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

[living_water]

a fetus is not the same as a human life to me.

This is a perspective that many people have that makes me deeply sad. Interestingly, it is one of the most illogical and irrational arguments from both a medical and philosophical perspective that still manages to enjoy such widespread support from the fields of the liberally enlightened.

If you were to make the argument about a zygote, or even an embryo, you might be able to make a cogent argument arising from the idea that human consciousness or human form is equivalent to human life. Not a perfect argument, but at least a cogent argument. When you talk about a fetus, however, you are talking about a being with a functioning brain and a beating heart. If you still attempt to argue that the primitive consciousness of the fetus somehow doesn’t count, then you find yourself in a position of de-humanizing an infant, as “consciousness” does not fully emerge until long after birth.

I remember in college my liberal, atheist philosophy professor telling the class that on the basis of reason and logic, there was no way to justify abortion. It is a bad argument to argue the lack of humanity in a fetus.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I remember in college my liberal, atheist philosophy professor telling the class that on the basis of reason and logic, there was no way to justify abortion. It is a bad argument to argue the lack of humanity in a fetus.

It’s purely an “argument of convenience”. Any time the birth of a child would be inconvenient, for any reason, the all-too-common solution is abortion. It’s interesting tho’ that many who would strenuously object to the murder of an adult person just because that person was “inconvenient” (think “Lacey Peterson”) would at the same time condone the murder of the innocent unborn.

Unfortunately, I fear this mindset has become “normal” among a large segment of our population. To them, the unborn child is just a collection of cells, no more. :banghead:

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s purely an “argument of convenience”. Any time the birth of a child would be inconvenient, for any reason, the all-too-common solution is abortion. It’s interesting tho’ that many who would strenuously object to the murder of an adult person just because that person was “inconvenient” (think “Lacey Peterson”) would at the same time condone the murder of the innocent unborn.

Unfortunately, I fear this mindset has become “normal” among a large segment of our population. To them, the unborn child is just a collection of cells, no more. :banghead:

To say the unborn child, at any stage, is not human (or not “a person”) is the same as saying Jews are untermenschen – with the same motivation and results.

 

[Valke2]

To say the unborn child, at any stage, is not human (or not “a person”) is the same as saying Jews are untermenschen – with the same motivation and results.

Really? So I suppose the USA is no better or worse than Nazi Germany? I don’t see that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Really? So I suppose the USA is no better or worse than Nazi Germany? I don’t see that.

The Nazis killed about 12 million innocent people in the Holocaust. We have killed about four times that many in the Abortion Holocaust.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[johnnykins]

I have a question about this “capital punishment for abortion” issue. Does anyone truly believe, were Roe v. Wade overturned, that anyone would be facing capital punishment if they had an abortion? Or does this line of argument have some other purpose?

well, if you’ve read the last several pages of posts - you have your answer.

Were Roe v. Wade to be overturned sometime in the future, abortions would not necessarily become illegal overnight. The only thing that would happen would be that the legality of the procedure would revert to state law rather than federal law. The individual states would decide whether or not the procedure would continue and, if so, under what circumstances.

This is true

I know of no situation in the past, prior to Roe v. Wade, where anyone connected with performing an abortion was given the death penalty, so is this just a red herring? If not, what is this argument based on?

As posted earlier - hardly a red herring. Perhaps, given your post - four posts ago - the quotes above are the red herrings.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Uh, no. You can only draw that conclusion by inferring things I neither thought nor wrote on this thread. In other words, you have to put your own thoughts into the situation and decide that they are mine. I will be responsible for what I write, but I can’t be responsible for what others dream up.

Having said that, I am actually very conflicted about this question. I have always thought that those who threw out the “you want people that have abortions to go to jail” was inflammatory rhetoric designed to derail any serious discussion. Now I learn that some people actually believe the penalties should be the same, so that may not be “inflammatory rhetoric” after all.

What I would like to see is an end to even the desire for abortions. But I have a real problem with charging those who have abortions with murder. Evidently I have some serious soul searching to do because I am not consistent on this matter. It’s something I am going to discuss with my priest at my next reconciliation.

 

[johnnykins]

Re: murder

“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

When applied in the civil arena I truly believe treating abortion as murder will simply continue the carnage. I agree it’s morally murder, but making it legally murder will only continue it, IMHO. I know there is an inconsistency there - but it’s one I’m willing to live with in an effort to stop abortion. By being consistent, without the political backing (and I believe you will never get the political backing), the law will remain unchanged as will the hearts and minds. Therefore, I opt to try to change hearts and minds and forgo the civil sanction. With changed hearts and minds I believe we have some hope of actually stopping (greatly reducing) it.

