Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Christopher68]

What’s the basis for that argument? Failed miserably where? I am unaware of an instance where an activity was legalized because it could not be enforced.

And therefore popularity should be the measure of a crime? Prostitution? Drug Abuse? Parking violations? Speeding? Should we put the criminal statutes up to a popular vote? If an activity were not popular among a segment of the population, there would be no need to criminalize it.

In answer to your first paragraph: Prohibition.

And how’s the government’s war on drugs working out these days???

As mentioned, there is a vast difference in activities that are near universally accepted as wrong (rape, theft, murder, etc) and those activities that are not universally accepted as wrong (drug use, abortion, etc). Obviously you are disappointed in this reality. I understand your disappointment. But that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

 

[Biggie]

In answer to your first paragraph: Prohibition.

And how’s the government’s war on drugs working out these days???

As mentioned, there is a vast difference in activities that are near universally accepted as wrong (rape, theft, murder, etc) and those activities that are not universally accepted as wrong (drug use, abortion, etc). Obviously you are disappointed in this reality. I understand your disappointment. But that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

Was Prohibition repealed because it could not be enforced? No. As far as I know, no law has been repealed making an illicit drug legal because it was unenforceable. Do you know of one? And when was the last criminal statute placed on the ballot for a vote? Never. So your point is no point at all.

Again, what is the “vast difference” to which you refer between your assessment of crimes that are popular and crimes that are unpopular?

 

[Christopher68]

Was Prohibition repealed because it could not be enforced? No. As far as I know, no law has been repealed making an illicit drug legal because it was unenforceable. Do you know of one? And when was the last criminal statute placed on the ballot for a vote? Never. So your point is no point at all.

Again, what is the “vast difference” to which you refer between your assessment of crimes that are popular and crimes that are unpopular?

Prohibition was repealed because it was (1) highly unpopular, (2) extremely difficult - if not impossible - to enforce, and (3) it created unintended negative consequences - i.e. violence that is similar to today’s drug violence.

And the ‘vast difference’ that I refer to is a reference to people’s perceptions about what is actually a crime and what isn’t. Surely you agree that rape, theft, and murder are crimes. And while you believe that abortion and drug use is a crime as well, there are many who disagree with you. And those people will engage in those activities regardless of whether they are legal or not - because they do not believe they are doing anything wrong. By contrast, almost everyone who commits theft or murder ‘knows’ they are doing wrong. That is the difference.

 

[Biggie]

Prohibition was repealed because it was (1) highly unpopular, (2) extremely difficult - if not impossible - to enforce, and (3) it created unintended negative consequences - i.e. violence that is similar to today’s drug violence.

And the ‘vast difference’ that I refer to is a reference to people’s perceptions about what is actually a crime and what isn’t. Surely you agree that rape, theft, and murder are crimes. And while you believe that abortion and drug use is a crime as well, there are many who disagree with you. And those people will engage in those activities regardless of whether they are legal or not - because they do not believe they are doing anything wrong. By contrast, almost everyone who commits theft or murder ‘knows’ they are doing wrong. That is the difference.

Prohibition was repealed because it was unpopular, not because it was unenforceable. No drug has been legalized because it’s prohibition was unenforceable.

Why would you return to me that surely I would agree that rape, theft and murder are crimes? Your precise point is that crime should be a function of public opinion. Why would you assume I surely agree? Your, question makes my point with the word surely, that crime is properly a function of Natural or Common Law, the universal sense all people have that certain behaviors are wrong, and because people are prone to them must be proscribed. The legalization of abortion, historically illegal (and not made legal because it was unenforceable), is a corruption of the Natural or Common Law, the sense all have that innocent life should be protected.

You say “many” (how many? your guess?) disagree with me that abortion should be illegal (as it always was), and yet which of them disagree with me that an innocent person should not be punished? None. How many disagree that the helpless should be protected? None. How many say that infants should be suffocated, dismembered or poisoned? None. And who would say that because it is difficult to do, we should quit trying to prevent the innocent from being punished, to protect the helpless or to prevent the murder of infants? None.

