A simple question : for those who want to outlaw abortion [Archive]

QuadsOverQuads

07-11-2005, 11:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How are any laws enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

(So, I take it that you reeeeeeally don't want to directly answer my question?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why would abortion be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "crime" in this case is the termination of a pregnancy. For the state to determine whether such a crime is being committed, it must, presumably, begin to monitor women's pregnancies (so that it can determine which ones have been illegally terminated). Do you dispute this?

q/q

[censored]

07-11-2005, 11:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How are any laws enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

(So, I take it that you reeeeeeally don't want to directly answer my question?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why would abortion be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "crime" in this case is the termination of a pregnancy. For the state to determine whether such a crime is being committed, it must, presumably, begin to monitor women's pregnancies (so that it can determine which ones have been illegally terminated). Do you dispute this?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

that would be one way but since it is unlikely that is what the people would want it is mostly just a scare tatic used by people who are afraid of allowing the people to decide

in reality law enforcement would investigate and prosecute those who perform the abortions. this would be done with evidence as in the case of all crimes.

QuadsOverQuads

07-11-2005, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
in reality law enforcement would investigate and prosecute those who perform the abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, then, you believe that women who hire abortionists should not be punished?

q/q

lehighguy

07-11-2005, 11:35 PM

Accessory to murder.

lastchance

07-11-2005, 11:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Accessory to murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
If abortion was the killing of a child, there's no reason why it shouldn't be murder two in the least (maybe man one in some cases). (damn, I watch too much L&O)

[censored]

07-12-2005, 12:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
in reality law enforcement would investigate and prosecute those who perform the abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, then, you believe that women who hire abortionists should not be punished?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

No they should be pursued like other criminals are pursued,

Your belief that this requires the government monitoring pregnacies would like saying in order to have any laws the government must be able to prevent that particular criminal activity 100%

In short we will do the best we can while still adhering to the values we hold dear.

That abortion cannot be entirely prevented is a rather nonsensical approach to deciding if it should be legal.

You are much better off just saying that you value this particular freedom over the life of the unborn.

QuadsOverQuads

07-12-2005, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your belief that this requires the government monitoring pregnacies would like saying in order to have any laws the government must be able to prevent that particular criminal activity 100%

In short we will do the best we can while still adhering to the values we hold dear.

...

You are much better off just saying that you value this particular freedom over the life of the unborn.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, just to clarify:

Which particular freedom is it that you believe supersedes the right to life of the unborn?

q/q

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 12:35 AM

Police would have the same investigatory powers they have to prosecute other crimes. No more no less.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your belief that this requires the government monitoring pregnacies would like saying in order to have any laws the government must be able to prevent that particular criminal activity 100%

In short we will do the best we can while still adhering to the values we hold dear.

...

You are much better off just saying that you value this particular freedom over the life of the unborn.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, just to clarify:

Which particular freedom is it that you believe supersedes the right to life of the unborn?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

Is difficulty is enforcement really how you decide what should be legal and illegal?

non reality -hypothetical if I could simply stop abortions from wishiing it so, yet the desire of some to have abortions remained, would you support them being illegal?

[censored]

07-12-2005, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Police would have the same investigatory powers they have to prosecute other crimes. No more no less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah QoQ I really don't understand your confusion here. Please explain your opinion further.

zaxx19

07-12-2005, 01:01 AM

No, not at all. The crime would be the deletion of human life. The fact that "tracking" that life would be harder in the case of abortion than in the case of Nicole Simpson shouldnt matter.

E.G. The murder of small children might be harder to detect also....logically does that mean we cant legislate laws in order to protect small children?

lastchance

07-12-2005, 01:02 AM

Better question:
What are the punishments for an abortion? Is this a serious crime? Is this worth 5+ years in jail, as with any normal murderer?

Are the police going to spend a week trying to solve abortion cases?

[censored]

07-12-2005, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Better question:
What are the punishments for an abortion? Is this a serious crime? Is this worth 5+ years in jail, as with any normal murderer?

Are the police going to spend a week trying to solve abortion cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes now that is a hard question!

QuadsOverQuads

07-12-2005, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah QoQ I really don't understand your confusion here. Please explain your opinion further.

[/ QUOTE ]

My confusion is that you apparantly want abortion to be illegal, but you aren't willing to go into even the slightest detail about how you intend to enforce such laws.

Every time I ask for details, you either dodge the question or you try and change the subject.

