Should the government formulate anti-abortion laws?

[vern_humphrey]

Well, do you think the government should pay for the treatment of Gaucher’s disease if a couple concieves a child that has Gaucher’s disease?

What’s that got to do with this issue?

Are you pretending that somehow abortion is linked to Gaucher’s disease?

Or do you think we should let the couple deal with that problem in the free market? You have to remember that resources are limited. What if they cannot afford such a treatment and the burden of having that child is too much for them as they do not have to means to alleivate the child’s suffering through the free market? Should the couple pursue an abortion via the free market?

Murder is never a solution.

All of us have or will have some sort of disease at some times in our lives. Do you advocate putting the sick to death?

 

[mapleoak]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

Yes.

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

And this is absolute?

After all, many members on this forum are extremely querulous regarding the intrusion of the government and argue that government based solutions doesn’t work. If the government shouldn’t intervene in the abortion issue, do you

If I want to wear tennis shoes or go barefoot that is none of the governments business. If I want to kill someone, that most certainly is.

Do you think it is best to leave abortion up to the unregulated free market?

No. It should be outlawed as a capital crime.

I suppose expectant parents can pay for diagnostic tests for diseases such as trisomy 21 and if an undesirable genotype is found (defined by the parents), they can pay for an abortion.

But beware of being found guilty of a capital crime.

I suppose it is ok to allow the free market to support a “culture of death” because normally a government would be otiose to stop this.

Not sure what you just said here.

 

[Brendan]

Absolutely.

The preamble to our Constitution says:

FYI, that is the preamble to the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution.

THe preamble to the Constitution starts off with “We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union…”

Listen Here

school-house-rock.com/soundfiles/prea.wav

 

[Brendan]

Ok, if abortion is considered murder, how do you deal with couples who cannot pay to raise a disable child

So if the child became disabled AFTER birth, say became paralyzed in a car accident, and the parents could not afford to take care of the child, would you advocate State assistace or adovocate that the child be killed.

After all, you said…

You have to remember that the world cannot provide for the needs of some children. Some parents do not even have the resources.

 

[ribozyme]

So if the child became disabled AFTER birth, say became paralyzed in a car accident, and the parents could not afford to take care of the child, would you advocate State assistace or adovocate that the child be killed.

After all, you said…

Of course the former… but what if I dislike the notion of socialized assistance for the disabled and poor? Private charities are superior. I also loathe socialized law enforcement that prevents murder and theft and socialized medicine that provides the poor with a high quality of care too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Rape, murder, and other crimes violate the civil rights of a citizen; i.e. someone with civil rights.

As long as a person is not a citizen until they are born, an argument could be made that the government does not have to protect non-citizens from murder. (Maybe citizen isn’t the right grouping here, because then we could also argue that we could kill illegal aliens or visitors.)

If what you say is true, it ought to be true to rape, murder or rob Canadian or French tourists.

The right to life is a basic human right. The unborn child is human and has that right as an integral part of its human condition – the same as you and I.

Then again, when a pregnant woman is murdered or killed by negligence (such as drunk driver) it is often charged as two murders. Whether it’s a person or not depends on the circumstances and who’s doing the killing.

Alan

Which is, of course, the nub of the problem – if rthe law can decide you are a “person” today, and** not** a “person” tomorrow, and then you are a “person” again the day after, then there is no such thing as human rights.
Soi

 

[whatevergirl]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

After all, many members on this forum are extremely querulous regarding the intrusion of the government and argue that government based solutions doesn’t work. If the government shouldn’t intervene in the abortion issue, do you

Do you think it is best to leave abortion up to the unregulated free market?

I suppose expectant parents can pay for diagnostic tests for diseases such as trisomy 21 and if an undesirable genotype is found (defined by the parents), they can pay for an abortion. I suppose it is ok to allow the free market to support a “culture of death” because normally a government would be otiose to stop this.

Actually, you can legislate morality–why is stealing, rape, and murder crimes punishable under the law? Those all involve varying degrees of morality. Killing a baby after it’s born is most certainly murder, but not while it’s growing inside of a mother’s womb…Hmm…strange, no? Unfortunately, when it comes to abortion, the term ‘abort’ means different things to different people. To someone who views it as murder, it’s wrong…to another, it is merely a woman’s choice.
If a woman who is pregnant is murdered, the defendant will often be charged with a ‘double homocide.’ Go figure. But, if a woman terminates the pregnancy through an abortion–it’s her choice.

I hope someone in our legal system wakes up one day to see the travesty being done, the lies that Planned Parenthood and the media shove in our faces, and the outrage it is to terminate a life.

 

[Newbie2]

But what about the scenario where one candidate things abortion is acceptable, while another (at least publically) loathes it.

Again, that’s been hashed out ad nauseum in another post. All other social justice positions being equal by the two candidates, it would be morally correct to support the one who opposes abortion. See other posts/ threads for discussion of same.

