't improve access to contraceptives and provide better sex education [...] and at the same time fight to end abortion. The two issues cannot and should not be linked (as in we wont do this until you do this, eg: we wont talk about citizenship for illegal immigrants until the border is secured).

Well, I do, because I don't want to a) infringe on women's rights, b) do nothing but make things more difficult for people with legitimate abortion concerns, c) achieve absolutely nothing with the aforementioned infringements and d) cause additional harm through unsafe abortions in their various iterations. How about you provide data demonstrating that banning abortion actually helps with your goal now?

I disputed that above. If abortion were illegal in America I have no illusion that all abortions would end in the country but even you have to admit that there would be some drop.

Oh, sure. "Some" being an incredibly weak term, of course. I could imagine a slight, temporary dip. Perhaps even a slight, permanent dip. And at the same time a rise in unsafe abortions, resulting in more maternal deaths and putting you closer to a third-world country. That's not a bargain I'd sign up for.

One thing that I have been pondering on is the idea that abortion is murder (particularly the "abortion on demand", though I hate that phrase because it severely misinforms people of the legal hoops you have to go through before you can get an abortion).

Does that mean that miscarriage is manslaughter/negligent homicide? Before you say that these things are natural, or start crying "Strawman!", actually think about it. This is not a dig at others, but something that occurred to me whilst thinking through the replies in this thread - and I realised that it is a very interesting thought experiment.

There is often a root cause for a miscarriage - either something the mother has imbibed (therefore should it not, following the abortion=murder logic, be legally equivalent to poisoning) or a quirk of their physiology (therefore should it not, following the abortion=murder logic, be legally equivalent to psychopathic tendencies, or other such things that are innate yet dangerous to society and for which you can still suffer legal ramifications for your actions)?

If you do not think that people should be put on trial for suffering a miscarriage (which incidentally is one of the problems of declaring "personhood", and giving full legal rights, for foetuses as some states have attempted to implement); then how can you say you are against abortion as it is murder? After all, a miscarriage can be induced - it was the primary contraceptive method in the Roman world, very much the definition of "abortion on demand". How about people who did not know they were pregnant, but drank too much or went on an extreme-sports weekend and thus suffer a very early miscarriage (such as that they would not even notice)? They have still caused the loss of a human life through their own actions - and ignorance is no defence in a court of law.

So either you have to hold a double-standard, which results in criminalising a safe medical procedure yet permits the exact same consequence through dangerous means (many of the things that will induce a miscarriage can cause fatal levels of bleeding) without any legal ramifications; or you have to accept that you will need to put every woman who has had a miscarriage at the very lest under investigation, if not trial.

Now, I suspect many will be foaming at the mouth at this point, but I beg of you to calm down and actually think about what I have raised here. It is one of the, in my opinion, key issues with the criminalisation of abortion and one that is often overlooked; and though at first you may think it is utterly irrelevant, or a case of apples-vs-oranges, if you actually think about the reasons why you feel abortion should be criminalised and what miscarriage often entails, you will (hopefully) see the point behind this post.

Olrod:
Why shouldn't people be allowed to choose what to do with their own bodies?

Sure, ending the life of an unborn baby is sad and should only be used as a last resort if adoption isn't available as an option, but while it's still the mother's body, it's the mother's decision whether to gestate to term or artificially induce a miscarriage.

I think this is a very salient point. I don't think "pro-choice" people (myself included) think that abortion is an awesome thing, that we need to spread abortions far and wide and have as many as possible. Abortion is a sad thing. But it needs to be available for the problematic circumstances women might face, variable as they can be. What we need to do is create circumstances wherein women have less of a risk of facing such circumstances. This is why it somewhat angers me when "pro-life" people refer to us as "pro-abortion". I'm not.

Superbeast:
One thing that I have been pondering on is the idea that abortion is murder (particularly the "abortion on demand", though I hate that phrase because it severely misinforms people of the legal hoops you have to go through before you can get an abortion).

