Why wasn't abortion made illegal when the Republicans had all the power?

[ribozyme]

If I understood correctly you yourself support abortion to reduce poverty.

This is what I originally said:

Some, however, think it is an act of mercy to abort an early stage fetus than to bring it up in poverty

It’s also about those who see abortion as the lesser of two evils: the greater evil in their eyes being bringing a child into less than perfect circumstances.

I know of some people out there have had their innermost beings so warped by negative life experiences that they truly seem to believe a child is better off dead than unhappy in life. No amount of shouting abortion is wrong is going to sway such people because life as they know it itself seems wrong to them; their own lives seem wrong and they have no clue it is they lack that makes them feel that way.

That quote was a quote from this post… I never said what you think I thought I said. It’s calumny to attribute that opinion to me.

Lists of groups that support abortion in some form or another doesn’t seem to fit with the direction this thread was going. If I understood correctly you yourself support abortion to reduce poverty. That’s had its own response.

Most of those groups do not support abortion. I am simply saying that the liberals need to stop focusing on the pro-choice agenda and emphasize other issues. The liberals really need to show that they care about social justice. I think it would be beneficial for liberals to shake their image as the “pro-abortion party.”

My point was to show that the liberals aren’t that pro-choice anymore. They are not funding stridently pro-choice political action groups.

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is what I originally said:

That quote was a quote from this post… I never said you think thought I said. It’s calumny to attribute that opinion to me.

Most of those groups do not support abortion. I am simply saying that the liberals need to stop focusing on the pro-choice agenda and emphasize other issues. The liberals really need to show that they care about social justice. I think it would be beneficial for liberals to shake their image as the “pro-abortion party.”

My point was to show that the liberals aren’t that pro-choice anymore. They are not funding stridently pro-choice political action groups.

“Social Justice” to this “liberal party” you keep referring to means simply maintaining the status quo ~ no change, no solutions ~ just keep the same failed socialist programs in place. Those programs haven’t helped the problem in 40 years, there’s no logical reason they should suddenly start to work now. Socialism DOESN’T WORK. The “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” are great examples of the failure of socialist programs.

As for your suspected “calumny” where you say I have misquoted you here’s what I saw ~

I think poverty is a greater evil than abortion; in the first trimester, a fetus would not be able to feel pain nor have any interests. However, poverty causes stress, discomfort, and violates people’s preferences. Some, however, think it is an act of mercy to abort an early stage fetus than to bring it up in poverty. But if God loves the fetus, why would he allow it to be brought up in an environment of poverty?

I was not the only person to infer such a preference on your part. Before reaching for the big words you might express yourself more clearly. When you cite the words of others, after speaking positively about such programs first, it is natural to infer that you support the plans of the person you cite.

 

[ribozyme]

As for your suspected “calumny” where you say I have misquoted you here’s what I saw ~

I was not the only person to infer such a preference on your part. Before reaching for the big words you might express yourself more clearly. When you cite the words of others, after speaking positively about such programs first, it is natural to infer that you support the plans of the person you cite.

That was only my affirmation of the tenets of the ethical view of utilitarianism. I was simply saying that under a utilitarian framework, poverty is considered a greater evil than abortion. I did not make any policy recommendations based on that.

 

[rlg94086]

I was not the only person to infer such a preference on your part. Before reaching for the big words you might express yourself more clearly. When you cite the words of others, after speaking positively about such programs first, it is natural to infer that you support the plans of the person you cite.

MelanieAnne,

Give Ribozyme *some *credit…calumny is a much, much smaller and more commonly used word than he has used in the past. He is getting better…adapting…learning. I applaud his efforts. :clapping:

 

[rlg94086]

That was only my affirmation of the tenets of the ethical view of utilitarianism. I was simply saying that under a utilitarian framework, poverty is considered a greater evil than abortion. I did not make any policy recommendations based on that.

Quite a while ago, I’m pretty certain you did make more direct statements, in reference to your former hero - Peter Singer. IIRC, you also later regretted having defended his views. The further you move away from utilitarianism, the better your life will be, my friend.

I know that you will understand the evil of abortion some day.

