How would we enforce new abortion laws?

[WingsOfEagles]

I can see you’re too stubborn in your ways to ever possibly listen to anyone who doesn’t have your views, so I’m going to just stop this lovely conversation here.

I’ll end with this:

Legal abortion = half the victims
Illegal abortion = twice the victims

Hope, you’re equally stubborn…worse, actually. You refuse to look at any analogy someone throws at you because abortion is somehow “different” in your mind.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Hope, you’re equally stubborn…worse, actually. You refuse to look at any analogy someone throws at you because abortion is somehow “different” in your mind.

There is no place for analogies in this argument, and that is something that very few people on this forum seem to understand.

I’m not looking at this thread anymore, in case any of you were wanting to respond to me. You can say that this is because I am unable to defend my arguments in actuality it is because you are all too stubborn to listen to reason, so there’s really no hope overall.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

There is no place for analogies in this argument, and that is something that very few people on this forum seem to understand.

I’m not looking at this thread anymore, in case any of you were wanting to respond to me. You can say that this is because I am unable to defend my arguments in actuality it is because you are all too stubborn to listen to reason, so there’s really no hope overall.

Even if you aren’t going to respond, I will say this. Analogies are one of the most academic ways to argue moral philosophies. I personally don’t think you like them because they are blowing holes in your line of logic.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no place for analogies in this argument, and that is something that very few people on this forum seem to understand.

I’m not looking at this thread anymore, in case any of you were wanting to respond to me. You can say that this is because I am unable to defend my arguments in actuality it is because you are all too stubborn to listen to reason, so there’s really no hope overall.

There is no flaw in the logic, Hope.

And the point remains: if it’s a human person in womb, it shouldn’t be legal to kill it.

No more than it should be legal to kill a 2 month old baby if the mom decides she doesn’t want to be a parent anymore.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I really think our Holy Mother provides and excellent example of what to do in the case of an unexpected pregnancy. I can imagine where we would be today if when Gabriel visited 12/14 year old Mary if she had responded with “Sorry, thanks for the offer, but pregnancy is pretty painful. I don’t want swollen ankles, morning sickness, and you know, labor just doesn’t appeal. I don’t know if Joseph and I can really afford it either. I mean, he’s only a carpenter. We were planning to wait for the first couple of years of our marriage…maybe see the world. Besides, people will talk about me and I don’t want so much attention focused on me”.

 

[PRmerger]

I think an important concept needs to be declared here:

“Human rights begin when human life begins”.

 

[Ormond]

During the 1960’s (and prior) public opinion (that is, white public opinion) was mixed on whether blacks should be given the civil rights they were fighting for. But the laws changed anyway (thankfully) and now public opinion has been swayed. Sometimes we have to make the laws change, and then people’s opinions change for the better.

You make a good point PRmerger, well said. It might happen that way, yes.

There may be a fundamental difference between abortion and civil rights.

Giving blacks civil rights didn’t take anything away from whites. Whites still had access to all the services now available to blacks.

Abortion law seems different. It’s the government inserting themselves in to a family’s most personal business, and taking away control of the decision. I’m not arguing the merits of that change either way, just suggesting that there will likely be far more resistance to it.

Again, if half of Catholics are not persuaded by the adamant teachings of their own church, is changing the law really going to persuade them? And if it’s true that half of Catholics won’t be persuaded by a law change, it would seem to follow that a great many other people will not as well.

I predict this issue will never be resolved, and that the political pendulum will just swing back and forth, back and forth, with each side enjoying temporary victories and defeats, for the rest of our lifetimes at the least.

In my view, the wisest strategy for the Church would be to embrace contraception, work as partners with Planned Parenthood, and offer to raise any babies that somebody doesn’t want. The Church should position itself as an asset, not an enemy.