Does that mean that miscarriage is manslaughter/negligent homicide? Before you say that these things are natural, or start crying "Strawman!", actually think about it. This is not a dig at others, but something that occurred to me whilst thinking through the replies in this thread - and I realised that it is a very interesting thought experiment.

There is often a root cause for a miscarriage - either something the mother has imbibed (therefore should it not, following the abortion=murder logic, be legally equivalent to poisoning) or a quirk of their physiology (therefore should it not, following the abortion=murder logic, be legally equivalent to psychopathic tendencies, or other such things that are innate yet dangerous to society and for which you can still suffer legal ramifications for your actions)?

Relevant

There's a lot of stuff which increases the chance of a miscarriage. It's funny how God's Abortion is okay but Human Abortion is murder.

Skeleon:

I think this is a very salient point. I don't think "pro-choice" people (myself included) think that abortion is an awesome thing, that we need to spread abortions far and wide and have as many as possible. Abortion is a sad thing. But it needs to be available for the problematic circumstances women might face, variable as they can be. What we need to do is create circumstances wherein women have less of a risk of facing such circumstances. This is why it somewhat angers me when "pro-life" people refer to us as "pro-abortion". I'm not.

Precisely my feelings as well. It's a bit of a strawman, that everyone not opposed to abortion just wants to run around killing babies left and right. Not wanting abortions banned does not equal wanting to start some sort of franchise with glossy ads going "Free abortions für alles!", like some of the more extreme pro-lifers interpretation seems to be. Unless there does indeed exist some mad doctor out there who genuinly gets a kick out of killing a fetus, I think we're all pretty much on the same page that abortion is a last resort with severe implications, and that avoiding that situation as much as possible is the truly preferable goal.

I suppose I could be called pro-abortion if we're going to be specific. But if the anti-abortionists gets to be called pro-lifers, I'd prefer to be pro-pragmatic, myself.

Amnestic:
There's a lot of stuff which increases the chance of a miscarriage. It's funny how God's Abortion is okay but Human Abortion is murder.

The moment there's any human involvement, though, some theocrats would like to punish people for spontaneous and induced abortions both, most severely at that (life in prison, death penalty). I am not completely sure how some of these risk factors would be considered under this law, though I'm sure lifestyle factors in particular would be considered valid reasons for punishment.

Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.

Hell, this is phrased so vaguely, practically anything that happens could be argued within the confines of that exception.

Amnestic:

Relevant

There's a lot of stuff which increases the chance of a miscarriage. It's funny how God's Abortion is okay but Human Abortion is murder.

Thanks for providing a source - I realise now that I probably should have included some external links to enhance my point.

Skeleon:

The moment there's any human involvement, though, some theocrats would like to punish people for spontaneous and induced abortions both, most severely at that (life in prison, death penalty). I am not completely sure how some of these risk factors would be considered under this law, though I'm sure lifestyle factors in particular would be considered valid reasons for punishment.

Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.

Hell, this is phrased so vaguely, practically anything that happens could be argued within the confines of that exception.

That's entirely my point.

I actually approve more of those theocrats (despite disagreeing with them wholeheartedly) than the general anti-choice crowd, as at least they are being consistent - though good luck to them trying to fund the sheer amount of investigations that would need to be held, as every miscarriage would need checking out, and also the moral implications of essentially imprisoning someone for being fat/drinking tap water!

DaKiller:

Seekster:
Sorry Skeleon but the cases where someone actually does have a legitimate health reason to consider abortion are the vast minority of cases.

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 4%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest <0.5%

TOTAL:

7%
(Approx.)

I don't care if anyone's pointed it out yet but you do understand that 7% is still a shit ton of people right?

If we just ignore those people and bar them from a choice, then that is just reprehensible. There is no rhetoric that justifies that.

Yes I am aware, but the thing is, 93% is a shit ton even more people. Besides I am not sure what your point is. I am saying abortion should only even be considered in that 7%.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
I am not going to get angry at that because I don't think you just realized you compared the rigors of raising a child to criminal activity. Also the actions of a criminal are their own responsibility. A child is not at fault for their own existence.

