Some questions to those who want abortion to be illegal
-
In my experience, people in the US generally seem to espouse one irrational view on this, or the opposite. Or, at least, those are the views being held for public 'debate'. The point of making something illegal is not to punish the woman, but to punish the person providing the abortion, and to cut off supply. Just like a drug dealer is guilty of a greater crime than a drug user, for example. Now, IMO all this does is kill women who have illegal abortions, but, that is the point, and this is why your question makes no sense.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like a drug dealer is guilty of a greater crime than a drug user, for example.
It is at least arguable that doing/selling drugs are victimless crimes. Comparing them to performing/having an abortion presupposes that the foetus cannot be a victim. Is that why you think the question makes no sense?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Ultimately, I'd say whoever is most cost effective and less risky to fix (which probably means males).
But fixing all females but one means only one illegal baby factory is ready to go to work. Fixing all males but one means that all illegal baby factories are ready.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Ooo... Good point. Chicks it is.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I would argue that once we have a zygote instantiated in the womb or petri dish then we have an object called a human.
I think you are right. A lot of the properties are set to 0 or null, but that's not the same thing as them not being there. So another way of phrasing the question would be, what - if any - properties have to be set to a value higher than 0 before the object should not set to null by the parent object? Implicitly, if the answer is anything but "none," the above formulation is saying that it is okay to murder a human. Which is pretty much what Stan said, he just wanted it put to a vote. (The problem with having the right to exist put to a vote is that, next time, it could be Jews, or Poles, or Web Designers that are facing the possibility of extinction.) It is, of course, true that the government already has the power to say that it's okay to kill someone - and uses it all the time. It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Of course not. Facing that truth would destroy their world view. And how many people are willing to face that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
The US abortion rate is falling. It's still 2% of women of an age that would be reasonable for both giving birth or adoption. Assuming that there would be no couples who would be blocked from adopting for financial or other reasons, in other words, assuming a free for all where anyone who wants a baby can pick one up without any sort of requirements, that would mean you need for 2% of couples to have fertility issues ( this is probably true ) AND to be happy to raise someone else's child. In practice, if this worked at all, it would be mostly gay couples adopting, I would expect, because the majority of people who have the right parts, want to raise their own child more so than someone elses. That's not 2% of women need to adopt, it's 2% PER year. So, to keep the figure at 2%, you need for each woman to adopt a child, annually. If you assume that the number of women entering this age bracket to recycle every 10 years, that would require 20% of women to adopt a child, or 10% of women to adopt 2 children. You really think that will happen ? On top of the adoption that is already occuring from other sources ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US abortion rate is falling.
But the present rate is based on abortion being readily available, inexpensive, and pretty much unstimatized. We have no way of knowing how many people would begin to practice birth control if they couldn't count on planned parenthood to take care of any little "problems" associated with take showers without raincoats. Regardless of what has been said about no-one wants an abortion, it is my understanding that a number of women have learned to regard it as simply another form of birth control. One that Uncle Sam will pay for if your poor.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US abortion rate is falling.
But the present rate is based on abortion being readily available, inexpensive, and pretty much unstimatized. We have no way of knowing how many people would begin to practice birth control if they couldn't count on planned parenthood to take care of any little "problems" associated with take showers without raincoats. Regardless of what has been said about no-one wants an abortion, it is my understanding that a number of women have learned to regard it as simply another form of birth control. One that Uncle Sam will pay for if your poor.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
it is my understanding that a number of women have learned to regard it as simply another form of birth contro
Yes, and this is the core issue. As I keep saying, every time this comes up, the core issue is one of education, and personal responsibility.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like a drug dealer is guilty of a greater crime than a drug user, for example.
It is at least arguable that doing/selling drugs are victimless crimes. Comparing them to performing/having an abortion presupposes that the foetus cannot be a victim. Is that why you think the question makes no sense?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Comparing them to performing/having an abortion presupposes that the foetus cannot be a victim.
Yes, no analogy is perfect. But, the OP was suggesting that the only reason to make abortion illegal, is to punish the mother. The point is to cut off supply. This holds true for drug use also, even though, as I said, the analogy is not perfect.