I asked if you wanted the state to start monitoring pregnancies. You said no, people wouldn't accept that.

So I asked if you intended to prosecute women who seek abortions. You wouldn't answer. (But if abortion is truly murder, then both soliciting the act and delivering the victim to the killer would certainly constitute both conspiracy to commit murder and acting as an accessory to murder, wouldn't you agree?)

I also asked you to explain which "particular freedom" outweighed the "right to life" of the unborn (since you implied that this is why you wouldn't expand police powers to make such laws effective). But then you said that no such freedom outweighed the rights of the unborn, at least in your view.

So, yes, I'm confused -- because your rhetoric doesn't jibe with your proposed solution.

You want to make something illegal, but you admit that nobody would accept the police powers necessary to enforce such laws. You say you don't even want to expand those police powers because it would interfere with our personal freedoms, but then you turn around and say that no freedom supersedes the rights of the unborn.

So this really leaves us with just two possibilities : either you will be satisfied with purely symbolic laws, and will go no further; or you are being patently dishonest as to the police powers you will ultimately seek. Since you believe that abortion is a full-blown genocide of the unborn, I simply do not accept that you intend for its criminalization to be purely symbolic. That leaves us with option #2: you are consciously misleading people, leaving out the "hard-to-sell" parts of your agenda (for now) so that you can get your way on Roe before you move on to the next step in your agenda.

Show me where I'm wrong.

q/q

lastchance

07-12-2005, 01:05 AM

Then answer it. :P

[censored]

07-12-2005, 01:14 AM

QoQ I am not in neither a law making body or a law enforcement body. I don't know the details of how many laws are enforced does that mean I am forbidden from supporting those laws. I(we)have instead elected and hired peope to determine these specifics for me (us) abortion would no different.

Law making/enforcement bodies/agencies would determine the best means to do this and then we as a people would adjust our desires based on the outcome.

The government doesn't track sex, yet is still able to prosecute and punish some prostitution. Abortion would be no different.

lastchance

07-12-2005, 01:14 AM

Come on, this is pretty lame. Abortion would be enforced the same way we enforce racketeering, or copyright laws, if society wanted it that way, but if not, then society would enforce it through active investigation.

Pre Roe days didn't have a stringent police task force on abortion. They shut down most abortion clinics and went on their way.

If it was obvious there was an abortion clinic, it would be shut down. If it was really obvious a woman had an abortion, she would be arrested, though without a body, it would be insanely hard to prosecute on such cases, and no one would want to anyway.

So, basically, it all depends on how serious a crime abortion would be. You can enforce differing degrees of seriousness on a crime, and it depends on how serious a crime abortion would be, which is why my question is answered before yours.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then answer it. :P

[/ QUOTE ]
My own values? Yes they should be. If everyone agreed with me then abortion would become illegal after the first trimestor as I believe this compromise balances the protection of life while still leaving the woman plenty of time to maintain her freedom. The only execption would be in those cases where a reasonable medical determination could me made that proceding with the pregnancy puts the mother's life/health in undo harm. Things like mental health would not qualify but not being able to be pregnant again would. This would be done through a court ordered process. ie the mother would go before a judge seeking the court order allowing the termination of pregnancy.

after that point I would consider and want it treated no differently than the mother who kills her newborn 2 days after birth.

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 01:24 AM

Yes, you persecute the woman. I thought that was implied.

We have laws governing investigations. Subpenoes, miranda rights, you know the things that govern criminal investigations.

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 01:26 AM

If you really believe a fetus is a human being, you should use the same standards as murder/manslaughter.

lastchance

07-12-2005, 02:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you really believe a fetus is a human being, you should use the same standards as murder/manslaughter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now, that comes into a very difficult case. I personally, don't know whether or not a fetus is a human being. I personally don't think that the police should actively investigate something. I don't want my tax dollars invested in a case that would prove difficult to prosecute without a body, and especially without anyone to vouch for the victim here. I think it would be very hard to try to convict someone of murder for aborting their fetus, especially with a bunch of biased people on the jury.

That's just me.

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 02:06 AM

So you think that OJ and Jackson should never have been tried on the grounds it would be costly and likely fruitless.

lastchance

07-12-2005, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So you think that OJ and Jackson should never have been tried on the grounds it would be costly and likely fruitless.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at my first sentence in the previous post. And OJ should have been easily convicted by a competent prosecution and a more informed jury.