So those are fairly popular, I dare say universal concepts that have been rationalized in the abortion debate. The disagreement is over the context of those universally accepted beliefs, not over the enforceability of abortion laws.

 

[Christopher68]

Prohibition was repealed because it was unpopular, not because it was unenforceable. No drug has been legalized because it’s prohibition was unenforceable.

Why would you return to me that surely I would agree that rape, theft and murder are crimes? Your precise point is that crime should be a function of public opinion. Why would you assume I surely agree? Your, question makes my point with the word surely, that crime is properly a function of Natural or Common Law, the universal sense all people have that certain behaviors are wrong, and because people are prone to them must be proscribed. The legalization of abortion, historically illegal (and not made legal because it was unenforceable), is a corruption of the Natural or Common Law, the sense all have that innocent life should be protected.

You say “many” (how many? your guess?) disagree with me that abortion should be illegal (as it always was), and yet which of them disagree with me that an innocent person should not be punished? None. How many disagree that the helpless should be protected? None. How many say that infants should be suffocated, dismembered or poisoned? None. And who would say that because it is difficult to do, we should quit trying to prevent the innocent from being punished, to protect the helpless or to prevent the murder of infants? None.

So those are fairly popular, I dare say universal concepts that have been rationalized in the abortion debate. The disagreement is over the context of those universally accepted beliefs, not over the enforceability of abortion laws.

The following article contains the following words regarding enforcement of Prohibition:

"Enforcing the law became almost impossible."

digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

So I’ll stand by all of my prior comments regarding Prohibition.

The remainder of your post validates the comments I made earlier. While you may wish that everyone saw the issue as clearly as you do, the reality is that those on the other side of the debate wish you saw the issue as clearly as they did. But just wishing something doesn’t make it so.

 

[Biggie]

The following article contains the following words regarding enforcement of Prohibition:

"Enforcing the law became almost impossible."

digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

So I’ll stand by all of my prior comments regarding Prohibition.

The remainder of your post validates the comments I made earlier. While you may wish that everyone saw the issue as clearly as you do, the reality is that those on the other side of the debate wish you saw the issue as clearly as they did. But just wishing something doesn’t make it so.

The remainder of my post went unanswered by your post.

 

[Christopher68]

The remainder of my post went unanswered by your post.

I read your previous post several times to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. There really isn’t much more that I can say that I haven’t said already. You view the issue one way - those on the other side of the dabate see it completely differently. I’m not advocating for their position - I’m just stating the obvoius, in that their position is different than yours. What more do you want me to say?

 

[catharina]

.

Wiil you please give the source of the quote from Bishop Sheen - as you use it?

“…Judas Iscariot, the Patron Saint of Social Justice, where people are concerned
with humanity but ignore the truths of God…—Bishop Fulton Shee”

I’ve seen a similar quote - but with the following usage:

“…Judas Iscariot, the Patron Saint of “social justice,” where people are concerned
with humanity but ignore the truths of God…—Bishop Fulton Sheen”

This second usage, punctuation and capitalization give a different meaning.

You don’t mean to state that Bishop Sheen derided the Catholic virtue
of Social Justice, do you? He would NEVER have done that.
What is your source for your chosen usage?

Thank you.

 

[Biggie]

I read your previous post several times to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. There really isn’t much more that I can say that I haven’t said already. You view the issue one way - those on the other side of the dabate see it completely differently. I’m not advocating for their position - I’m just stating the obvoius, in that their position is different than yours. What more do you want me to say?

I am questioning your notion that a law forbidding abortion is or would be substantially different than a law that forbids murder or rape because, in your opinion, there is no consensus that abortion is wrong. You further feel that the government has “failed miserably when they try to enforce laws” about which there is no consensus. I believe that statement is largely without basis, unqualified as it is. I asked for an instance. You cited Prohibition and, for the sake of peace in the family, let’s say you are right, the fact that the sale of alcoholic beverages is still illegal in many jurisdictions in this country notwithstanding.