Oakman wrote:
Is that why you think the question makes no sense?
No, because the question was 'if you want to make it illegal, you need to work out how to punish the woman', and punishing women is not the goal of banning abortion. I don't think it should be banned, but only b/c it creates a larger social problem. I do think it should not be freely available as a form of birth control ( I see the contradiction here, but I guess I am more saying what you said above, that it should not be presented as a 'womans right' and a reasonable option for birth control ), and that education and availability of more acceptable forms of birth control should be where the government spends it's money.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Oakman wrote:
Comparing them to performing/having an abortion presupposes that the foetus cannot be a victim.
Yes, no analogy is perfect. But, the OP was suggesting that the only reason to make abortion illegal, is to punish the mother. The point is to cut off supply. This holds true for drug use also, even though, as I said, the analogy is not perfect.
Oakman wrote:
Is that why you think the question makes no sense?
No, because the question was 'if you want to make it illegal, you need to work out how to punish the woman', and punishing women is not the goal of banning abortion. I don't think it should be banned, but only b/c it creates a larger social problem. I do think it should not be freely available as a form of birth control ( I see the contradiction here, but I guess I am more saying what you said above, that it should not be presented as a 'womans right' and a reasonable option for birth control ), and that education and availability of more acceptable forms of birth control should be where the government spends it's money.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
I see. I misunderstood which question you were referring to. Thanks for bearing with me.
Christian Graus wrote:
and that education and availability of more acceptable forms of birth control should be where the government spends it's money.
Absolutely. Especially since unprotected sex is a death-defying act. And death does not like being defied.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
the point is to stop killing babies
The embryo becomes a foetus 8 weeks after fertilisation. In the embryonic stage it hasn't become a person yet, so an abortion at that stage can't really be counted as killing babies. If you count "potential to become a person", then you will have to extend the same courtesy to spermatozoa as well. If you carry these laws to extremes you will have to outlaw acts which deny spermatozoa a fighting chance to reach an ovum i.e. wanking and those which cause them to end up in the digestive tract. I am particularly saddened by the latter, so I wrote a short poem to honour all spermatozoa who perished in the battlefield :
he starts, he moves, he seems to feel
the thrill of life along his keel,
then the digestive juices begin to bite,
like the lonely samurai, on his last fight,
swinging his sword, death poem filling his heart,
he flagellates and flagellates,
then tiring; he slows, and feels
the slow march, of death and defeat.modified on Friday, February 6, 2009 4:10 PM
Sahir Shah wrote:
If you count "potential to become a person", then you will have to extend the same courtesy to spermatozoa as well.
A sperm does not have the potential to become a person, it merely has a certain probability of initiating the process of concieving one. That is completely different. The fertilized egg is a done deal, it isn't a potential, it is the first step of a continuum which each and every one of us is currently on.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only problem is when the power to define human life is invested in some kind of oligarchy - the US Supreme court, for example
So, a bunch of uninformed people can hold a vote and thus define life, but the court cannot ? I see the difference, in terms of what your bugbear is, but in terms of an acceptable means of defining law, of defining *life*, how is this acceptable ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The definition of human life is an intrinsically moral, religious issue, and should reflect the traditions and beliefs of the people in that regard and not be imposed by some kind of bureaucratic authority.
Any definition of when life starts (which itself is only necessary because we choose not to educate people on birth control and then let them use the worst possible method instead), should surely be based on science and not popular opinion.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
If that logic is valid, than why do we even perpetuate the farce of democracy at all? We should simply allow the courts and the research institutes and universities to govern our society for us on all issues.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
If that logic is valid, than why do we even perpetuate the farce of democracy at all? We should simply allow the courts and the research institutes and universities to govern our society for us on all issues.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Because if a fetus is a human life, is not something that can be decided by emotion or convenience. What you suggest is the tyranny of the majority. That's fine if we're deciding things like, should we have socialised medicine, or should the government spend more money on public transport or on highways. But, if you're talking about taking a life, then surely the question of if you have killed a human or not should not be decided in ignorance ? Would you prefer people take a vote to decide if prayer is a better option than open heart surgery ( and thus to deny you access to the latter ) ? Or is it acceptable for there to still be experts in some fields of human endeavour ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
If that logic is valid, than why do we even perpetuate the farce of democracy at all? We should simply allow the courts and the research institutes and universities to govern our society for us on all issues.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should simply allow the courts and the research institutes and universities to govern our society for us on all issues.