 

[ribozyme]

MelanieAnne,

Give Ribozyme *some *credit…calumny is a much, much smaller and more commonly used word than he has used in the past. He is getting better…adapting…learning. I applaud his efforts. :clapping:

People do not talk magniloquently on the Daily Kos… most people are not ostentatious about their lexicon.

 

[rlg94086]

People do not talk magniloquently on the Daily Kos… most people are not ostentatious about their lexicon.

I’m shocked! I was certain Daily Kos was high-brow.

Thanks for the chuckle this morning.

 

[MelanieAnne]

People do not talk magniloquently on the Daily Kos… most people are not ostentatious about their lexicon.

I read the Daily Kos once just to see what it was all about. Utter waste of time. And yes, while those persons who post on the Daily Kos may not be “ostentatious about their lexicon”, in that they do not attempt to impress with their vocabulary, there is a segment of their vocabulary ~ the profane one ~ that is highly developed. I found the posts emotional, uninformed, inflammatory and it went down from there. And yet I understand, from a recent report by someone who surveys such things, that this rather intemperate bunch have set themselves up as “moral guardians” at least of the Democrats.

Having said that, there’s nothing wrong about a good vocabulary as long as it is used accurately.

 

[Valke2]

Ok. Based on the fact that I don’t believe anyone here advocates capital punishment or life in prison for a woman who has an abortion, I think we can agree that, despite rhetoric, we don’t equate abortion with murder.

Any ideas on what penalties should be imposed on a woman who terminates her pregnancy? Should they be the same for the use of contraception?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok. Based on the fact that I don’t believe anyone here advocates capital punishment or life in prison for a woman who has an abortion, I think we can agree that, despite rhetoric, we don’t equate abortion with murder.

Which is precisely wrong. Abortion is murder, and until we agree it is murder, no one else will be convinced.

The charge in a criminal case is up to the prosecutor. The penalty in the criminal case should be up to the jury (or judge, depending on state law) and they should decide on the specific circumstances of the case. But we should not pre-judge their findings – let them decide on the specific case.

Any ideas on what penalties should be imposed on a woman who terminates her pregnancy?

As I said above, that should be decided case-by-case. A prosecutor can decide, based on the case, to charge with murder, to charge with some lesser offense, or not to charge at all (nol pross). The jury (or judge) will them pass the appropriate sentence (again based on the case) after conviction.

Should they be the same for the use of contraception?

While some forms of contraception can in some cases be abortifacents, contraception is not deliberate, pre-meditated murder of an already-living human being.

 

[scott1228]

It seems to me that this is one of the arguments that is used against making abortion illegal, that it would put women making this choice behind bars.

Some are arguing that if you think it is murder, then you must be for the prosecution of these women. I am not (although I do think it is murder, which is the deliberate taking of innocent life).

In a similiar fashion, I am more interested in the prosecution of the drug dealer, rather than the casual user. Stop the one who distributes, and you will affect more people.

Also, a lot of people have sympathy for women in this situation, despite the horror of abortion, including me. However, I also have sympathy for unborn children.

Let’s not allow the pro-life movement get derailed here. Think about the intent of some of these posts.

 

[Valke2]

Which is precisely wrong. Abortion is murder, and until we agree it is murder, no one else will be convinced.

The charge in a criminal case is up to the prosecutor. The penalty in the criminal case should be up to the jury (or judge, depending on state law) and they should decide on the specific circumstances of the case. But we should not pre-judge their findings – let them decide on the specific case.

Ok. Then you would support a woman being charged with murder who terminates her pregnancy (and her doctor). While a prosecutor has leeway in what to charge, that is another discussion. My question is: When you say it is murder, do you support having similar criminal penalties for abortion as we have for murderers?

While some forms of contraception can in some cases be abortifacents, contraception is not deliberate, pre-meditated murder of an already-living human being.

So what criminal penalty, if any, should be associated with use of a condom or the pill?

 

[Valke2]

It seems to me that this is one of the arguments that is used against making abortion illegal, that it would put women making this choice behind bars.