Polarizing the topic with a lot of heated rhetoric tends to just make those one is trying to persuade fix their own position in concrete, and persuading is the job that must be done if any law is to be effective. Neither the Church nor the government has the power to simply force vast numbers of people in to compliance. Evidence, the nation’s drug laws, very widely ignored, in spite of steep penalties in many cases.

 

[PRmerger]

You make a good point PRmerger, well said.

Thanks.

There may be a fundamental difference between abortion and civil rights.

Not really. Human rights begin when human life begins, Ormond.

Giving blacks civil rights didn’t take anything away from whites. Whites still had access to all the services now available to blacks.

Where civil rights for blacks vs the unborn are different, they are, well, different.

But the point remains–even if society doesn’t agree with making abortion illegal, doing so, like the attitude of white society towards blacks in the 1960’s, will change the attitude towards the unborn.

 

[PRmerger]

Abortion law seems different. It’s the government inserting themselves in to a family’s most personal business, and taking away control of the decision.

I presume you’re not opposed to the government inserting themselves into a family’s most personal business, were this family to decide to kill its 2 month old infant?

Again, if half of Catholics are not persuaded by the adamant teachings of their own church, is changing the law really going to persuade them?

This is irrelevant.

If the unborn is a human being, then we should protect its right to life.

Regardless of the views of Catholics.

I predict this issue will never be resolved, and that the political pendulum will just swing back and forth, back and forth, with each side enjoying temporary victories and defeats, for the rest of our lifetimes at the least.

Perhaps. But this, too, is irrelevant.

In my view, the wisest strategy for the Church would be to embrace contraception, work as partners with Planned Parenthood, and offer to raise any babies that somebody doesn’t want. The Church should position itself as an asset, not an enemy.

By contraception you must mean surgical sterilization or condoms.

Not the oral contraceptive pill, right?

Polarizing the topic with a lot of heated rhetoric tends to just make those one is trying to persuade fix their own position in concrete, and persuading is the job that must be done if any law is to be effective. Neither the Church nor the government has the power to simply force vast numbers of people in to compliance. Evidence, the nation’s drug laws, very widely ignored, in spite of steep penalties in many cases.

I find this statement to be quite peculiar, given the great strides the civil rights movement made in the 60’s.

Imagine if these guys had embraced your paradigm.

 

[PRmerger]

You make a good point PRmerger, well said. It might happen that way, yes.

There may be a fundamental difference between abortion and civil rights.

Giving blacks civil rights didn’t take anything away from whites. Whites still had access to all the services now available to blacks.

Abortion law seems different. It’s the government inserting themselves in to a family’s most personal business, and taking away control of the decision. I’m not arguing the merits of that change either way, just suggesting that there will likely be far more resistance to it.

Again, if half of Catholics are not persuaded by the adamant teachings of their own church, is changing the law really going to persuade them? And if it’s true that half of Catholics won’t be persuaded by a law change, it would seem to follow that a great many other people will not as well.

I predict this issue will never be resolved, and that the political pendulum will just swing back and forth, back and forth, with each side enjoying temporary victories and defeats, for the rest of our lifetimes at the least.

In my view, the wisest strategy for the Church would be to embrace contraception, work as partners with Planned Parenthood, and offer to raise any babies that somebody doesn’t want. The Church should position itself as an asset, not an enemy.

Polarizing the topic with a lot of heated rhetoric tends to just make those one is trying to persuade fix their own position in concrete, and persuading is the job that must be done if any law is to be effective. Neither the Church nor the government has the power to simply force vast numbers of people in to compliance. Evidence, the nation’s drug laws, very widely ignored, in spite of steep penalties in many cases.

 

[LexDivina]

I think an important concept needs to be declared here:

“Human rights begin when human life begins”.

I understand you’re desire to end abortion. Obviously a society that has to abort what would grow up to be a child is not a society anybody thinks of as ideal. My question is, what exactly do you expect banning it is going to do?