No the lives are worth the same, thats why in both cases, ending that life should only be considered as a last resort.

You didn't answer my question. If a human and a foetus have the same intrinsic value of life, then why is it justifiable to take the life of a human being based on the damage it might cause to some life in the future but not justifiable to take the life of a foetus based on the damage it might do to a life at some time in the future?

It is justifiable to take a life in self defense. This can be anything from a mother defending her own life in the rare cases when giving birth would kill her to society defending itself from the most vile of criminals.

Magical029:

Seekster:
The value of one life is equal to the value of any other.

So...Hitler = Martin Luther King?

Yeah?

Logic is a bitch. Like Amne said.

In terms of contribution to society no, however the intrinsic value of their lives are the same. Like I said, it is a bias towards certain kinds of people we like that makes us think one life is worth more than another. In other words, most people hate Hitler so his life has less value to us than Martin Luther King's does, but in terms of intrinsic value one human life is worth the same as any other human life.

Seekster:
It is justifiable to take a life in self defense. This can be anything from a mother defending her own life in the rare cases when giving birth would kill her to society defending itself from the most vile of criminals.

Self defecnce only applies when the preson being killed actually poses an immediate threat to the life and safety of another.

An incarcerated prisoner does not present an immediate threat to society in any way shape or form.

Shooting him to stop him stabbing a prison guard, sure. That's self defence.

Arranging to have him executed for crimes that he's already committed? That's revenge.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
No games and your opinion is just as reversible as mine is so I fail to see the point. No I cant state that abortion is murder as an objective fact (at least not yet) but in my view it is murder and I am sharing that view just as others are sharing theirs. Then we discuss it. I don't see what the problem is.

Except you're the one who started it with the highly inflammatory and faulty slavery comparison. Don't try taking the high ground after that.
It's not so much the view itself as the false equivalence employed that I am pointing out.

I stand by the comparison of abortion to slavery, however repeating it isnt going to get me anywhere so I wont make the comparison again unless someone wants to bring it up, but I do stand by it.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
I am arguing to fight the practice of abortion because I do not view it as a practice that should be legally practiced in a civilized society.

Which (the ban) would cause even more harm and not achieve your goal, is my point.

How would a ban cause even more harm than over 1 million deaths because of abortion each year in the United States alone?

Skeleon:

Seekster:
What causes exactly are you talking about? I am all for fighting a problem at the source but whether the problem is solved or not I do not think we should continue with legal abortions for another day. The lives destroyed because abortion is legal far outweigh the lives destroyed if and when the practice was illegal. I have seen the coat hanger argument (as I call it) made before and I think it is a gross exaggeration where a relatively small number of horrible incidents are highlighted.

The causes lie in aspects you've mentioned earlier, bad access to contraception, bad understanding of contraception, religious argumentation against contraception, but also in broader socio-economic issues. Unwanted pregnancies overall are often a problem of worse education and socio-economic standing and, frankly, the root-cause is the widening gap of rich and poor in many respects. These are issues that are not easily solved, but putting a ban on abortion is not the way to solve them or their consequences.

I agree with you on the reasons (though I think the gap between rich and poor is not itself a problem, rather the poor not being able to afford certain necessities in our society is the problem. You could make the rich poorer and that wouldn't help the poor any so the gap itself is not the problem). Putting a ban on abortion wont solve all those problems no and I never claimed it would, however abortion solves no problems and instead creates a new one. I do not see any reason for keeping abortion on demand legal and many reasons to ban the practice.

You know I am a Conservative and like most Conservatives I favor low government spending. However such is my opposition to abortion that I would gladly accept increased government spending to help poor families raise their children in exchange for banning abortion on demand. If that is what it takes then so be it.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
If abortion were banned (lets say in all cases except where the life of the mother is in danger) I believe that abortions would drop significantly (I must have missed your "empirical evidence" to the contrary) but sadly it will not go away completely. I have a hard time imagining that any woman who would be willing to go to a clinic to have an abortion carried out by a medical professional would be equally willing to go to an alleyway and have an abortion carried out in unsanitary conditions by someone who is untrained. Surely you have to admit that there would be at least some drop in the number of abortions if the practice were made illegal?

