How would we enforce new abortion laws?

[starshiptrooper]

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.

The Supreme Court also ruled that banning slavery was unconstitutional. They do not always get it right.

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.

Easy answer, targeted sting operations against abortion providers and investigate abortions based on plain view or a citizen’s report.

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.

It should be treated like any other homicide, logical consistency is not easy, but it is the correct way.

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.

The confusion on when human life begins is due to the lack of logic and quality philosophy in schools. If we have a living entity in which all the parts act together for the sake of the whole and this entity has its own set of human DNA, it is human. That is all there is to it.

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.

Strawman, this about the kid’s right to life.

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.

Murder is supposed to be a risky and dangerous.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

But this is an inconsistent position, Lex, because you also endorse taking a mother’s autonomy away when you force her to keep being a mother against her will.

Let’s say she becomes tired of mothering a 2 year old? Does she have the right to stop being a mother by killing her 2 year old?

Of course not.

But you’ve taken away her autonomy when you say: you cannot kill your 2 year old. You are a mother now, and you have responsibilities.

 

[PRmerger]

People don’t shy away from anything illegal.

This is patently false.

Making something illegal won’t end *all *illegal activity, but it certainly does give people pause, and cause them to think twice about whether they want to engage in such an action.

 

[Ormond]

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

You missed my point. Perhaps I didn’t put it well. I wasn’t arguing the merits of the abortion argument from either side, but instead commenting upon the political situation. My argument was the changes in abortion law are likely to meet more resistance than changes to civil rights laws. It’s debatable of course.

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.

Could be, it’s a reasonable case. Can you provide us with Catholics who say they will switch from pro-choice to pro-life once an anti-abortion law is in place? If not, what exactly do you mean by “change the attitude”?

 

[PRmerger]

Could be, it’s a reasonable case. Can you provide us with Catholics who say they will switch from pro-choice to pro-life once an anti-abortion law is in place? If not, what exactly do you mean by “change the attitude”?

I wonder, Ormond, if you would have posed the same question to the Reverened Martin Luther King in the 1960’s: can you provide us with a single white supremacist who says he will change his mind once a civil rights law is in place? If not, what exactly do you mean to do with these laws?

 

[Ormond]

I wonder, Ormond, if you would have posed the same question to the Reverened Martin Luther King in the 1960’s: can you provide us with a single white supremacist who says he will change his mind once a civil rights law is in place? If not, what exactly do you mean to do with these laws?

In fact, many white supremacists did change their views, which helps make your case.

But you’re using a valid point to dodge my question. Do you know a single Catholic who will change from pro-choice to pro-life after the law is changed? I assume you don’t or you would have said so, which helps make my case.

We shall see. I think you have a valid point, but it’s probably overstated. In my view, changing the law promises much more change than it will actually be able to deliver on, but that doesn’t equal there being no change.

I see the primary impact of an abortion ban being on poor people who lack the resources to travel to avoid the law. The primary impacts will be less safe abortions, and more children that the parents don’t want, and perhaps can’t afford to care for properly. Some poor people may look to the law as a moral guide in a way that they don’t look to religion, but it seems easy to overestimate this effect.

I support anti-abortion efforts, but I see real success as relying overwhelmingly on persuasion, which is kind of hard to do at the point of a gun, which is essentially what an abortion ban would entail. As example, I would prefer the Catholic community offering to raise any unwanted children over a finger pointing blame and shame campaign. Imho, too many people, on both sides, have become addicted to the ego inflating drug of finger pointing and fantasy moral superiority.

I do agree it seems likely an abortion ban is coming, but I predict it will be just another chapter in the never ending polarizing social conflict. The ban will feel great at first, until folks realize the battle is no where near being over.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, many white supremacists did change their views, which helps make your case.

Excellent.

And even if not a single white supremacist did change his mind, it would still have been the right thing for

1. people to march to effect change
2. the laws to change to recognize the humanity of those being treated inhumanely.

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Just curious: when do you believe that the organism that’s growing in the womb is a human person?