Regardless of the moral implications of abortion, there is a market for it. Banning it would undoubtedly turn it into an underground black market, which results in massively increased crime and violence in society. This is the same with any attempt at creating prohibitions for things that there is a natural demand for, be it drugs, alcohol, guns, prostitution, etc. These goods/services are actually cheaper and easier to get ahold of on the black market than if they were legal. The war on drugs has made drugs far easier to access(drug dealers don’t card you, after all) and has actually made them cheaper.

It’s not an easy idea to get used to, but if you are actually against abortion, you are better off leaving it legal and focusing on the factors that lead to people having an abortion in the first place. The evidence is that this would go a lot farther in making abortions nonexistent than trying to make it illegal would.

If someone gets in an accident, and donating blood could save them, do we go and force other people to have to donate blood against their will? Of course not.
Nor do we do this with organ transplants, everyone’s right to their own body comes before other people’s right to life, even when it is CERTAIN that it would save someone else, we can’t go on forcing people to donate organs and blood.
Even if you’re responsible for the accident, even if you did it on purpose, as a society we agree that we can’t force you to donate your own blood to save the person, even if it were a match. Pregnancy is an even less extreme case of this. Any woman’s right to their own body comes before anyone else’s right to life. The parameters are much more in favor of women. A full pregnancy carries an order of magnitude of more risk, complexity, inconvenience, and dedication than a simple blood donation. And there’s no certainty that it will in fact save the life. Therefore, a woman’s right to their own body comes before anyone else’s right to life, regardless of specifics. At least, in a world where women are entitled to the same rights as anyone else in the scenarios I presented above.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand you’re desire to end abortion.

Why do you understand this?

What is it abortion that makes people want to end it?

Obviously a society that has to abort what would grow up to be a child is not a society anybody thinks of as ideal. My question is, what exactly do you expect banning it is going to do?

It will make it illegal to kill a human person.

And even if people will still do it, just like people will still rob banks, rape people, beat their wives, when we make something illegal, clearly, it will happen less often.

Regardless of the moral implications of abortion, there is a market for it. Banning it would undoubtedly turn it into an underground black market, which results in massively increased crime and violence in society.

I haven’t seen that happen when we banned robbing banks or beating wives.

It’s not an easy idea to get used to, but if you are actually against abortion, you are better off leaving it legal and focusing on the factors that lead to people having an abortion in the first place. The evidence is that this would go a lot farther in making abortions nonexistent than trying to make it illegal would.

There’s no reason to create an either/or.

We are perfectly capable of doing both–banning abortion AND focusing on factors that lead to people not wanting to abort.

 

[PRmerger]

If someone gets in an accident, and donating blood could save them, do we go and force other people to have to donate blood against their will? Of course not.

Then, I suppose, you don’t agree with forcing a man to pay child support, against his will?

Or, do you see the reasonable thing to do is this: IF YOU ENGAGE IN AN ACTIVITY that creates a new life, you are responsible for it. Even if that wasn’t your intention.

Yes?

You can’t have it both ways, Lex.

You can’t say: men have to pay child support, even if they don’t want to

But also say: women don’t have to support a baby they created, even if they don’t want to.

 

[LexDivina]

Why do you understand this?

It will make it illegal to kill a human person.

And even if people will still do it, just like people will still rob banks, rape people, beat their wives, when we make something illegal, clearly, it will happen less often.

I haven’t seen that happen when we banned robbing banks or beating wives.

There’s no reason to create an either/or.

We are perfectly capable of doing both–banning abortion AND focusing on factors that lead to people not wanting to abort.

I understand because I am a woman and also a empathetic human being who doesn’t like anyone to suffer…

OK so say banning abortion becomes a reality.
What punishment would you choose for a woman who does abortion? How would you determine how that punishment is carried out, and what resources would be put in place to prove a woman indeed had an abortion and not a miscarriage, to avoid punishing the innocent?