I know many here will disagree.

 

[mangy_dog]

Really? So I suppose the USA is no better or worse than Nazi Germany? I don’t see that.

As it concerns abortion?..yes, you are right. Abortion is killing, at any stage of the pregnancy.

This won’t become blatantly obvious until God sends the Warning and the permanent Miracle. And hopefully it won’t take a severe Chastisement.

There are several countries in the world (besides US) whose abortion numbers are in “competition” with the US. It’s just that we “sugar-coat”, trivialize and reason the issue so that it comes across as “civilized” and socially detached from morality and religion.
Other countries…well they are “barbaric” and “savage”. Not us! Our “pill” goes down smoothly and without consequence.

Republicans, Democrats, independents, communist, facist,…et all - the lesser of two evils instead of the greater good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Re: murder

“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

When applied in the civil arena I truly believe treating abortion as murder will simply continue the carnage. I agree it’s morally murder, but making it legally murder will only continue it, IMHO. I know there is an inconsistency there - but it’s one I’m willing to live with in an effort to stop abortion. By being consistent, without the political backing (and I believe you will never get the political backing), the law will remain unchanged as will the hearts and minds. Therefore, I opt to try to change hearts and minds and forgo the civil sanction. With changed hearts and minds I believe we have some hope of actually stopping (greatly reducing) it.

I know many here will disagree.

How will you change “hearts and minds” as long as society officially says abortion is a right?

 

[johnnykins]

How will you change “hearts and minds” as long as society officially says abortion is a right?

You don’t say it’s “right” - you say it’s “wrong”, and you say it strongly. You simply don’t criminalize it. Every moral wrong need not be criminalized, believe it or not.

It’s not a right - it’s just not punished by the state. It’s not enshrined as a “right” or a “choice.” The whole “right” and “choice” thing are, IMHO a response to the criminalization of it. They are responses to the criminalization, or proposed criminalization, that seeks to morally justify it. By taking away the civil penalty, but coupled with a clear statement of wrongness and programs to support those who might consider it, I think we have a chance of toning down the rhetoric and actually saving babies - and in an moral sense, the women and those who abet her. The continued promotion of criminal penalties for abortion is counterproductive, IMHO. If we continue to pump for criminal penalties the opposition will continue to claim it’s a right and a moral good. Couple that with general human weakness and I think we’ll get nowhere.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You don’t say it’s “right” - you say it’s “wrong”, and you say it strongly

How do you do that? How do you convince people it’s a wrong when society officially says it’s a right?

You simply don’t criminalize it. Every moral wrong need not be criminalized, believe it or not.

If you’re going to accuse me of saying “every moral wrong needs to be criminalized,” I think I have a right to ask you to back that up with a direct quote where I said such a thing.

Putting words in other people’s mouths and mis-characterizing their arguments is not honest debate.

It’s not a right - it’s just not punished by the state. It’s not enshrined as a “right” or a “choice.” The whole “right” and “choice” thing are, IMHO a response to the criminalization of it.

The law, in the form of many court decisions, says it is a right. No amount of rhetoric will get around that fact.

They are responses to the criminalization, or proposed criminalization, that seeks to morally justify it. By taking away the civil penalty, but coupled with a clear statement of wrongness and programs to support those who might consider it, I think we have a chance of toning down the rhetoric and actually saving babies - and in an moral sense, the women and those who abet her. The continued promotion of criminal penalties for abortion is counterproductive, IMHO. If we continue to pump for criminal penalties the opposition will continue to claim it’s a right and a moral good. Couple that with general human weakness and I think we’ll get nowhere.

As long as we – the law and society – say it’s a right, few people will believe it’s a wrong.

 

[johnnykins]

How do you do that? How do you convince people it’s a wrong when society officially says it’s a right?

You repeal Roe

If you’re going to accuse me of saying “moral wrong needs to be criminalized,” I think I have a right to ask you to back that up with a direct quote where I said such a thing.

I never said you did.

Putting words in other people’s mouths and mis-characterizing their arguments is not honest debate.

Where did I say you said that?

The law, in the form of many court decisions, says it is a right. No amount of rhetoric will get around that fact.

Agreed - so you n ow change that - repeal Roe. I believe that was why Roe said it was a “right” to remove the criminal penalties.

As long as we – the law and society – say it’s a right, few people will believe it’s a wrong.

Agreed

 

[vern_humphrey]

You repeal Roe

You can’t “repeal” Roe. Roe vs Wade is not a law nor a Constitutional amendment. It is a court ruling. It can only be reversed – by another court.