I would also argue, as I have tried to, that consensus is or should be largely irrelevant as to criminality. If, for example, a majority of people decided that laws prohibiting shoplifting should be repealed, should they? Most people have stolen something in their lives, and many provide persuasive reasons for doing so. Criminal laws in many respects protect people from themselves. As I remarked earlier, an unpopular behavior would not need regulation. But let’s really keep peace in the family and forgetting all that, have it your way. Let’s also forget the fact that until about forty years ago and for all time prior abortion was illegal, and its illegality adequately enforced. There, you have won all that.

You have still assumed there is no consensus on whether or not abortion is wrong. But you know that abortion on the national scale was made legal by judicial fiat and never voted upon by the legislature. Based on polls, apparently consensus would build if we were asking whether or not abortion for sex selection is wrong, abortion for convenience, late term abortion, partial birth abortion, abortion without parental consent, etc… Polls would also indicate consensus would swing wildly depending on the part of the country being questioned.

And in the end, I see nothing in your argument that would persuade it is either imprudent or impractical to seek a reinstatement of the laws that have historically prohibited abortion.

 

[Christopher68]

I am questioning your notion that a law forbidding abortion is or would be substantially different than a law that forbids murder or rape because, in your opinion, there is no consensus that abortion is wrong. You further feel that the government has “failed miserably when they try to enforce laws” about which there is no consensus. I believe that statement is largely without basis, unqualified as it is. I asked for an instance. You cited Prohibition and, for the sake of peace in the family, let’s say you are right, the fact that the sale of alcoholic beverages is still illegal in many jurisdictions in this country notwithstanding.

I would also argue, as I have tried to, that consensus is or should be largely irrelevant as to criminality. If, for example, a majority of people decided that laws prohibiting shoplifting should be repealed, should they? Most people have stolen something in their lives, and many provide persuasive reasons for doing so. Criminal laws in many respects protect people from themselves. As I remarked earlier, an unpopular behavior would not need regulation. But let’s really keep peace in the family and forgetting all that, have it your way. Let’s also forget the fact that until about forty years ago and for all time prior abortion was illegal, and its illegality adequately enforced. There, you have won all that.

You have still assumed there is no consensus on whether or not abortion is wrong. But you know that abortion on the national scale was made legal by judicial fiat and never voted upon by the legislature. Based on polls, apparently consensus would build if we were asking whether or not abortion for sex selection is wrong, abortion for convenience, late term abortion, partial birth abortion, abortion without parental consent, etc… Polls would also indicate consensus would swing wildly depending on the part of the country being questioned.

And in the end, I see nothing in your argument that would persuade it is either imprudent or impractical to seek a reinstatement of the laws that have historically prohibited abortion.

Obviously we aren’t approaching this issue from the same viewpoint. I suspect that further exchanges will be unfruitful. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

 

[Lypher]

I believe that if you want to reduce abortion, you have to make women not want to have them. You’re going to have to approach this problem from the education side, not the iron-fist side - I don’t believe that’s going to work. Here’s a small example of why:

You can always find someone “Against” so using your logic China should still be selling Opium and we should open the borders to Cocaine. Just because some people want something does not mean is should be legal. A lot of people wanted slavery and you could probably still find somebody that would advocate for it, but it does not change the fact that some behaviors are intrinsically evil and should not be allowed.

 

[St_Francis]

Wiil you please give the source of the quote from Bishop Sheen - as you use it?

“…Judas Iscariot, the Patron Saint of Social Justice, where people are concerned
with humanity but ignore the truths of God…—Bishop Fulton Shee”

I’ve seen a similar quote - but with the following usage:

“…Judas Iscariot, the Patron Saint of “social justice,” where people are concerned
with humanity but ignore the truths of God…—Bishop Fulton Sheen”

This second usage, punctuation and capitalization give a different meaning.