Why'd you ignore the journal quote I gave earlier? But here is more, if you really need it:

Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America-regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.
- Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide in brief, Guttmacher Institute

And:

As you correctly pointed out earlier, abortion is most prevalent among the poor. Bearing that in mind its no mystery why abortion rates would be higher in African and Latin-American countries where there is much more rampant poverty than what you will find in the first world. I do not see any direct correlation you can draw to abortion being more prevalent in places where it is illegal BECAUSE it is illegal and not because of other factors like rampant poverty and less access to medical care.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
The substantial decline in the abortion rate observed earlier has stalled, and the proportion of all abortions that are unsafe has increased. Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion, including investments in family planning services and safe abortion care, are crucial steps toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
- Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008, G Sedgh ScD, S Singh PhD, S K Henshaw PhD, A Bankole PhD, The mother-effin' Lancet, January 19th 2012

This right here is what I'm talking about, the socio-economic standards are generally better in Western Europe, which is the actual determinant in my view for reducing abortions through family planning. This is what you need to focus on, availability of family planning, not infringing on people's rights in short-sighted actionism.

What do you mean when you say "family planning"? I just want to make sure it means the same thing to you as it means to me before I comment further.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.
- Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide in Brief, Guttmacher Institute

Note that this is not just talking about developed countries with generally high medical standards like the USA but a comparison between different developing countries, making the comparison on the issue of unsafe abortions more valid.

Oh I have no doubt that an abortion performed in a clinic by a doctor is less dangerous for the mother than an abortion performed in a back alley. However if you were to ban abortion I highly doubt that all of the women who would get an abortion in a clinic if it were legal would decide to go out and try and find a backalley abortionist. Besides either way unborn babies are dying. Any way I look at it, banning abortion on demand would cause less harm than leaving it legal.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
I see no reason why we can't improve access to contraceptives and provide better sex education [...] and at the same time fight to end abortion. The two issues cannot and should not be linked (as in we wont do this until you do this, eg: we wont talk about citizenship for illegal immigrants until the border is secured).

Well, I do, because I don't want to a) infringe on women's rights, b) do nothing but make things more difficult for people with legitimate abortion concerns, c) achieve absolutely nothing with the aforementioned infringements and d) cause additional harm through unsafe abortions in their various iterations. How about you provide data demonstrating that banning abortion actually helps with your goal now?

a. This is one of the only times I disagree with the Supreme Court, where in the Constitution is there anything that even remotely could be interpreted to say women have the right to kill their own unborn babies? Roe v Wade is perhaps the worst mistake the Supreme Court has made in its entire history. Women have the right to their own bodies yes, they do not have the right to the bodies of others, even their own unborn children (though you could argue that they have more of a say on that matter than the father does because they are actually carrying the child in their womb).

b. The people with legitimate abortion concerns (those whose health would be threatened if they tried to give birth, or perhaps victims of rape or incest (I am conflicted on that topic)) would still be able to get an abortion if it came to that. A doctor is the most qualified professional to determine what is best for the health of both the mother and the baby and if the birth of the baby would threaten the life of the mother, then you can start considering abortion as an option. That is what I mean when I say that it is something that should only ever be considered in a worst case scenario.

c. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives at least. I consider that a most significant achievement.

d. As I said, there is no reason to believe that all the women who would get a legal abortion in a clinic would seek abortion in a back alley (metaphorically or literally) if abortion were banned. Some would sadly but most would not. Even if only a minority did not, that would still be worth it. As I said, there are many things we can do to help women and families who find themselves in such desperate situations.

As for data that supports my assertions, I happen to be off sick from work today so lets crunch some numbers. I found Poland to be one of the most if not the most pro-life countries in Europe. In Poland abortion is banned except in cases where the life or health of the mother is in danger, the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act (eg rape) or the fetus is seriously malformed. Lets compare the percentage of women who have abortions in Poland to a similar country that has abortion on demand legalized.