I never said you did.

Where did I say you said that?

My comment was a straight cut-and-paste from your post – only slightly modified to make it good English in context.

Agreed - so you n ow change that - repeal Roe. I believe that was why Roe said it was a “right” to remove the criminal penalties.

Agreed

Again, you can’t repeal Roe vs Wade.

And you can’t mobilize the popular pressure to appoint judges to reverse it as long as even pro-life people fail to recognize abortion for what it is, pre-meditated murder of an innocent human being.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Johnny, I don’t mean to nit-pick, but Roe cannot be repealed it can only be overturned. And it is so old now, as case law goes, that it may not be overturned just because it may be considered “settled law”. As long as the Supreme Court leaves it in place, it’s the law of the land. Congress cannot do anything about it even if it wanted to.

 

[johnnykins]

You can’t “repeal” Roe. Roe vs Wade is not a law nor a Constitutional amendment. It is a court ruling. It can only be reversed – by another court.

Mea culpa - yes, you reverse it

My comment was a straight cut-and-paste from your post – only slightly modified to make it good English in context.

well here it is exactly - take a valium - it was a general statement and did not refer to you:

“You don’t say it’s “right” - you say it’s “wrong”, and you say it strongly. You simply don’t criminalize it. Every moral wrong need not be criminalized, believe it or not.”

Note “you” is a general you. Note also I never said you said the last sentence quoted above. It’s a general statement not attributed to anyone. SO again, you are the one who improperly said I said something. Nananananana

Again, you can’t repeal Roe vs Wade.

see above

And you can’t mobilize the popular pressure to appoint judges to reverse it as long as even pro-life people fail to recognize abortion for what it is, pre-meditated murder of an innocent human being.

And with your attitude you will never get any more than a bunch of zealots to agree - so nothing changes at all.

 

[johnnykins]

Johnny, I don’t mean to nit-pick, but Roe cannot be repealed it can only be overturned. And it is so old now, as case law goes, that it may not be overturned just because it may be considered “settled law”. As long as the Supreme Court leaves it in place, it’s the law of the land. Congress cannot do anything about it even if it wanted to.

Agreed it must be overturned. Actually we are getting close to it - but won’t get there if we call for the death penalty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

well here it is exactly - take a valium - it was a general statement and did not refer to you:

“You don’t say it’s “right” - you say it’s “wrong”, and you say it strongly. You simply don’t criminalize it. Every moral wrong need not be criminalized, believe it or not.”

My emphasis.

Those bolded words are meant to imply that I think or avow that "Every moral wrong needs to be criminalized. The closing “believe it or not” is a gratuitous insult.

Just like your comment, “take a valium.”

And with your attitude you will never get any more than a bunch of zealots to agree - so nothing changes at all.

So you consider the pro-life movement to be a “bunch of zealots?”

 

[johnnykins]

My emphasis.

Those bolded words are meant to imply that I think or avow that "Every moral wrong needs to be criminalized. The closing “believe it or not” is a gratuitous insult.

here is your quote:

“If you’re going to accuse me of saying “every moral wrong needs to be criminalized,” I think I have a right to ask you to back that up with a direct quote where I said such a thing.” [emphasis added]

As I said - I never said you did. Yet, you accused me of saying you said it. Now you say I merely “implied” it. Which is it oh stickler of “repeal” v. “reversed”. You are quite particular when you accuse, but quite loosey-goosey when you it serves you otherwise. You have yet to apologize for mischaracterizing my quote, and accusing me of something I did not do. Your obvious sensitivity - looking for a problem and language that isn’t there - was the reason for the suggestion of taking a sedative. I.e., you over-reacted. And yes, that sort of over-reactive zealotry is not helpful to anyone.

 

[vern_humphrey]

here is your quote:

“If you’re going to accuse me of saying “every moral wrong needs to be criminalized,” I think I have a right to ask you to back that up with a direct quote where I said such a thing.” [emphasis added]

As I said - I never said you did. Yet, you accused me of saying you said it. Now you say I merely “implied” it. Which is it oh stickler of “repeal” v. “reversed”. You are quite particular when you accuse, but quite loosey-goosey when you it serves you otherwise. You have yet to apologize for mischaracterizing my quote, and accusing me of something I did not do. Your obvious sensitivity - looking for a problem and language that isn’t there - was the reason for the suggestion of taking a sedative. I.e., you over-reacted. And yes, that sort of over-reactive zealotry is not helpful to anyone.

Your statement was the same as a direct accusation, but more snide.