You don’t mean to state that Bishop Sheen derided the Catholic virtue
of Social Justice, do you? He would NEVER have done that.
What is your source for your chosen usage?

Thank you.

That’s a very good point. I rather suspect that the quote was taken from something that Bishop Sheen said rather than something he wrote, which would explain the different usages. I’m going to change it in my sig line.

Thanks for pointing that out

 

[St_Francis]

Because the government has failed miserably when they try to enforce ‘crimes’ where there is no consensus that the activity is wrong.

I would disagree that there is no consensus that abortion is wrong. In fact, I think that the only reason people think it is acceptable is that it is legal–if we made it illegal, along with an education campaign, then I think that people would accept it in a way they did not accept Prohibition.

 

[Christopher68]

I would disagree that there is no consensus that abortion is wrong. In fact, I think that the only reason people think it is acceptable is that it is legal–if we made it illegal, along with an education campaign, then I think that people would accept it in a way they did not accept Prohibition.

Most people think drug abuse is wrong. There are laws against drug use, as well as an education campaign. However, drug abuse is worse than ever, and drug violence is out of control.

 

[St_Francis]

Most people think drug abuse is wrong. There are laws against drug use, as well as an education campaign. However, drug abuse is worse than ever, and drug violence is out of control.

So, should we legalize drugs so that drug dealers are safer?

 

[Christopher68]

So, should we legalize drugs so that drug dealers are safer?

Not to make drug dealers safer - to eliminate the black market for drugs which has spawned incredible violence (i.e. Juarez Mexico). Also, a black market increases the costs of whatever the product is. A legal market for drugs would drive down the costs incredibly. That would eliminate a lot of other societal problems, such as people who steal to support expensive drug habits.

 

[St_Francis]

Not to make drug dealers safer - to eliminate the black market for drugs which has spawned incredible violence (i.e. Juarez Mexico). Also, a black market increases the costs of whatever the product is. A legal market for drugs would drive down the costs incredibly. That would eliminate a lot of other societal problems, such as people who steal to support expensive drug habits.

Well, if you think that the answer to a lot of criminality is to legalize, then there’s nothing much I can say except for that once someone starts down that road, there’s no end to it, *as we can see in the case of abortion. *

 

[Christopher68]

Well, if you think that the answer to a lot of criminality is to legalize, then there’s nothing much I can say except for that once someone starts down that road, there’s no end to it, *as we can see in the case of abortion. *

Why do believe this? Regarding drug abuse, in the scenario I describe, the abuser would only be hurting themself, whereas in your scenario with drug usage remaining illegal, there is robbery and violence directly attributable to the illegality and black market.

And just in case this needs clarifying, my comment regarding legality/illegality apply to what are generally considered victimless crimes - not robbery, murder, etc.

 

[St_Francis]

Why do believe this? Regarding drug abuse, in the scenario I describe, the abuser would only be hurting themself, whereas in your scenario with drug usage remaining illegal, there is robbery and violence directly attributable to the illegality and black market.

And just in case this needs clarifying, my comment regarding legality/illegality apply to what are generally considered victimless crimes - not robbery, murder, etc.

OK, good. So we can get off this topic and back onto the original topic. What I am saying is that I think that most people believe that abortion is wrong, and that most of the other people who do not see it as wrong are misinformed, so banning along with a good education program would not be difficult and would definitely result in a huge reduction of abortion rates.

 

[Christopher68]

OK, good. So we can get off this topic and back onto the original topic. What I am saying is that I think that most people believe that abortion is wrong, and that most of the other people who do not see it as wrong are misinformed, so banning along with a good education program would not be difficult and would definitely result in a huge reduction of abortion rates.

I actually thought I was ‘on topic’. In reference to the OP, I was trying to use an analogy that showed how clumsy and destructive government actually is with similar laws, despite how ‘well intentioned’ the law might be. I’m sorry if I wasn’t explaining myself as well as I could have been.