 

[ribozyme]

Again, that’s been hashed out ad nauseum in another post. All other social justice positions being equal by the two candidates, it would be morally correct to support the one who opposes abortion. See other posts/ threads for discussion of same.

I find that disingenious… social justice??? I thought it was abortion that is first, and if both candidates have an equal position on abortion, then social justice is the tie breaker. Am I correct?

 

[puzzleannie]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

excuse me, yes we can, we have laws against murder, stealing and jaywalking, all moral issues.

 

[ribozyme]

excuse me, yes we can, we have laws against murder, stealing and jaywalking, all moral issues.

jaywalking isn’t a moral issue; it simply has the potential to harm people, themselves and other drivers.

We all agree that the other laws are correct; however, not everything agrees abortion is murder or it harms people (except vague evidence that abortion is correlated with breast cancer).

The issue whether abortion harms people was discussed in chapter 5 of* Practical Ethics*.

 

[deb216]

There are so many aspects of our lives that are morally based but legally determined. Why pick and choose the ones that shouldn’t be legislated?

• Having sex outside of wedlock is a moral issue, but prostitution is prohibited.
• Modesty a moral issue, but public nudity is prohibited.
• Limiting a marriage to 2 people is a moral issue, but bigamy is prohibited.
• Obscene language is a moral issue, but profanity is strictly regulated during daytime hours.
• Sexuality is a moral issue, but pornography is strictly regulated.

In my opinion, abortion is worse than all of these combined. It causes more damage to the individual and to society as a whole. Realistically, what kind of place would this be if the government could not legislate morality? No place I would want to live…

 

[Naztakuan]

Well, do you think the government should pay for the treatment of Gaucher’s disease if a couple concieves a child that has Gaucher’s disease?

Or do you think we should let the couple deal with that problem in the free market? You have to remember that resources are limited. What if they cannot afford such a treatment and the burden of having that child is too much for them as they do not have to means to alleivate the child’s suffering through the free market? Should the couple pursue an abortion via the free market?

It is in my opinion that a society is ONLY as good as it treats it’s weakest members. If it responds to those who are less fortunate by killing them, that is a failure in my book. If it only wishes to care for the strong and abandon the stragglers, then as far as I’m concerned, the people in power aren’t legitimate leaders at all. The greatest among us has the greatest responsibility to the needy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I find that disingenious… social justice??? I thought it was abortion that is first, and if both candidates have an equal position on abortion, then social justice is the tie breaker. Am I correct?

How can there be any kind of justice in a nation where the most innocent can be put to death on a whim?

 

[whatevergirl]

I read a very good article, when the Terri Schiavo case was going on, regarding abortion and euthanasia. How the two are very closely related, and how slowly, we have become a society that looks at its members as only having value if they are contributing to society, in a financial way. A baby cannot contribute, and someone who is sitting in a hospital bed, cannot contribute–directly, the article went on to say–so society started, probably during the time of Roe v Wade, to start treating such people as disposable. The article gave me chills, because it really wasn’t that far off from reality. Babies, people who have diseases that cause them to be mentally challenged, and our elderly who are tied to tubes in a nursing home–are all considered disposable by society, and the article’s author took the wild guess of assuming that it has a lot to do with their financial contribution on society–which is all that America seems to care about anymore.

I remember the movie, Million Dollar Baby being a wild success, largely due because it made Clint Eastwood’s character look like some hero for ‘making the hard choice’ to pull the plug on a young girl who was paralyzed due to a boxing match. (she was a professional boxer for those of you who didn’t see the film) I didn’t like the movie all that much, and just felt a sense of sadness, not that the girl died in the end, but that the movie was promoting euthanasia, to a degree.

That is why it’s important to make anti abortion laws, amongst other reasons, because it sends a message to society that although someone cannot take care of him/herself–all life is important.

 

[Newbie2]

I find that disingenious… social justice??? I thought it was abortion that is first, and if both candidates have an equal position on abortion, then social justice is the tie breaker. Am I correct?

Yes, that’s what I meant.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jaywalking isn’t a moral issue; it simply has the potential to harm people, themselves and other drivers.

We all agree that the other laws are correct; however, not everything agrees abortion is murder or it harms people (except vague evidence that abortion is correlated with breast cancer).

The issue whether abortion harms people was discussed in chapter 5 of* Practical Ethics*.

Certainly abortion harms people – it kills the baby!

 

[Melchior]

But what about the scenario where one candidate things abortion is acceptable, while another (at least publically) loathes it.

Change the word “abortion” to “slavery” and you have the same scenario 150+ years ago.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Newbie2]

Certainly abortion harms people – it kills the baby!

Seems obvious, no?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I will reiterate: do you think it is within the domain of the government to formulate anti-abortion laws?

After all, you cannot legislate morality.

Hi Ribozyme,

How do you, when you make your decisions about topics like this, draw a line between moral rules like theft which can be made into laws, and the moral rules that can’t? How does it make sense to say that you can’t legislate morality? Isn’t stealing immoral?