To make this a fair comparison I only selected from Eastern European countries with a population close to that of Poland. This left me with Ukraine and Romania (Ukraine has a somewhat larger population than Poland while Romania has a somewhat smaller population, best I can figure they have more or less comparable levels of poverty). I went with Romania because it had more precise data. Unfortunately all the data I found was not from the same year so I did the best I could to get years for the data as close together as I could. Now lets see how the two compare.

Romania:

22,303,552 total population (2002 figures)

11,151,776 estimated female population (half the total population)

127,410 legal abortions (2008 figures)

So if you divide the estimated legal abortions a year in Romania by the estimated female population of Romania, that works out to an estimated 1.143% of Romanian women get an abortion each year.

Poland:

38,625,478 total population (2002 figures)

19,312,739 estimated female population (half the total population)

200,000 estimated illegal abortions a year (maximum estimate made by Women's rights activists, likely 2010 numbers)

So if you divide the estimated number of illegal abortions a year in Poland by the estimated female population of Poland, that works out to an estimated 1.036% of Polish women get an abortion each year.

Sources: (I checked and all the data I took from wiki was properly sourced elsewhere, you can check them yourself if you doubt the accuracy of the raw data).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Eastern_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Romania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Poland

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,723902,00.html

If you have any questions about my method or other questions about the numbers ask and I will do my best to answer.

As you can see from the final percentage, even with the maximum estimate by pro-choice activists of illegal abortions in Poland each year (which is likely exaggerated but I took the number anyway because illegal abortions are not always reported in Poland so finding official numbers was tricky) the percentage is still less. The difference between the two percentages may not seem like much but in terms of the number of lives that difference represents it is nothing to sneeze at.

These results seriously damage the claim that abortion is more prevalent in countries where it is illegal BECAUSE it is illegal (and not because most countries where it is illegal have higher poverty levels like I asserted).

Skeleon:

Seekster:
I disputed that above. If abortion were illegal in America I have no illusion that all abortions would end in the country but even you have to admit that there would be some drop.

Oh, sure. "Some" being an incredibly weak term, of course. I could imagine a slight, temporary dip. Perhaps even a slight, permanent dip. And at the same time a rise in unsafe abortions, resulting in more maternal deaths and putting you closer to a third-world country. That's not a bargain I'd sign up for.

I crunched my own numbers, you crunch yours now if you still want to argue that.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
It is justifiable to take a life in self defense. This can be anything from a mother defending her own life in the rare cases when giving birth would kill her to society defending itself from the most vile of criminals.

Self defecnce only applies when the preson being killed actually poses an immediate threat to the life and safety of another.

An incarcerated prisoner does not present an immediate threat to society in any way shape or form.

Shooting him to stop him stabbing a prison guard, sure. That's self defence.

Arranging to have him executed for crimes that he's already committed? That's revenge.

Not necessarily, for example killing the leader of a country you are at war with is justifiable as a form of indirect self defense. While that person may not represent a physical threat directly their existence can cause an indirect threat to your life and safety and that of your countrymen. When imprisoned that threat is greatly reduced yes but it is not entirely eliminated. That individual still maintains a limited ability to directly threaten the life and safety of a small number of people in their vicinity (guards, other prisoners, medical personnel, etc) and more importantly in the case of some individuals their crimes are so great and so heinous that their continued existence is viewed as indirect threat and is deemed unacceptable. The Nazis at Nuremberg are a prime example.

Is execution a form of collective revenge on the part of society? Maybe, but that is beside the point. While one life is equal to any other, those who have taken a life or multiple lives in a criminal fashion have made themselves enemies to society. While normally simply incarceration is enough for society to accept that justice/revenge has been done, there are some criminals whose continued existence simply can no longer be tolerated.

Seekster:
[How would a ban cause even more harm than over 1 million deaths because of abortion each year in the United States alone?

