Misguided Pro-Choice Argument

[kama3]

(Addendum to a previous post)

So basically, I believe that it is impossible to write a good anti-abortion law, because:

• Either the law will require investigating each and every miscarriage, making it obnoxious, and putting a lot of innocent people in jail
• Or, the law will not have any teeth, i.e. it will be largely ineffective.

That’s the very issue which makes me take a pro-choice position despite the fact that I believe abortion is gravely immoral.

 

[Nate13]

(Addendum to a previous post)

So basically, I believe that it is impossible to write a good anti-abortion law, because:

• Either the law will require investigating each and every miscarriage, making it obnoxious, and putting a lot of innocent people in jail
• Or, the law will not have any teeth, i.e. it will be largely ineffective.

That’s the very issue which makes me take a pro-choice position despite the fact that I believe abortion is gravely immoral.

A minmum list of things that could be done:

1. Make performing an abortion for someone illegal and penalized the same as any other murder.
2. Possessing or selling a drug that’s only medical use is as an abortifacient would be illegal.

You attack the problem at the source i.e the abortion doctor or the drugs that cause abortion first and foremost and you go at it hard. This would be similar to how we go after drugs. You make possession and selling of the drug illegal but don’t make actually being high illegal. You would only go after use as far as you are capable of actually doing so efficiently.

Your link here:
reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights
Does not describe the pro-life position. This is just pure negligence. The doctors cannot even claim they were after saving the life of the baby, because if the woman dies so does the baby. The pro-life position is that you have two equally dignified lives. Your example is a description of valuing one life over the other or no lives at all. I oppose valuing the mother’s life over the child’s life and I oppose the opposite as well.

I won’t mention anything about the eugenics trend in the pro-choice crowd where babies that may have down syndrome or other conditions are aborted…

 

[kama3]

1. Make performing an abortion for someone illegal and penalized the same as any other murder.

That was a good strategy 20 years ago. However, progress in chemical abortifacients makes outlawing access to surgical abortion increasingly irrelevant.

1. Possessing or selling a drug that’s only medical use is as an abortifacient would be illegal.

That will not work, because:

1. There are enough “dual use” drugs out there.
2. How is the War on Drugs going, anyway? Oh, right: it has been a total failure. Do you really think that criminal organizations which move around tons of heroin would have any problem trading RU486?

And there is another elephant in the room, which is international travel.

Your link here:
reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights
Does not describe the pro-life position. This is just pure negligence.

Unfortunately you are wrong. See here for explanation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8576701#post8576701

 

[BobCatholic]

don’t get caught up on the terms for pro abortion pro choice, or the names people call us pro life, anti abortion.

If they are allowed to win on the choice of words, then we will be unable to debate them or convince them since we have already yielded a bunch of ground unnecessarily.

We have basically said “Let’s start the football game on our 1 yard line.” when I’m saying we should be on the 50 yard line.

 

[BobCatholic]

I am sure someone could find one somewhere, but I have never met anyone who is “pro-abortion”.

Of course, who wants to admit they support evil? So people will use propaganda terms like “pro-choice” instead

Everyone who thinks abortion is a good choice in a particular circumstance sees it as a burden at least on the mother, and often on others, and sometimes on the unborn as well. They would prefer that the rape did not take place, that contraception had been used or been effective, that the woman had financial security and so on.

They usually see the unborn as not worthy of having human rights.

Of course, they do not view zygotes, fetuses and embryos as having rights, or the ability to choose or have choices made for ‘them’ since ‘they’ do not yet exist as people. Argue this first point, rather than the names people use and you have some hope of winning supporters.

And I do argue them as human beings. Science has proven this easily. It is the pro-aborts who dehumanize them and refuse to even admit they are human. They use exactly the same arguments from the Dredd-Scott decision.

Well of course. But you can’t dehumanize something which has never been human. You are begging the question in this argument.

Science has already proven the unborn are human beings. They have full human DNA and are alive. The two points that give them full human rights.

Well, you ‘dehumanize’ corpses,

Corpses are dead. No brain activity, no heart beat = dead. Unborn children have both or at least one. We don’t kill an unconscious person, because they still have human rights (for the time being…)

or bodies with utterly destroyed brains kept on life support for transplants,

They’re still alive, even though on life support. Otherwise, we’d have to call it “death support” instead of “life support”

or human life in the form of unjoined sperms and ova…

Of course not, doesn’t have full human DNA, so not fully human. Unborn children, have full human DNA and thus are human according to science.

You will not persuade anyone with this sort of argument. You must address the central issue of the reason you consider zygotes, fetuses and embryos to be human in the sense that you are human (assuming all concede you have a right to life).

Understood, but if they won’t acknowledge human rights to someone who is ten minutes from coming through a vaginal cavity, they won’t acknowledge human rights anytime before birth.

Also, it is easier to argue from birth working backwards toward conception rather than from conception toward birth. Eventually the pro-abort will get to a line where “humanity” ceases and then the real debate begins.

