Symmetry wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Symmetry wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Now the semantic problem with the term "murder" is a little more complex. There are many different circumstances under which one might end a life, and not all of them are "murder". Situations that most would say are certainly not "murder" would include self-defense, and the defense of other lives. Beyond that there are a whole range of circumstances with varying degrees of controversiality (e.g. war). In the legal system various circumstances are called "manslaughter" or even "justifiable homicide". These take into account the mental state and motivation of the person. To be considered "murder" there has to be a degree of specific malice toward the deceased, among other things. If someone is convinced that the, let's use the term "embryo", is just a lump of tissue, or part of the mother's body that is just being removed, that hardly fits.
The problems with the oversimplified slogan “Abortion is murder” do not in any way contradict the well-considered, and I believe true, position that the child in the womb is a person, and that abortion means ending her life. We can discuss the complexities of the various circumstances, and the efficacy of various consequences, but that is a different issue.
It's good to see a pro-lifer acknowledge the huge problems within the movement when its advocates spout the "abortion is murder" line. It's a weird, thoughtless argument that seems more about polarisation than actually reducing the number of abortions.
Like I said, it's not an argument, it's a slogan, and as such it doesn't take into account a lot of things.
I guess the follow up question would be that given making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates, are you merely advocating that women who have abortions, their doctors (or I guess, backstreet providers), and relations should be prosecuted?
That's a good question, and I have to say that when I first saw it when you posted it in another thread some time ago, it made me stop and think a few things through. No, the goal is certainly not to take a lot of already-traumatized girls and throw them in jail.
My answer has to begin with the fact that I don't take your "given" ("making abortion illegal doesn't seem to actually reduce abortion rates") as a given. For obvious reasons there aren't going to be any reliable statistics on abortions performed when it was illegal, but abortion is a huge industry. In the united States alone there are over a million abortions per year, according to the "pro-choice" Guttmacher institute (1.37 million in 2001). It is legally and socially acceptable. Many high schools have arrangements with local abortion clinics to bring pregnant students there without even the parents being told. There is no reason to believe that rates used to be anywhere near this high.
Prohibition is used as an example of the idea that prohibiting something doesn't prevent people from doing it. Once again, there aren't going to be any reliable direct stats on who was still drinking when it was illegal, but the CDC tracked historical levels of various alcohol-related conditions, like cirrhosis of the liver, and it indicated that alcohol consumption did indeed decrease significantly during those years and increase after. Prohibition was a "failure" only in the sense that it was repealed. Evidently a great many people will indeed take legality into account in their decisions. I know, I know, the gangster movies show everybody, including the mayors and police chiefs at the "speakeasies", but a movie is just a movie after all.
So no, the goal is not to incarcerate a lot of people, but through changing the way that it is dealt with, to discourage this particular choice, and encourage other choices, like adoption, or like being responsible in the first place. There is a lot more to say about other policies that would have to be instituted along with changing the legal status of abortion in order to do so, but I think you get the idea, and I'm tired.
EditBTW, recognizing that "abortion is murder" is a gross oversimplification, but recognizing the child in the womb as a human life, would allow for dialogue on subjects like the health of the mother, the quality of life of the child, rape, incest, and perhaps others. What would definitely be excluded would be that one is willing to sacrifice someone else's life in order that one may continue living one's own irresponsibly.
Hmm, bit of a long post, and to be fair I wasn't referring to prohibition, but rather to countries that have made abortion illegal. Given that those countries have similar, and sometimes higher rates of abortion, and of course, those abortions are significantly less safe, it seems that abortion providers do a pretty good job of advising people of the various options available to them,
Link
Problems with that article and study as evidence for what you are saying:
1. As I said, and as they sort of admitted in the article, you're not going to get reliable stats on how many people are doing something before it became legal or after it became illegal. The "results" would have to be based on conjectures and guesstimates that are extremely at the mercy of the ones making them, which brings me to point #
2. The source is the Guttmacher institute, the research wing of Planned Parenthood. No bias there, nope.
3. They admit that the main factor reducing abortions where they are legal has been the presentation of alternatives, which can be done without the abortion clinics, by facilities dedicated to providing pregnancy testing, pregnancy care, and adoption aid.
Are you really trying to say that there were just as many abortions before Roe v. Wade as there are now with the huge abortion industry with its tie-ins to high schools and health insurance companies, and there would be still if it again became illegal and all those resources were turned to helping women carry to term and helping prevent unwanted pregnancies? Sym, that’s insanity.
I would kind of turn that last sentence of yours around. Your arguments seem a little irresponsible. Rather than look at the actual practicalities of your argument,
Only if one accepts your extremely flawed presumptions, which I do not.
you seem to be claiming a moral high ground regardless of consequence.
Gimme a break, Sym. It’s the nature of this subject that every combatant claims a moral high ground, yourself included. As I said, I don’t believe that the results need to be what you assert that they would be.
Irresponsible? If you look at my family picture in the “Post a picture of yourself” thread, you will notice that my youngest daughter is a blonde while the rest of us were dark-haired. Her birth-mother was a troubled girl who we had befriended. She spent the entire nine months of her pregnancy living with us in our house. My wife was with her in the delivery room all night. They continued to live with us until she chose to move out. Later, when DCF ended up taking the baby away from her, we took her as a foster-daughter and later adopted her. The clump of cells that the girl chose not to abort and we helped her to carry to term is my daughter. Don’t start with the “you’re exceptional” crap either. We are not. Most are just more humble and not so easily goaded into blowing their own horn.
You’ve asked that I step away from the usual arguments and look at it from another point of view, and I have tried to do that. All I am asking is that you do the same thing. You offhandedly discard the comparison to the holocaust, but from the point of view of one who believes that the child in the womb is a person, the comparison is extremely appropriate. Millions of people are being slaughtered under the pretense that they are not really people with an equal right to life. You don’t remain silent because there are political and social complications, or because there will also be costs in stopping it.
The right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question.