Because if banning abortion manages to save 200,000 foetuses, but results in 300,000 maternal deaths, then the net effect is that you're now causing 1,100,000 deaths a year, instead of 1,000,000.

Seekster:
Not necessarily, for example killing the leader of a country you are at war with is justifiable as a form of indirect self defense. While that person may not represent a physical threat directly their existence can cause an indirect threat to your life and safety and that of your countrymen.

Political assasination operates within an entirely different theatre of ethical consideration. However, a foreign leader, with military resources at his disposal poses an ever-present direct threat to the life and safety of the people of an enemy state.

Seekster:
When imprisoned that threat is greatly reduced yes but it is not entirely eliminated. That individual still maintains a limited ability to directly threaten the life and safety of a small number of people in their vicinity (guards, other prisoners, medical personnel, etc)

At this point, their freedom to act is so restricted that any threat they legitimately pose is insufficient to justify killing them as a preventative measure.

Seekster:
and more importantly in the case of some individuals their crimes are so great and so heinous that their continued existence is viewed as indirect threat and is deemed unacceptable. The Nazis at Nuremberg are a prime example.

"The mere fact that this person lives offends me, so I can kill them". Got it.

Seekster:
Is execution a form of collective revenge on the part of society? Maybe, but that is beside the point.

No it's pretty much exactly the point.

Seekster:
While one life is equal to any other, those who have taken a life or multiple lives in a criminal fashion have made themselves enemies to society. While normally simply incarceration is enough for society to accept that justice/revenge has been done, there are some criminals whose continued existence simply can no longer be tolerated.

"One life is equal to any other life unless that one life does something that makes me think their life isn't equal anymore."

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
[How would a ban cause even more harm than over 1 million deaths because of abortion each year in the United States alone?

Because if banning abortion manages to save 200,000 foetuses, but results in 300,000 maternal deaths, then the net effect is that you're now causing 1,100,000 deaths a year, instead of 1,000,000.

Ok first and foremost, where are you even getting this numbers.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Not necessarily, for example killing the leader of a country you are at war with is justifiable as a form of indirect self defense. While that person may not represent a physical threat directly their existence can cause an indirect threat to your life and safety and that of your countrymen.

Political assasination operates within an entirely different theatre of ethical consideration. However, a foreign leader, with military resources at his disposal poses an ever-present direct threat to the life and safety of the people of an enemy state.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
When imprisoned that threat is greatly reduced yes but it is not entirely eliminated. That individual still maintains a limited ability to directly threaten the life and safety of a small number of people in their vicinity (guards, other prisoners, medical personnel, etc)

At this point, their freedom to act is so restricted that any threat they legitimately pose is insufficient to justify killing them as a preventative measure.

Seekster:
and more importantly in the case of some individuals their crimes are so great and so heinous that their continued existence is viewed as indirect threat and is deemed unacceptable. The Nazis at Nuremberg are a prime example.

"The mere fact that this person lives offends me, so I can kill them". Got it.

Seekster:
Is execution a form of collective revenge on the part of society? Maybe, but that is beside the point.

No it's pretty much exactly the point.

[quote="Seekster" post="528.339647.13756581"]While one life is equal to any other, those who have taken a life or multiple lives in a criminal fashion have made themselves enemies to society. While normally simply incarceration is enough for society to accept that justice/revenge has been done, there are some criminals whose continued existence simply can no longer be tolerated.

"One life is equal to any other life unless that one life does something that makes me think their life isn't equal anymore."

""The mere fact that this person lives offends me, so I can kill them". Got it."

Well it would have to be far more than just me.

"One life is equal to any other life unless that one life does something that makes me think their life isn't equal anymore."

No the life of a murderer is equal to the life of one of their victims.

Seekster:
Ok first and foremost, where are you even getting this numbers.

I was pulling them out of my ass to illustrate a point.

in fairness I was answering "how could a ban on abortion cause more harm," rather than "how would a ban on abotion cause more harm". But it was strictly illustrative of a potential outcome. The actual numbers aren't especially important to make the case I was making.