Some are arguing that if you think it is murder, then you must be for the prosecution of these women. I am not (although I do think it is murder, which is the deliberate taking of innocent life).

In a similiar fashion, I am more interested in the prosecution of the drug dealer, rather than the casual user. Stop the one who distributes, and you will affect more people.

Also, a lot of people have sympathy for women in this situation, despite the horror of abortion, including me. However, I also have sympathy for unborn children.

Let’s not allow the pro-life movement get derailed here. Think about the intent of some of these posts.

The drug user is not an apt metaphor. There is no accusation of harming another when the drug user is using. So allocating more resources against the seller makes sense. But not holding a woman liable for murder doesn’t make sense. Having sympathy for a woman who commits murder should not allow her to escape justice. If abortion is murder, than the woman is a murderer. She should be punished as one.

Somone had said it should be “case by case”. Fine. But the law should be, a woman who willingly has an abortion is guilty of murder, a Class A felony punishible by X years in prision, and subject to (perhaps) capital punishment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok. Then you would support a woman being charged with murder who terminates her pregnancy (and her doctor). While a prosecutor has leeway in what to charge, that is another discussion. My question is: When you say it is murder, do you support having similar criminal penalties for abortion as we have for murderers?

A jury trying someone charged with murder should have the same penalties available in any other murder case.

What penalties they actually apply (and what charges the prosector brings) are dependant on the specifics of the case.

So what criminal penalty, if any, should be associated with use of a condom or the pill?

You love red herrings, don’t you?

A condom does not kill a living human being. Sometimes the pill might act as an abortifacent, but to make a case for murder, you would have to prove conception occurred.

Neither case is practical for ajudication.

 

[mangy_dog]

A jury trying someone charged with murder should have the same penalties available in any other murder case.

What penalties they actually apply (and what charges the prosector brings) are dependant on the specifics of the case.

You love red herrings, don’t you?

A condom does not kill a living human being. Sometimes the pill might act as an abortifacent, but to make a case for murder, you would have to prove conception occurred.

Neither case is practical for ajudication.

life begins at conception. At that moment it is a person. Abortion is evil in true Luciferian style. Abortion is of the devil.

 

[DrPiano]

Right… but the pill sometimes prevents ovulation (therefore preventing conception entirely) and sometimes prevents implantation (and therefore causes an abortion). To prosecute this case you’d have to prove that conception actually took place which would be a monumental task.

 

[Valke2]

Right… but the pill sometimes prevents ovulation (therefore preventing conception entirely) and sometimes prevents implantation (and therefore causes an abortion). To prosecute this case you’d have to prove that conception actually took place which would be a monumental task.

Let’s assume it simply prevents conception. Should the use be a criminal act?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Right… but the pill sometimes prevents ovulation (therefore preventing conception entirely) and sometimes prevents implantation (and therefore causes an abortion). To prosecute this case you’d have to prove that conception actually took place which would be a monumental task.

Which is exactly my point.

Valke2
Let’s assume it simply prevents conception. Should the use be a criminal act?

No. Contraception is immoral, but it would not be murder under those circumstances.

 

[Valke2]

Ok. So Vern, thank you for clarifying your position. I was under the impression that people who claim abortion is murder are not willing to impose a criminal penalty traditionally associated with murder against the woman who has an abortion. You’ve stated your beliefs and your position is consistent.

I would not be willing to have a law that makes a woman liable for murder. This is one reason I am pro-choice. Because I acknowledge that since I am not willing to accuse a woman of murder, that a fetus is not the same as a human life to me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok. So Vern, thank you for clarifying your position. I was under the impression that people who claim abortion is murder are not willing to impose a criminal penalty traditionally associated with murder against the woman who has an abortion. You’ve stated your beliefs and your position is consistent.

I would not be willing to have a law that makes a woman liable for murder. This is one reason I am pro-choice. Because I acknowledge that since I am not willing to accuse a woman of murder, that a fetus is not the same as a human life to me.

And that is precisely why I am willing to impose the same laws on abortion as on other murders – because abortion is murder. It is the pre-meditated killing of an innocent human being.

To say it is not murder cheapens the humanity of the victims.