To reduce abortions you would support better sex education for all society and free birth control for them as well? Because that is what lowers abortion rates. If you truly believe that a woman who becomes pregnant because she was raped should be FORCED against her will to have that child or be punished by law for lack of education on sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, it’s very scary. Women are not expected to be a slave anymore, we are autonomous humans and its no longer the dark ages. In the old days when women had no means for abortions in these situations do you know what happened? Infanticide and abandonment. Its still a common occurrence, that’s why fire stations have baby boxes where mothers can leave unwanted children. Its even worse in poorly educated 3rd world countries where infant mortality and abuse rates are high.

Also, just to raise this point since you brought it up; nobody wants to abort.Maybe some mentally deranged person would get some kind of satisfaction, but most people aren’t like that. Having an abortion is one of the hardest decisions a woman will/will not choose to do and whatever choice she makes will stick with her for her entire life. Its not a casual thing that people do out of the blue because they want to. Every woman is aware that her pregnancy has potential to becoming a cognitive human like you and me. Being pregnant though, is not a automatic ticket, miscarriages still happen, so do still births.

Is the law supposed to police morality, or provide for public safety? Most of the time, those overlap. Murder is both unethical and detrimental to public safety. Same with kidnapping or theft or robbery. ( Murder in a legal sense being premeditated violent attack which ended someone’s life, not in self defense; this is why people get off on insanity pleas as well…because someone thought to be insane is not able to coherently premeditate while understanding the full consequence to their action.) These crimes violate peoples human rights, just like banning abortion would.

Its been researched and proven many times already that anti-abortion laws only increase the number of unsafe abortions. You want to live in an ideal world, as do we all but you also have to compromise with reality. Outlawing heroin doesn’t reduce overdosing rates. Educating individuals on overdosing on heroin does.
Good sex education is incredibly effective at reducing rates of pregnancy and spread of disease, as long as it’s not abstinence only.

Just for some comic relief, let’s imagine for a second this spinned in the opposite direction where say we force long term birth control on everyone, and make them apply to have children! The state can decided when they are ready.

 

[LexDivina]

Then, I suppose, you don’t agree with forcing a man to pay child support, against his will?

Or, do you see the reasonable thing to do is this: IF YOU ENGAGE IN AN ACTIVITY that creates a new life, you are responsible for it. Even if that wasn’t your intention.

Yes?

You can’t have it both ways, Lex.

You can’t say: men have to pay child support, even if they don’t want to

But also say: women don’t have to support a baby they created, even if they don’t want to.

No man is forced against his will to pay child support. Only the father who’s name is printed on a legal document; the birth certificate is ever forced to pay child support. That is actually a totally irrelevant comparison because child support STOPS children who are born healthy into this world from going hungry, living on the street, and supplements their proper care. It has nothing to do with unborn babies, at all. A father has responsibilities if he names himself on a birth certificate. He is not however required to actually pay it, even if forced by a family court. Some men will even fo as far as staying out of employment or not informing the proper authorities when switching jobs. It happened to my dad and overtime he was caught to have skipped over 65k in child support payments. I suffered greatly due to his misgivings as well. As you know, there are many deadbeat dads who’s children are left in poverty with single mothers. Did you know that if a woman has unprotected sex but fails to name a father on the birth certificate but later claims a man as the father he cannot be forced against his will to do a DNA test to prove he is indeed the father? So you are very wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

No man is forced against his will to pay child support.

LOL!

Only the father who’s name is printed on a legal document; the birth certificate is ever forced to pay child support.

Ok. Then we can say that no woman is forced to be continue a pregnancy. Only the woman who has a baby in her womb.

That is actually a totally irrelevant comparison because child support STOPS children who are born healthy into this world from going hungry, living on the street, and supplements their proper care. It has nothing to do with unborn babies, at all

Surely you see the paralllel.

A man is forced to do something against his will…because he engaged in an act that created a new human person.

A father has responsibilities if he names himself on a birth certificate

No, Lex. He has responsibilities because he engaged in an act which created a human person.

He is not however required to actually pay it, even if forced by a family court

LOL!