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I would argue that once we have a zygote instantiated in the womb or petri dish then we have an object called a human.
I think you are right. A lot of the properties are set to 0 or null, but that's not the same thing as them not being there. So another way of phrasing the question would be, what - if any - properties have to be set to a value higher than 0 before the object should not set to null by the parent object? Implicitly, if the answer is anything but "none," the above formulation is saying that it is okay to murder a human. Which is pretty much what Stan said, he just wanted it put to a vote. (The problem with having the right to exist put to a vote is that, next time, it could be Jews, or Poles, or Web Designers that are facing the possibility of extinction.) It is, of course, true that the government already has the power to say that it's okay to kill someone - and uses it all the time. It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Because the intent behind abortion is not to kill; it is just a sad consequence of the real intent -- to remove an unwanted pregancy from the woman's body.
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
-
Oakman wrote:
It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Of course not. Facing that truth would destroy their world view. And how many people are willing to face that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Of course not. Facing that truth would destroy their world view.
What truth, that pro-choicers like killing fetuses?
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
-
In most countries of the southern hemisphere abortion is legally restricted; in most countries of the northern hemisphere it is allowed*. In countries like Nicaragua and Chile any abortion is illegal. In countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico it is legal just in cases of rape or when pregnancy poses a danger for the carrying woman. However, this has brought a big problem to the courts: how do you punish a woman that made an illegal abortion? In almost every case what you have is someone without a criminal story that did something desperate because she had no other choice. Should you send someone in this situation to jail? What punishment should you give? If you don't punish her, then what is the point of making it illegal if there is no punishment? * AFAIK abortion is legal in Canada, US, most of Eastern Europe (except Poland and Spain) and most of former/present communist countries. It is restricted in middle east, most of Africa and most of Latin America (except Cuba). Southern Asia and Oceania are mixed cases.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
A good question is whether the mother of a child with foetal alcohol syndrome should be charged with assault or reckless endangerment.
-
Oakman wrote:
It's just that most abortion-rights people don't want to think of themselves as killing another human.
Something that I will never understand. The term killing is masked by socially acceptable jargon, choice.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Something that I will never understand. The term killing is masked by socially acceptable jargon, choice.
Let me help you understand. It's actually not that difficult. The purpose of abortion is to remove a fetus from a woman's body. If you remove a young fetus from a woman's body, it dies. See? I told you it wasn't hard. Once you understand that, you begin to see how the word "choice" fits into the picture. No one likes to see anyone die. But also, no one likes to be obligated to use their body as a means of life support for anyone/anything else. This has caused a dilemma. The pro-lifers think that the life of a fetus trumps the right that people have over their own bodies. The pro-choicers think that the sanctity of a person's body should be respected, even if it means denying life support to another living thing.
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
-
The question is why do people insist on making such a complex issue out of something so simple. You pick some arbitrary moment and you make a law that codifies that moment as the moment a human life begins. As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for. If the majority wants that to be the moment a genetically distinct entity of anykind occurs or if the majority wants it to be the first fart, than that becomes the law. The only problem is when the power to define human life is invested in some kind of oligarchy - the US Supreme court, for example. The definition of human life is an intrinsically moral, religious issue, and should reflect the traditions and beliefs of the people in that regard and not be imposed by some kind of bureaucratic authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for.
Should we vote on it every four years, like the President?
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as it is based upon democratic processes of some kind, that is the best you can hope for.
Should we vote on it every four years, like the President?
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken
Well, yes, actually. I have always felt that supreme court decisions should be reviewable on some scheduled basis by the people. If some court decision is really unpopular with the public, then, say 10 or 20 years after it was made, the congress can force the courts to reconsider the original case. The court could not be forced to actually change the decision, merely to reconsider it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should simply allow the courts and the research institutes and universities to govern our society for us on all issues.