 

[Nate13]

That will not work, because:

1. There are enough “dual use” drugs out there.

That’s fine. There are lots of guns out there too, but I don’t make a habit out of handing them to people who want to commit suicide or commit murder to “help them out”. I’ll let them find a way to track down their own gun…

1. How is the War on Drugs going, anyway? Oh, right: it has been a total failure. Do you really think that criminal organizations which move around tons of heroin would have any problem trading RU486?

You really just don’t get it do you? Every bit of heroin the government stops from being moved is that much less that is out there to consume. Less people use heroin when its illegal than they would if it wasn’t. I don’t care how effective they are at moving the stuff, the government should be not be helping people commit murder. If people wish to commit murder they can do so, and the government will pursue said people to best extent it can while maintaining the dignity of both the mother and child.

And there is another elephant in the room, which is international travel.

Do you also bring up this argument when child rape is on the table?

“No use in making child rape illegal here, since someone could just fly to another country where they could do it without consequence.”

Ridiculous.

Unfortunately you are wrong. See here for explanation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8576701#post8576701

I read the thread and no one said they agreed with the law lol. I doubt many of them actually read the entirety of what you posted. I’m telling you that law is stupid if it prevents a doctor from giving both the mother and the child the care and dignity they deserve. People make stupid decisions and laws and don’t always foresee all the consequences of their actions. If the law did what you says it did, it goes beyond what the Church teaches. I have not studied Polish law, but I have studied Church teaching.

It should be illegal for a doctor to commit an act that’s goal is to end the life of the unborn child. A doctor allowing a pregnant woman to undergo chemo, because its the best chance of survival for both the the woman and the child should have nothing to fear from this. You have been in enough threads that you know what Church teaching is so stop slandering the Church’s position.

 

[kama3]

Every bit of heroin the government stops from being moved is that much less that is out there to consume.

What matters is the simple fact that despite the War on Drugs raging on for many years, heroin is still available from street dealers. With such track record, it’s virtually certain that stopping the trade in abortifacients is impossible.

Do you also bring up this argument when child rape is on the table?

“No use in making child rape illegal here, since someone could just fly to another country where they could do it without consequence.”

And the country where child rape is illegal is…

I read the thread and no one said they agreed with the law lol. I doubt many of them actually read the entirety of what you posted. I’m telling you that law is stupid

That law is stupid, but on the surface it looks perfectly good and the motivation for it was very pro-life – don’t you agree? I would support such law if I didn’t know where it can lead.

That brings me back to my core argument: any anti-abortion law is bound to be either inacceptably obnoxious or inacceptably ineffective.

so stop slandering the Church’s position.

The Church’s position is not the subject of this thread.

It’s the misguided attempts of writing laws based on Church’s position that backfire.

 

[He_Man]

I personally love this argument:

“Motherhood must never be a punishment for sexual intercourse”

This is the kind of argument you get when people have completely left reality. What do doctors call that system that includes the sexual organs? Oh yeah its called the reproductive system that’s right not the 24/7 pleasure center… This argument also helps people see the connection between abortion and contraception. If people fail to see the purpose of sex in the first place it should not be surprising that this attitude then carries over when considering abortion. It all starts from a misguided notion as to what is the purpose of sex though.

It’s about as logical as saying I should be punished by my pale skin color and 6’1" height with the inability to dunk a basketball.

Such whiney nonsense, yet I hear this a lot. Railing against the way people were created as unfair. You might as well complain about getting wet when you submerge yourself in a bathtub full of water. Man we have a long way to go with a lot of people…

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

What matters is the simple fact that despite the War on Drugs raging on for many years, heroin is still available from street dealers. With such track record, it’s virtually certain that stopping the trade in abortifacients is impossible.

That’s absurd. Crime rates periodically rise and fall. Murder rates go up and down annually in places where homicide laws on the books have remained unchanged for decades.

If laws were made on the condition that they would always be efficiently enforced, or that law enforcement would always have the upper hand on offenders of said laws, we might as well give up on laws against murder and rape, because, after all, police have failed to stop murders and rapes…despite our laws, they still go on.

What about suicide bombers in Iraq or Afghanistan? Wouldn’t it be easier if they just legalized suicide bombing in those countries and gotten it over with? After all the Afghan/Iraqi security forces have an abysmal counter terrorism record…

I hate to put words in your mouth, but, I imagine your response to this point (if you don’t concede it altogether), will be some variation of the following: “OF COURSE the prohibition of murder and rape hasn’t eradicated murders and rapes, but said crimes are fewer than they might otherwise be if we had no laws against them and/or police who enforce the law and investigate violations of it.”

To that I’ll respond “I agree.” The criminalization of narcotics like heroine will never eliminate their consumption altogether or put an end to the narcotics trade. The point is that these laws are meant to severely restrict the practices, and it doesn’t take a quantum leap of faith to believe that the continued enforcement of these laws might achieve just that.

And the country where child rape is illegal is…

I assume you meant ‘legal’ as opposed to illegal? Quite a few countries actually, if you’re talking about countries with enough legal loopholes and gray areas that could potentially enable de facto child rape.