Some men will even fo as far as staying out of employment or not informing the proper authorities when switching jobs. It happened to my dad and overtime he was caught to have skipped over 65k in child support payments. I suffered greatly due to his misgivings as well. As you know, there are many deadbeat dads who’s children are left in poverty with single mothers. Did you know that if a woman has unprotected sex but fails to name a father on the birth certificate but later claims a man as the father he cannot be forced against his will to do a DNA test to prove he is indeed the father? So you are very wrong.

But if he were indeed the father, he would have some moral responsibilities.

Do we agree on this?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Regardless of the moral implications of abortion, there is a market for it. Banning it would undoubtedly turn it into an underground black market, which results in massively increased crime and violence in society. This is the same with any attempt at creating prohibitions for things that there is a natural demand for, be it drugs, alcohol, guns, prostitution, etc. These goods/services are actually cheaper and easier to get ahold of on the black market than if they were legal. The war on drugs has made drugs far easier to access(drug dealers don’t card you, after all) and has actually made them cheaper.

LexDivina, you make some thoughtful, more logical arguments for the Pro-Choice side of the aisle. For that, I thank you. That being said, I don’t think I agree with the above premise. Yes, there would be black market abortions as there were prior to Roe v. Wade (I’m reminded of Cider House Rules). However, most people will shy away from something illegal. Back alley abortions are often more dangerous for one and there are no immediate medical facilities if you start hemmorhaging. You would probably have some abortion doctors who would be willing to open black market clinics,thinking they were civil rights warriors. However, this would also be reduced with the threat of pulling licenses, hefty fines, and jail time.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand because I am a woman and also a empathetic human being who doesn’t like anyone to suffer…

And you don’t like the suffering that occurs in an abortion because of the suffering that goes on with the tiny human person in the womb?

OK so say banning abortion becomes a reality.
What punishment would you choose for a woman who does abortion? How would you determine how that punishment is carried out, and what resources would be put in place to prove a woman indeed had an abortion and not a miscarriage, to avoid punishing the innocent?

Like all cases, we take in to account the situation, the circumstances.

Just like a woman who kills her 41 week fetus. I mean, 1 week old baby.

We look at her intention, the situation and judge from there.

To reduce abortions you would support better sex education for all society and free birth control for them as well?

By birth control–you must mean condoms or sterilization. Not the oral contraceptive.

Because that is what lowers abortion rates. If you truly believe that a woman who becomes pregnant because she was raped should be FORCED against her will to have that child or be punished by law for lack of education on sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, it’s very scary.

I’d be happy to talk about rape and abortion later.

But let’s just talk about abortion in the majority of cases.

Women are not expected to be a slave anymore, we are autonomous humans and its no longer the dark ages. In the old days when women had no means for abortions in these situations do you know what happened? Infanticide and abandonment. Its still a common occurrence, that’s why fire stations have baby boxes where mothers can leave unwanted children. Its even worse in poorly educated 3rd world countries where infant mortality and abuse rates are high.

We should choose moral solutions to our society’s problems, Lex.

Just like you wouldn’t say: let’s kill poor people because want to get rid of poverty!

you shouldn’t say: let’s kill unborn people because we want to give women autonomy!

Also, just to raise this point since you brought it up; nobody wants to abort.

Why not?

If it’s just some tissue, why is it such a problem?

Every woman is aware that her pregnancy has potential to becoming a cognitive human like you and me

When does it become a human being, in your estimation?

 

[LexDivina]

LexDivina, you make some thoughtful, more logical arguments for the Pro-Choice side of the aisle. For that, I thank you. That being said, I don’t think I agree with the above premise. Yes, there would be black market abortions as there were prior to Roe v. Wade (I’m reminded of Cider House Rules). However, most people will shy away from something illegal. Back alley abortions are often more dangerous for one and there are no immediate medical facilities if you start hemmorhaging. You would probably have some abortion doctors who would be willing to open black market clinics,thinking they were civil rights warriors. However, this would also be reduced with the threat of pulling licenses, hefty fines, and jail time.