• At 20 weeks, when it is viable? (Of course, this means that 30 years ago, it would have been 28 weeks, so one’s personhood is dependent upon technology, which seems to be a curious marker for how to determine whether someone is human. 30 years ago, hey, you weren’t a person at 20 weeks. Today, Lex thinks you’re a human being at 20 weeks).
• At birth?
• When it takes its first breath?
• When it is no longer dependent upon its mother?
• When it can say “mama!”

When does it go from nonhuman to human status in your estimation, Lex?

This is a very, very important question.

And it’s one that I don’t think any prochoice people are prepared to answer and defend their answer.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Just curious: when do you believe that the organism that’s growing in the womb is a human person?

• At 20 weeks, when it is viable? (Of course, this means that 30 years ago, it would have been 28 weeks, so one’s personhood is dependent upon technology, which seems to be a curious marker for how to determine whether someone is human. 30 years ago, hey, you weren’t a person at 20 weeks. Today, Lex thinks you’re a human being at 20 weeks).
• At birth?
• When it takes its first breath?
• When it is no longer dependent upon its mother?
• When it can say “mama!”

When does it go from nonhuman to human status in your estimation, Lex?

This is a very, very important question.

And it’s one that I don’t think any prochoice people are prepared to answer and defend their answer.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Interesting.

Do you agree that this ability to define someone as a person or not a person can extend legitimately to all human organisms?

That is, do you think it’s ok to say; some people define human persons as those who have Y chromosomes. That’s their opinion, and it’s just as valid as my opinion which is that women are indeed persons.

 

[PRmerger]

Because its pretty much a tiny person at that point

You’ve made a statement: “It’s a person (“pretty much”) by 12 weeks.”

Please defend this view.

Why is it a person (“pretty much”) at 12 weeks but not at 11 weeks.

and by 19 weeks can feel pain.

What is the point of this? If it can’t feel pain it’s not a human person?

Did you know that there are some people now that can’t feel pain? Are you of the opinion that they aren’t persons?

At 12 weeks its already fluttering around and doing things in there.

You should know that humanity simply cannot be based on whether you can “flutter around and do things”.

That’s no more arbitrary than saying we become human when we can memorize the quadratic formula.

But what I personally feel still gives me no right to force that on someone who disagrees.

So if someone thinks that women aren’t human persons, you wouldn’t force your belief on him through the laws of society?

Though most abortions are carried out before 12 weeks.

Then I suppose you’d be ok with making abortions illegal after 12 weeks gestation, when, according to you, it’s a human person (kind of) because it’s “fluttering around”?

Or is it 19 weeks when it can feel pain?

Or 20 weeks when it’s viable?

What, exactly, is your position again on when it’s a human person and therefore immoral to kill it?

 

[Cathoholic]

Fourteenth Amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Interesting that people invoke the 14th Amendment . . . .

To NOT protect life.

To NOT assert equal prrotection.

To NOT affirm due process.

 

[PRmerger]

Life clearly begins at conception.

Yes!!!

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.

Consider this: something that’s not human doesn’t become human by getting bigger or older.

Life sure, but what about other things like consciousness or awareness? React to external stimuli?

This guy is not conscious. Are you saying he’s not human? He’s also not aware.



And this guy is conscious and aware. Is he human?

Abortion is an act of a woman being autonomous and not giving another life the right to impose itself on hers,

But you reserve the right to impose your views on her were she to decide to be autonomous and kill her 2 year old toddler.

You won’t ever get abortion made illegal.

You don’t know this. For most of society, for most of history, and in so many places in the world today abortion is illegal.

So this argument is really one big hypothetical situation caused by a minority of the population

A minority of people also wanted gay marriage to be legal. So…

who want to take away someone’s freedom to govern their own body,

They are certainly free to do whatever they want with their own body, but they don’t get the right to kill someone else’s body.

and punish them for sex.

So let’s say a woman wants to kill her 2 year old toddler.

She says: “I no longer wish to be a parent. You cannot force this upon me. I am an autonomous being and can make decisions on my own!”

You say: “You are not free to do this, ma’am”

She responds: “You just want to punish me for sex!”

What would your response be?

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.

Rape still happens even if it’s illegal. But we don’t make things legal just because people will still do it.

It shouldn’t be made easier for big people to kill littler people. It just shouldn’t.