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
And I think your argument is as much of a straman argument as you implied mine was. I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history. I do agree that the US is following a very predictable path towards a much more centralized, tyrannical kind of society. That is due primarily to the inevitable flaws that will exist in any complex system, but I also think it is remarkable that it has taken this long to achieve. That speaks well to the original design. But I think it is time for we, the people, to reconsider the entire framework. Primarily, I think the entire notion of 'judicial review' has turned out to be precisely what Jefferson warned it would become - judicial tyranny. I think it may well be time for the various sections of this country to go their own ways. I don't wish to force my views on the people of California and New England, but I am getting damned tired of them forcing theirs on me. I no longer even think of them as being my countrymen. They are an alien society which I would very much like to be liberated from. I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Because if a fetus is a human life, is not something that can be decided by emotion or convenience. What you suggest is the tyranny of the majority. That's fine if we're deciding things like, should we have socialised medicine, or should the government spend more money on public transport or on highways. But, if you're talking about taking a life, then surely the question of if you have killed a human or not should not be decided in ignorance ? Would you prefer people take a vote to decide if prayer is a better option than open heart surgery ( and thus to deny you access to the latter ) ? Or is it acceptable for there to still be experts in some fields of human endeavour ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because if a fetus is a human life, is not something that can be decided by emotion or convenience. What you suggest is the tyranny of the majority. That's fine if we're deciding things like, should we have socialised medicine, or should the government spend more money on public transport or on highways. But, if you're talking about taking a life, then surely the question of if you have killed a human or not should not be decided in ignorance ? Would you prefer people take a vote to decide if prayer is a better option than open heart surgery ( and thus to deny you access to the latter ) ? Or is it acceptable for there to still be experts in some fields of human endeavour ?
And what you suggest is tyranny by a minority. The notion that a scientific answer is even possible is incorrect. Is a fetus able to survive outside the womb in the first few weeks following conception. No. That is a scientific conclusion. On the other hand, science would also suggest that its odds of surviving are vastly improved by not removing it from the womb. Someone has to make a moral distinction between those two alternative conclusions. To defer to the courts on such an important issue to fundamentally flawed reasoning. It belongs to the people to decide as they best see fit.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I was trying to tell you yesterday, Stan, we already have an oligarchy. We really always have. Unfortunately (for us) 200 years ago the oligarchs were committed to providing as much freedom and self-determination as they could. But in ten generations they have become corrupt. They are far more interested in acruing power and wealth for themselves and their friends than in making decisions that benefit the country. One of Pournelle's laws says that in any organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work to make the organization itself more powerful, even if that diminishes the goals of the organization. In all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
And I think your argument is as much of a straman argument as you implied mine was. I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history. I do agree that the US is following a very predictable path towards a much more centralized, tyrannical kind of society. That is due primarily to the inevitable flaws that will exist in any complex system, but I also think it is remarkable that it has taken this long to achieve. That speaks well to the original design. But I think it is time for we, the people, to reconsider the entire framework. Primarily, I think the entire notion of 'judicial review' has turned out to be precisely what Jefferson warned it would become - judicial tyranny. I think it may well be time for the various sections of this country to go their own ways. I don't wish to force my views on the people of California and New England, but I am getting damned tired of them forcing theirs on me. I no longer even think of them as being my countrymen. They are an alien society which I would very much like to be liberated from. I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I do not accept that the US was ever an oligarchy until very recently in its history.
Yesterday you proved, more than once, that you didn't understand what the word, oligarchy, meant. So it it somewhat difficult to think that your acceptance or lack of it is meaningful. Your entire second paragraph shows that you do agree that we are now ruled by one, you simply quibble as to when it started. Since you have shown a great propensity for denying that you are wrong, even with the truth slaps you alongside the head, I shan't argue the point any longer. Wallow in your own ignorance if it makes you happy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hold out some very small smidgen of hope that the current financial crisis might ultimately achieve that happy result.
Yes. I am sure you are drawing on the example of 1933 to buoy your belief that financial crises tend to shrink the size of government. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.