CHILD SEX STATS
Below I’ve compiled several lists of countries that might arguably frustrate the enforcement of US laws that either directly or peripherally relate to the protection of children from sexual abuse.

*These statistics relate to FEMALE victims. Taken with males, the data is even MORE appalling.

My source indicates that in the following countries, there is NO prohibition of the posession, production, or distribution of child pornography:

1. Albania
2. Angola
3. Antigua and Barbuda
4. Azerbaijan

etc…

Some popular destinations for American tourists:

1. Belize
2. Bolivia
3. Guyana
4. Haiti
5. Jamaica

In total there a 92 countries that have NO laws prohibiting the possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.

In the following countries, the age of consent is 12 or under (whether or not the sexual act occurs between an adult and a child, or between two children):

1. Angola
2. Mexico

This is not a legalization of child rape per se, but according to laws of the United States, the idea that a 12 year old girl may consent to sexual intercourse with an adult male is tantamount to child-rape.

In the following countries, the minimum legal marriage for age for females is 12 or under:

1. Saudi Arabia*
2. Sudan*
3. Angola

*No illegal age specified by law

In the following countries, there are NO laws specifically criminalizing or regulating prostitution:

1. Bulgaria
2. Guinea-Bissau
3. Indonesia*
4. Lesotho
5. Mozambique
6. Nepal**

*Islamic country- There are no laws specifically prohibiting prostitution but there are morality decency/laws
**No law prohibiting voluntary prostitution

The following countries, according the US State Dept, have NO human traffickinglaws meeting the MINIMUM compliance standards of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TIER 3):

1. Burma
2. Congo, Democratic Republic of The
3. Cuba
4. Dominican Republic
5. Eritrea
6. Iran
7. Korea, Democractic People’s Republic Of
8. Kuwait
9. Mauritania
10. Papua New Guinea
11. Saudi Arabia

What is Human Trafficking?

According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Human Trafficking defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs, forced recruitment for child soldiers.

Major forms of human trafficking include: forced labor, sex trafficking, bonded labor, debt bondage among migrant laborers, involuntary domestic servitude, forced child labor, child soldiers, child sex trafficking.

–TO BE CONTINUED BELOW–

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

That law is stupid, but on the surface it looks perfectly good and the motivation for it was very pro-life – don’t you agree? I would support such law if I didn’t know where it can lead.

There’s an argument about Poland’s abortion ban from Randy Alcorn’s Pro-Life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments that is worth quoting in full:

Dr. John Willke writes,

Poland, along with the rest of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe countries, was occupied for 44 years by Russia. Russia legalized state-paid abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. What are the official figures of the numbers of abortions performed annually during those years in Poland? In 1960, it was 150,400—in 1965, 168,600—in 1970, 148,200—in 1975, 138,600—in 1980, 138,000—in 1985, 135,500. By 1990, with the advent of the Solidarity independence movement and the influence of Pope John Paul II, the number of abortions had declined to 59,417. This was a spontaneous movement.

It was at this time that abortion was made illegal in Poland except in the most exceptional cases. What was the result? Willke continues,

In 1998 the total number of induced abortions in Poland was 253. What were the reasons given for these? To save the “life and health” of the woman—199; for “fetal impairment”—45, for rape or incest—9.

In summary, then, here we have a large nation that, for four and a half decades, had abortion-on-request, paid for by the state. Certainly, the practice of abortion in Poland had become deeply ingrained. Then came independence and a law that took the total number of abortions down to 0.004% of what they had been, and this contrary to all predictions by government agencies, the media, the UN and Planned Parenthood. To perhaps everyone’s surprise, there have been 25% fewer miscarriages and 30% fewer women dying compared with what it had been while abortion was legal. In the latest annual report, 21 women died from pregnancy-related problems, with none listed as dying from illegal abortions.

These are firm statistics. The facts above have been annually reported and heatedly discussed by the Polish parliament, its ministries of health, labor, social welfare and education, as well as by mass media, nongovernmental organizations and anyone else interested in the problem.

If abortions are again forbidden, will illegal abortions, with all of their alleged tragic consequences, take their place? Certainly in Poland the answer is in—it is a resounding no. In fact, the women in Poland are clearly healthier now, from a gynecologic and obstetric standpoint, than they were when abortions were legal.*

J.C. Willke, “Clear Evidence: If Forbidden, Abortion Will Not Return to the Back Alley,” Life Issues Connector, Life Issues Institute, April, 2000,1,3.

That brings me back to my core argument: any anti-abortion law is bound to be either inacceptably obnoxious or inacceptably ineffective.

Not so, according to the above.

Also:

For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys.

Fifteen years before abortion was legal in America, around 85 percent of illegal abortions were done by “reputable physicians in good standing in their local medical associations.”* In 1960, Planned Parenthood stated that “90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians.”* The vast majority of abortions were not done in back alleys but in the back offices of licensed physicians.

The Church’s position is not the subject of this thread.

It’s the misguided attempts of writing laws based on Church’s position that backfire.

But the Church’s position IS that bans like Poland’s are necessary.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[2270](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2270.htm’) Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

…

[2273](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2273.htm’) The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."