You also make good arguments, but none are justifiable to me in taking away a mothers autonomy and forcing her to have a child against her will. It’s more about punishing a woman for being immoral. Do you have any alternatives after you get rid of abortion like increasing education about sex, making it easier to get contraception, or something along those lines that deter people from just aborting kids? People don’t shy away from anything illegal. You must live a very privileged and sheltered life to have that assumption. Also most things that are illegal have a penalty of some sort, so how would you punish or enforce an abortion law onto women who get abortions?

 

[LexDivina]

And you don’t like the suffering that occurs in an abortion because of the suffering that goes on with the tiny human person in the womb?

Like all cases, we take in to account the situation, the circumstances.

Just like a woman who kills her 41 week fetus. I mean, 1 week old baby.

We look at her intention, the situation and judge from there.

By birth control–you must mean condoms or sterilization. Not the oral contraceptive.

I’d be happy to talk about rape and abortion later.

But let’s just talk about abortion in the majority of cases.

We should choose moral solutions to our society’s problems, Lex.

Just like you wouldn’t say: let’s kill poor people because want to get rid of poverty!

you shouldn’t say: let’s kill unborn people because we want to give women autonomy!

Why not?

If it’s just some tissue, why is it such a problem?

When does it become a human being, in your estimation?

Your argument would be valid if late term abortions were commonplace, they aren’t. Only when an abortion is denied to a woman at an earlier stage or she is inaware is late term abortion done. A fetus typically below 20 weeks is not viable. The Supreme Court has ruled that outright banning of abortion is unconstitutional. You also never gave me an answer on how you would enforce this abortion ban, or what resources you’d have put in it’s place to thwart unwanted pregnancies. You say you’d judge the woman depending on circumstance, well if you believe abortion is murder do you think a victim of rape who opts for one and then undergoes therapy should get the death sentence or life in prison? I’m sure you’ve heard priests say " sin is benign and when people go to confession they think their sin is original and not common but it is." Same for reasons why women get abortion, lol.

Poor people are poor because of classism, economic failures, childhood trauma, drug abuse, and other problems that are not really anything to do with a moral stand point but an economic and societal one… You can be rich one day and poor another. Killing poor people won’t get rid of poverty, just like banning abortion won’t end abortions. What does lower poverty is education, and resources, and a good economy and society. If you look at some the poorest countries in the world, and their policies, its not hard to see why so many suffer. Politics is a nasty thing.

Defining a “human person” in a moral way is difficult. There are no hard division lines in this and everyone will have their own opinion on when a unborn child becomes a human. I personally think abortions should be capped at 12 weeks. Why? Because its pretty much a tiny person at that point and by 19 weeks can feel pain. At 12 weeks its already fluttering around and doing things in there. But what I personally feel still gives me no right to force that on someone who disagrees. Though most abortions are carried out before 12 weeks.

Life clearly begins at conception. A new organism with unique DNA is created from the time it is a single cell. The ethics of abortion deal more with when that living organism can be considered a human and have legal rights. Life sure, but what about other things like consciousness or awareness? React to external stimuli? None of that happens at conception. The reason why a murderer who kills a pregnant woman is charged with two counts of murder, is because he disregarded the human rights and consent of both those lives. Abortion is an act of a woman being autonomous and not giving another life the right to impose itself on hers, pregnant women who keep their child give their child that consent out of love. Therefore it is a crime to rob both lives of …well life.

You won’t ever get abortion made illegal. I know for a fact here in the UK it will never be made illegal. So this argument is really one big hypothetical situation caused by a minority of the population who want to take away someone’s freedom to govern their own body, life, and punish them for sex. Even if by a act of god, abortion became totally illegal, it’d still happen. It would only make it more difficult to get for disadvantaged people who can’t hop on a plane or pay money to get a legal, safe one. It would also increase child abuse and poverty.