Right now, he would have been convicted easily. They had tons of evidence in that case, far more than what they would have in an abortion trial.

I think the lack of forensics would be a real issue for most cases.

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 02:30 AM

This is becomming quite funny.

Who is to determine when a case is "too diffucult" to be worth prosecuting? What grounds should we use?

If a homeless person is found dead by gunshot in a dumpster should we not bother investigating because it will be too diffucult to get a conviction.

And what gives you the right to determine what the jury should have found. Are we going to overturn jury decisions whenever you feel they are wrong.

QuadsOverQuads

07-12-2005, 02:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now, that comes into a very difficult case. I personally, don't know whether or not a fetus is a human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing at all difficult about this case.

If a fetus is not a human being, then abortion is not murder and there is no basis for criminalizing it in the first place.

q/q

lastchance

07-12-2005, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, that comes into a very difficult case. I personally, don't know whether or not a fetus is a human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing at all difficult about this case.

If a fetus is not a human being, then abortion is not murder and there is no basis for criminalizing it in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if you don't know whether or not a fetus is a human being? If a fetus is a human being, and if it not, it is pretty clearcut. But what if you honestly have no idea how the rights of a fetus should be weighed against the rights of a baby, or a mother?

And lehighguy, yeah, you investigate. But there's a body there. Makes a helluva lot of difference. What I'm saying here is that how do you decide whether or not this is worth prosecuting, considering that a fetus may not be worth what a baby is, and considering the difficulty of the prosecution?

QuadsOverQuads

07-12-2005, 03:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But what if you honestly have no idea how the rights of a fetus should be weighed against the rights of a baby, or a mother?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've already made that judgment, the moment you decided that abortion should be criminalized.

q/q

lastchance

07-12-2005, 03:05 AM

[censored]

07-12-2005, 03:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if you honestly have no idea how the rights of a fetus should be weighed against the rights of a baby, or a mother?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've already made that judgment, the moment you decided that abortion should be criminalized.

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see how anyone can disagree with what QoQ is saying here. Clearly if you don't believe a fetus to be a human than it can't have the protection afforded a human.

if you can't determine that a fetus is a form life worth protecting with law than you shouldn't be taking the position that abortion should be illegal.

this is quite clear IMO.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if you honestly have no idea how the rights of a fetus should be weighed against the rights of a baby, or a mother?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've already made that judgment, the moment you decided that abortion should be criminalized.

[/ QUOTE ]
Probability and hedging your bets should be known to every single 2+2er out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your being very casual with people's freedom. Your hedging and not being able to make a decision would still result in people being prosecuted. thus you have effectively decided that a fetus is a life worth punishing people for harming.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 03:23 AM

the other option is of course to just sit on the sidelines and let others make those decisions for you.

lastchance

07-12-2005, 04:22 AM

Now, this is why I hate moral issues. There's no way to judge truth, and you have to pick a side here.

What I'm saying in my mind is that a human fetus is worth protecting, but it's worth less than a born human. What if you're in that category? Of course, I can't back this up with any evidence at all, but neither can anyone else.

I think what makes this issue hard is that you have to define what makes a human life worth protecting. I can't do this.

[censored]

07-12-2005, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now, this is why I hate moral issues. There's no way to judge truth, and you have to pick a side here.

What I'm saying in my mind is that a human fetus is worth protecting, but it's worth less than a born human.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only need to determine why you believe this to be true? what are you basing this on? Are you using an overriding principle that can be applied to other issues? And then finally what are the consequences and extentions of this belief.

I don't have any problem with your belief per se, I am just curious as to how you arrived at it. I would expect that you would be as well.

fimbulwinter

07-12-2005, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

How do you propose to enforce such laws?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Treat it exactly like what it is: the wholesale murder of a human being you don't like.

fim

lastchance

07-12-2005, 04:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, this is why I hate moral issues. There's no way to judge truth, and you have to pick a side here.

What I'm saying in my mind is that a human fetus is worth protecting, but it's worth less than a born human.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only need to determine why you believe this to be true? what are you basing this on? Are you using an overriding principle that can be applied to other issues? And then finally what are the consequences and extentions of this belief.

I don't have any problem with your belief per se, I am just curious as to how you arrived at it. I would expect that you would be as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I am. How did you arrive at your conclusion? I think about brainwave patterns, development, the fact that a fetus is a human life...

I suppose part of the reason we protect beating pregnant woman more is that the fetus is valued. Sometimes it isn't.

I don't know, I'm just rambling. I can't back up my views, but I am saying there is that person who will criminalize abortion but not put it as the going rate for manslaughter/murder.

I guess I think of becoming a human as a slope, and not a series of jumps.

There's the single-celled organism which you can't tell apart from a bacteria. There's an embryo that for all intents and purposes could be a bird embryo except for the DNA inside it. There's the fetus that can begin to feel and touch. And there's the newborn baby, complete with eyes, brain, nose, and a mouth that yells so loudly... Personally, I don't think killing a 2 year old should be a crime. (jopking)

Meh, I don't know. I have a lot of trouble with moral issues.

fimbulwinter

07-12-2005, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How are any laws enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

(So, I take it that you reeeeeeally don't want to directly answer my question?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why would abortion be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "crime" in this case is the termination of a pregnancy. For the state to determine whether such a crime is being committed, it must, presumably, begin to monitor women's pregnancies (so that it can determine which ones have been illegally terminated). Do you dispute this?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

you're an idiot. we prosecute all crimes based on evidence of their commission, not based on monitoring possible victims. we don't have everyone sign in every day to ensure they aren't murdered, yet somehow homicide dets get the job done.

I have never once heard anything intelligible or logical out of you quads. you are the ideal liberal.

fim

[censored]

07-12-2005, 05:07 AM

under [censored]-ology you are not required to back up your beliefs nor are they required to be logical. feeling is enough.

since there is no scientific law stating that life must be protected or that all life must be protected equally any decisions will be based soley on beliefs. all beliefs are equal in that they are the creation of man. it matters not how you determined them. so free yourself from that burden.

now how did I reach my position on abortion? I looked at what I value and I looked at what others around me value. I value being reasonable and compassionate.

the issues of abortion (once you accept the scientific fact that life as we define it begins at conception) are A) should life be protected and B) what rights does a woman have over her body. I personally do not value both equally.

so I decided my position should somehow balance those two things in accordance with how I weight each one.

I do not believe there is a difference between a baby 5 minutes after it is born and 5 minutes before it is born. I believe killing either is the same act of murder and I would like to see it treated this way under the law.

once I came to this conclusion it was simply matter of deciding at what point in the pregnancy to draw the line up to conception.

Based on my own internal judgement of valuing A & B from above I feel most comfortable with having abortion be illegal somewhere around the first trimestor. thus a woman still has time to make a decision concerning her body but also protecting life at somepoint takes precedence.

as for how the laws on abortion are determined [censored]-ology requires that all laws represent the values of the majority of the people. if the people decide abortion in all forms to be legal, the ultimate crime would be to impose my defeated beliefs on the people through tatics like clinic-bombing or whatever. the most important thing is that the people decide how they are governed and that they support the laws.

lastchance

07-12-2005, 05:22 AM

Meh, I don't know. I believe in arguments, in certain arguments winning based upon principles both parties agree with.

If there was an argument either for or against abortion that led to a conclusion based on postulates both sides accepted as true, then that would be what I would vote for. There are obvious cases when a majority feels something, and they are going to be completely wrong. Just because people say the earth is flat doesn't mean it's not flat. Just because a majority of people believe in slavery doesn't mean it's right. And there's no way murder shouldn't be outlawed.

Personally, my beliefs on how a government tend to be altruistic, and outlawing practices that hurt the group as a whole (overuse of resources, bootlegging, stealing, etc.) and encouraging practices that help the group as a whole (charity, taxation, investment, etc.).

Note: This isn't going to be tyranny of the majority, as the number of people isn't all that's being considered. What I'm talking about is population size * what people get out of it (as defined numerically).

[censored]

07-12-2005, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If there was an argument either for or against abortion that led to a conclusion based on postulates both sides accepted as true, then that would be what I would vote for. There are obvious cases when a majority feels something, and they are going to be completely wrong. Just because people say the earth is flat doesn't mean it's not flat. Just because a majority of people believe in slavery doesn't mean it's right. And there's no way murder shouldn't be outlawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

the earth not being flat is scientific fact and not belief. man through law cannot change scientific fact, ie we cannot make a law which causes the earth to be flat. thus facts come before beliefs.

It is not enough to say the majority will be wrong as viewed in hindsight because clearly all forms of government will make these mistakes. If man cannot be perfect than how could he in whatever form govern prefectly. It is illogical to then hold any form of goverment to the standard of perfection.

there are no wrong and right. there is no scientific fact not allowing slavery so then clearly opposition to slaverly is nothing more then a belief. it has no more inherent strength or justness than say any other belief, including one supporting slavery.

You either hold the belief that it is just for people to govern themselves or you don't. However if you don't, if you believe that your judgement should replace that of the people's you should be prepared to accept the consequences. namely believing just as strongly that they can impose their will on you. since either way beliefs are going to be imposed doesn't it stand to reason that the beliefs being imposed reflect the values of the largest amount of people? even if mistakes are going to be made.

oreogod

07-12-2005, 05:36 AM

Im a fan of pro choice. Granted I dont know anyone that had an abortion or anything like that, but I believe in the womans right to choose.

Of course, if she's using it as a form of BC (meaning she has gotten more than a few abortions) -- that Im not cool with. Maybe they should hand out punch cards, after the 2nd or 3rd one in, you're done.

If such a law gets passed, welcome to the new abortion clinics (or of the past):

http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers/1.jpg

lehighguy

07-12-2005, 12:19 PM

You've already made a judgement when you decide it shouldn't be criminalized.

Since no side can proof wether a fetus is live or not, the real question is what mechanism are we going to use to make public policy in thsi area.

elwoodblues

07-13-2005, 05:47 PM

Rarely is law enforcement used to prevent crimes. Your post suggests that you think otherwise.

If, by enforce you want to know how we would catch and prosecute...the same way that we do for virtually every other crime.

BCPVP

07-13-2005, 07:49 PM

I don't exactly know what people who wave "the bloody coat hanger" are trying to show. The lengths to which women will go to murder their unborn? You expect sympathy for this? I have ZERO sympathy for any women who hurts herself doing that. I actually have more sympathy for overdosers because they weren't purposefully trying to end someone else's life.

QuadsOverQuads

07-14-2005, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't exactly know what people who wave "the bloody coat hanger" are trying to show. The lengths to which women will go to murder their unborn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that a woman should be prosecuted as a murderer if she has an abortion?

q/q

[censored]

07-14-2005, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't exactly know what people who wave "the bloody coat hanger" are trying to show. The lengths to which women will go to murder their unborn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that a woman should be prosecuted as a murderer if she has an abortion?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Now no, when it is illegal yes of course she should.

Dead

07-14-2005, 10:41 PM

What are people like [censored] gonna do when abortofacients(abortion pills) become safe, inexpensive, and easy to use in the next 5 years. How's that gonna effect your plan to make it illegal? Outlaw the pills? How are you gonna make a woman prove that she was raped?

lastchance

07-14-2005, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What are people like [censored] gonna do when abortofacients(abortion pills) become safe, inexpensive, and easy to use in the next 5 years. How's that gonna effect your plan to make it illegal? Outlaw the pills? How are you gonna make a woman prove that she was raped?

[/ QUOTE ]
First, of course you're outlawing the pills if Abortion is illegalized. What else do you expect people to do?

And right now, Courts judge whether or not someone is raped all the time. It has to do with their demeanor afterward, analyzed by psychologists, and there are things called "rape kits."

It's not easy, but it's not impossible.

QuadsOverQuads

07-15-2005, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Courts judge whether or not someone is raped all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that abortion should still be legal in cases of rape or incest, or should it be prosecuted as murder regardless of such circumstances?

q/q

BCPVP

07-15-2005, 01:10 AM

I would argue that if we're going to outlaw abortions in some/all areas because we believe the mother does not have the right to kill her unborn, then yes, abortions for rape and incest shouldn't be allowed. That unborn had no choice in its creation. Why should it suffer because of the act of another? I would argue that the only in the cases where the mother's life or health are in serious danger.

BCPVP

07-15-2005, 01:17 AM

Sorry, didn't see this addressed to me. Yes, and my only exception would be if the woman could prove that the pregnancy would cause her serious harm or death. This would be akin to self-defense. Otherewise, yes, I would prosecute any woman who had or tried to have an abortion.

lastchance

07-15-2005, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Courts judge whether or not someone is raped all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that abortion should still be legal in cases of rape or incest, or should it be prosecuted as murder regardless of such circumstances?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]
Meh, I'm sure such factors come in at trial, especially during sentencing. I don't know, I don't think I would count it as murder, but you follow the law.

[censored]

07-15-2005, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Courts judge whether or not someone is raped all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that abortion should still be legal in cases of rape or incest, or should it be prosecuted as murder regardless of such circumstances?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sit well with me, but I could live with such an exception

QuadsOverQuads

07-15-2005, 02:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't sit well with me, but I could live with such an exception

[/ QUOTE ]

If abortion is truly the murder of an innocent person, then how can there rightfully be any such exception as this? Are you willing to accept a small number of murders in the name of political expediency? Or is there some more fundamental basis for excusing these particular murders, but not others?

q/q

[censored]

07-15-2005, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't sit well with me, but I could live with such an exception

[/ QUOTE ]

If abortion is truly the murder of an innocent person, then how can there rightfully be any such exception as this? Are you willing to accept a small number of murders in the name of political expediency? Or is there some more fundamental basis for excusing these particular murders, but not others?

q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Because unlike consentual sex the woman (victom of rape/incest) was not given a choice in taking steps to prevent pregnancy, ie deciding not to have sex.

Of note under my preferred law - where abortion would be illegal only after some time around the end of the first trimestor there would be no such exemption. A possible execption for a minor who was the victom of incest/molestation and was prevented from being able to make the choice during the initial stages of her pregnancy.

I think my position is rather reasonable and polls show it is shared by the majority of Americans.

BCPVP

07-15-2005, 02:18 AM

What difference does it make to the baby how it was born? Whether out of love or rape, the baby has no choice in the circumstances under which it was conceived. Why is the life of a baby conceived out of a rape/incest worth less than the life of a baby conceived by a happily married couple?

[censored]

07-15-2005, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make to the baby how it was born? Whether out of love or rape, the baby has no choice in the circumstances under which it was conceived. Why is the life of a baby conceived out of a rape/incest worth less than the life of a baby conceived by a happily married couple?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference of free will. A man through rape should not be able to force a child upon a woman. However when the woman consents to sex willingly she should bear the risks involved, namely procreation.

I never claimed to value the life of the unborn the same as the life of the born. What I said is that I value the life enough that it deserves some protection under the law.

BCPVP

07-15-2005, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The difference of free will. A man through rape should not be able to force a child upon a woman. However when the woman consents to sex willingly she should bear the risks involved, namely procreation.

[/ QUOTE ]
This still doesn't answer the question. Sure the woman didn't choose to be raped, but the child didn't choose to be conceived under those circumstances. The woman may be inconvenienced by a pregnancy but the child is being sentenced to death. The baby can always be given up for adoption if it causes pain to the mother, but once it's dead it's dead for good.

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed to value the life of the unborn the same as the life of the born. What I said is that I value the life enough that it deserves some protection under the law.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've just made a distinction between an unborn child who was conceived out of love and one conceived out of violence. So random chance is what determines the worth of an unborn child?

[censored]

07-15-2005, 03:12 AM

I did anwswer the question.

Innocent lives are lost many times as the result of decisions. should I not support any war because innocent people will die because they were randomly born in said country? I think not.

should America drastically reduce its standard of living because people who were randomly born in other countries are starving to death?

we make value judgements like these all the time. the loss of innocent life is not always the only consideration.

BCPVP

07-15-2005, 03:40 AM

This innocent life stuff is a non sequitor. We're talking about the worth of unborn human life. You seem to be arguing on the one hand that an unborn human who was conceived out of love is worth enough to society to require that the ending of this life will be treated just like any other but on the other hand, an unborn human that was conceived out of a violent act are not worthy of laws that protect against their death. Wouldn't this violate the unborn's right to equal protection under the law? Shouldn't the unborn, even those born out of violence, have just as much a right to live?

[censored]

07-15-2005, 03:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This innocent life stuff is a non sequitor. We're talking about the worth of unborn human life. You seem to be arguing on the one hand that an unborn human who was conceived out of love is worth enough to society to require that the ending of this life will be treated just like any other but on the other hand, an unborn human that was conceived out of a violent act are not worthy of laws that protect against their death. Wouldn't this violate the unborn's right to equal protection under the law? Shouldn't the unborn, even those born out of violence, have just as much a right to live?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the woman should be forced to assume the buren of pregnancy and post pregnancy when she did not willingly assume the risks of sex. Yes I am placing this ahead of the unborn having equal protection under the law.

