Abortion laws, is there a real argument?

mackthefork · #1 07-11-2005, 06:06 AM

The way I see it, the wealthier elements of society will be able to travel overseas to get it done, and the less well off will go to backstreet chop shops. I really can't see an argument in favour of these laws, other than a desire to impose your values on others by legislation.

Opinions pro and against appreciated.

Mack

Broken Glass Can · #2 07-11-2005, 07:03 AM

Murder laws, is there a real argument?

The way I see it, the wealthier elements of society will be able to hire professionals to get it done, and the less well off will go to unreliable thugs. The rich can get away with it easier by their ability to do better research and they have the money to conduct the murder act without fingering themselves. And if they get caught, their money can get them off (like OJ). I really can't see an argument in favour of these laws, other than a desire to impose your values on others by legislation.

PartySNGer · #3 07-11-2005, 07:09 AM

Why have drug laws? Why outlaw cocaince and crack? Wealthier people can import it from Colombia, the less wealthy will find it in the back allies.

mackthefork · #4 07-11-2005, 07:45 AM

Come on you two, you must be able to do better than this, I am not a supporter either, I just believe in the freedom of choice for the individual, what right is it of mine to make a decision for someone else, or to impose my views on them.

Mack

Broken Glass Can · #5 07-11-2005, 08:37 AM

The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

One could throw the word "choice" around in relation to assault. "It should be my choice to hit him in the mouth."

mackthefork · #6 07-11-2005, 08:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

One could throw the word "choice" around in relation to assault. "It should be my choice to hit him in the mouth."

[/ QUOTE ]

The subjects you mention are different from each other and the one at hand. When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being, I think you are suggesting conception which I would disagree with, but I think the current UK limit of 24 weeks is far too late. This seems to be an emotive subject, and everyone I know has a strong opinion one way or the other, I don't personally see it as black and white.

Mack

#7 07-11-2005, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

lehighguy · #8 07-11-2005, 12:50 PM

"When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being?"

Good question. Who should decide this? The two options currently are courts and the electorate. Currently, courts decide. Others believe the electorate should decide. That is really what is being argued over.

lehighguy · #9 07-11-2005, 12:51 PM

What is life?

jcx · #10 07-11-2005, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question you asked can be asked about lots of laws (Drunk Driving, Seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets, self mutilation, etc.). In abortion there actually is a third party directly affected - the baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many times the arguement comes down to definitions - it's a baby! No it's a fetus! No it's unfeeling protoplasm! I submit that is all irrelevant. Whether a newly fertilized embryo or a full term fetus, it is alive, and that life is worth defending.

Environmental/animal rights activists will go to war to defend the life of a tree, which cannot feel or think. They will commit acts of vandalism and violence to rescue labratory animals, some of which are considered vermin by the population at large (Please note this - I am not speaking of only endangered species). Their position is they are defending those who have no voice, who cannot defend themselves. Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights. I'd like to see these individuals explain themselves and how they logically came to the conclusion a helpless potential human being deserves no defense while a chicken does.

As for the OP's point, I cannot argue that it has some validity. However, Roe v. Wade being overturned would simply return the decision on abortion to the states themselves, not declare it illegal. The fact that each state would have its own laws on abortion is the part of the attractiveness of the American system. It is not unique to abortion. Gambling is legal in many states but still almost completely forbidden in Utah, Hawaii and Tennessee. While this may seem illogical as their citizens can easily travel to a state that allows gambling, the citizens of these states have said they do not want casinos and the sometimes seedy elements that come along with them. People are free to move to a state whos laws and customs suit them. If the citizens of Alabama do not wish to sanction an act they consider murder within their borders, they should not have to. Even people of little means can afford a bus ticket to an abortion friendly state.