It would also increase child abuse and poverty.

Perhaps. But we should find moral and human ways to decrease child abuse and poverty.

We could also decrease poverty and child abuse by killing all the homeless people in the US, but that’s not a moral choice we have.

 

[NM505StKate]

So I found some stuff out. Top of the list is that a fetus doesn’t develop a cerebral cortex until the tail end of the second trimester. This is important because the cortex helps control several functions needed for survival.

dartmouth.edu/~rswenson/NeuroSci/chapter_11.html

So seeing how before this time the fetus cannot possibly survive outside of the mother.

lemauricien.com/article/abortion-fact-fiction-and-humanity

 

[PRmerger]

So I found some stuff out. Top of the list is that a fetus doesn’t develop a cerebral cortex until the tail end of the second trimester. This is important because the cortex helps control several functions needed for survival.

dartmouth.edu/~rswenson/NeuroSci/chapter_11.html

Why is the development of a cerebral cortex indication that this is a human person?

This guy has a cerebral cortex. Is he a human person?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So seeing how before this time the fetus cannot possibly survive outside of the mother.

lemauricien.com/article/abortion-fact-fiction-and-humanity

Why is that permission to kill it?

“When it needs its mother the most is when we can kill it!”

 

[NM505StKate]

Why is the development of a cerebral cortex indication that this is a human person?

This guy has a cerebral cortex. Is he a human person?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Street-rat.jpg/220px-Street-rat.jpg

Why is that permission to kill it?

“When it needs its mother the most is when we can kill it!”

Yes it is because it provides needed functions to survive. Before this period the chance of survival is very low, capable but low.

verywell.com/premature-babies-week-by-week-2748606

The above link gives some good information.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it is because it provides needed functions to survive. Before this period the chance of survival is very low, capable but low.

verywell.com/premature-babies-week-by-week-2748606

The above link gives some good information.

This is as arbitrary as saying: we need vision to survive, so those who are blind are not human.

 

[NM505StKate]

This is as arbitrary as saying: we need vision to survive, so those who are blind are not human.

No what it is saying is that certain brain functions aren’t available until the cortex fully develops. Before week 21 the chances are very slim to no chance of the fetus surviving. You are not getting a person at that stage.

 

[PRmerger]

No what it is saying is that certain brain functions aren’t available until the cortex fully develops. Before week 21 the chances are very slim to no chance of the fetus surviving. You are not getting a person at that stage.

So we will agree, then, that abortions after 21 weeks are immoral, because it’s killing an innocent person?

Yes?

 

[Ormond]

And even if not a single white supremacist did change his mind, it would still have been the right thing for

1. people to march to effect change
2. the laws to change to recognize the humanity of those being treated inhumanely.

Yes?

It depends. Does the marching help bring people together in peace to resolve the problem? Or does the marching result in decades of pointless polarizing division which does little to solve the problem?

Pretty much everyone on all sides agrees that fewer abortions is the goal, right? So the debate is about tactics, about how to get there, yes? So for example, Planned Parenthood believes artificial contraception is a useful method for reducing abortions, whereas the Church does not agree with that method. It’s a tactical debate, not a contest between good and evil.

The Church seems to prefer a finger pointing blame and shame guilt offensive as their strategy for reducing abortions. My argument is that persuasion is the only method that can deliver a significant sustainable reduction in abortions, and that it’s kind of hard to persuade people when we have our morally superior finger of condemnation shoved in their faces.

The strategy I prefer is:

1. The Church embraces artificial contraception wholeheartedly, thus creating a point of agreement on all sides, a process which can help build trust and the ability to persuade. It’s simply not credible to define abortion as the ultimate evil with one hand, and then declare oneself against contraception with the other. And without credibility, there is little chance of persuasion.
2. The Catholic community should, to the limits of it’s ability, offer to raise any children that others don’t want. This positions the Church as a friend, a helper, and not an angry enemy. Thus, again, it’s easier to persuade.

Passing an anti-abortion law is an attempt to force one’s will upon others at the point of a gun. Say goodbye to persuasion, and watch as nothing much changes except the place where people get their abortions.

That’s my case, a tactical one.