BCPVP

07-15-2005, 03:59 AM

I find it difficult to understand how someone as smart as you is willing to place the inconvenience of a small percentage of women ahead of an unborn's constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Where does it say in the Constition that we have a right not to be inconvenienced? I'm pretty sure there's a small piece detailing how we all are equal under the eyes of the law. I'm curious to hear you explain your position further, because I'm deeply confused as to how one can agree that only some of the unborn deserve the protection of our laws.

[censored]

07-15-2005, 04:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it difficult to understand how someone as smart as you is willing to place the inconvenience of a small percentage of women ahead of an unborn's constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Where does it say in the Constition that we have a right not to be inconvenienced? I'm pretty sure there's a small piece detailing how we all are equal under the eyes of the law. I'm curious to hear you explain your position further, because I'm deeply confused as to how one can agree that only some of the unborn deserve the protection of our laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how someone read the constitution and determined abortion was legal but they did.

Also remember that if my ideal law was supported by the majority and put into place there would be no such exception. All abortions except in cases where reasonable and serious physical danger existed would be illegal after sometime towards the end of the first trimester. So its not that I look at the unborn resulting from rape as worth less.

However in the absence of that I believe the next best solution is the one I explained. Above all else I believe a law on abortion should be based on the beliefs of the people and the people for the most see an abortion in cases of rape much differently than not.

Interestingly enough it is your position which in my opinion devalues human life more so than mine . for if having a life created inside you, having it developement from your body and then bringing into the world should only be seen as an inconvienence than how truly objectionable can deciding to end that process midstream be. You speak of this inconvenience as if it is something that can be forgotten and not one that would affect the mother for the remainder of her life. Atleast I believe giving birth is that significant an experience.

I view the decision to create life as this world's most important and I think it should not be hoisted upon someone against their will. The point at which this choice is made is at intercourse. In the absence of that form of free agency I would then allow the woman to consult her own internal set of values to make the decision.

It has so far already been determined that the constitution that the life of the unborn is not of equal value to the born. Any further distinctions we make are strictly morale, not legal,and I am quite comfortable with mine.

[censored]

07-15-2005, 06:40 AM

I should add, it is not like this is a black and white issue for me and it is something I struggled with for awhile. ultimately though I am satisfied with my current position.

QuadsOverQuads

07-15-2005, 10:48 PM

BCPVP

07-16-2005, 02:06 AM

Thanks for explaining your position. I'll just comment on a few things.
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly enough it is your position which in my opinion devalues human life more so than mine . for if having a life created inside you, having it developement from your body and then bringing into the world should only be seen as an inconvienence than how truly objectionable can deciding to end that process midstream be. You speak of this inconvenience as if it is something that can be forgotten and not one that would affect the mother for the remainder of her life. Atleast I believe giving birth is that significant an experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a misinterpretation of my position. I do believe that pregnancy is a big deal. But I think the conception of a nother being is a bigger deal, and so I value the life of that unborn more than I value the woman's burden of pregnancy.

[ QUOTE ]
I view the decision to create life as this world's most important and I think it should not be hoisted upon someone against their will. The point at which this choice is made is at intercourse. In the absence of that form of free agency I would then allow the woman to consult her own internal set of values to make the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like we're at an impasse. I just don't believe that the unborn should suffer the ultimate punishment for something that it had no control over. It perpetuates the cycle of violence. Man rapes woman. Woman kills baby. I acknowledge that the decision to bear children is a huge decision, but I just don't think that choice supercedes the right of that unborn to be given a chance at life.

[ QUOTE ]
It has so far already been determined that the constitution that the life of the unborn is not of equal value to the born. Any further distinctions we make are strictly morale, not legal,and I am quite comfortable with mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but we're talking about a hypothetical here, in which abortion is illegal in all but a few certain circumstances. We just happen to disagree as to what the circumstances for allowing abortion are. If we begin to assert that the unborn do have some right to life, than to begin deciding which unborn have this right based on the nature of their conception seems to violate the 14th amendment, imo.

And isn't the placement of some sort of threshold at which an unborn is considered worth enough to society that it warrants protection a moral one? What grounding in the legal system does such an arbitrary number like the third trimester have?

BCPVP

07-16-2005, 02:12 AM

Yes, I am talking about this. If we say that abortion should be illegal, but legal when the baby was conceived via rape, then we're violating the baby's guarantee of equal protection under the law. It is very clearly not protected by the law outlawing abortion (in this hypothetical world, remember), while other babies are. That's discrimination and it's discrimination against a group that had no decision in it's method conception. So you can try to demogogue my position, but it just sounds petty.