Seekster:
Well it would have to be far more than just me.

So, if a lot of people don't like someone, that justifies killing it? I'm pretty sure that's how lynchings worked.

Seekster:
No the life of a murderer is equal to the life of one of their victims.

And killing a murderer doesn't bring the victim back. It just adds another body to the pile.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Ok first and foremost, where are you even getting this numbers.

I was pulling them out of my ass to illustrate a point.

in fairness I was answering "how could a ban on abortion cause more harm," rather than "how would a ban on abotion cause more harm". But it was strictly illustrative of a potential outcome. The actual numbers aren't especially important to make the case I was making.

If you want to actually make the case they are.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Well it would have to be far more than just me.

So, if a lot of people don't like someone, that justifies killing it? I'm pretty sure that's how lynchings worked.

No that vigilantism and you can't do that. I am talking about following the criminal justice system in regards to capitol punishment.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
No the life of a murderer is equal to the life of one of their victims.

And killing a murderer doesn't bring the victim back. It just adds another body to the pile.

No it doesnt, and that really isnt the goal either.

You know Seekster, your contradictions begin to frustrate me...

Magical029:
You know Seekster, your contradictions begin to frustrate me...

Well then quote me and point out these contradictions and I will clear them up for you. I have given this matter a great deal of thought and if I find a contradiction in my argument I clear it up. If you managed to find one I would be very interested to know about it and see if it really is a contradiction or if I am just doing a poor job of explaining my position.

Seekster:
If you want to actually make the case they are.

The point I was making was that it's not impossible that banning abortion outright could actually cause more deaths than keeping them safe and legal.

Curiously, by the way, if you look at the stats for abortion and maternal death rates, the BEST thing you can do is actually keep abortion safe and legal, but also aggresively pursue policies that support widespread accessability of low-cost contraceptives AND comprehensive sex eduactaion.

Contraceptives and sex education appear to have a much more dramatic effect on abortion rates than prohibition does and legal abortion keeps the rate of maternal death low.

These policies actually minimize the death toll, and if it's life you value, that should be what you aim to achieve.

Seekster:
No that vigilantism and you can't do that. I am talking about following the criminal justice system in regards to capitol punishment.

Except that you haven't justified the law on any grounds that don't also justify vigilanism.

Seekster:
No it doesnt, and that really isnt the goal either.

So what is the goal, and how is it consistent with an intrinsic value of life? Because from where I stand, if you execute a murderer, you're simply doubling the cost to life of the original crime.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
If you want to actually make the case they are.

The point I was making was that it's not impossible that banning abortion outright could actually cause more deaths than keeping them safe and legal.

If you arent counting the deaths of the unborn then sure but you see I count those deaths.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
No that vigilantism and you can't do that. I am talking about following the criminal justice system in regards to capitol punishment.

Except that you haven't justified the law on any grounds that don't also justify vigilanism.

You mean other than requiring people to actually operate within the criminal justice system?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
No it doesnt, and that really isnt the goal either.

So what is the goal, and how is it consistent with an intrinsic value of life? Because from where I stand, if you execute a murderer, you're simply doubling the cost to life of the original crime.

I think its a societal thing. Sometimes a relative of a murder victim will get up and say they dont want the murder to be executed because it wouldnt help them (the relative of the victim) any. I would say that execution isnt for the benefit of the victim's family or friends but for the benefit of society. Its sort of like how people make a fuss over how you slaughter cows. Its more for the benefit of society, I very much doubt the cow cares greatly about the way it is killed and if it could be it would be more concerned with the whole being killed part).

Anyway I seem to have wandered a bit but to answer your question, the goal of capital punishment, in the simplest terms is rather obvious; to end the life of the criminal in question. It doesnt fully make sense as to why society would like to do that (or rather some societies at least) but then there seems to be something intrinsically wrong with a criminal justice system where monsters like Manson or Milosevic give to spend the rest of their lives in prison subsidized by others.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked