Children are not "mistakes" ...
"No one is pro-abortion"
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Children are not "mistakes" ...
Whining....it is! :BRAVO:
republicanchick
New member
Lib rule:
when you have no argument, nothing "intelligent" to say
attack the messenger
bored w/ that
:yawn:
:dunce:
:grave:
++
when you have no argument, nothing "intelligent" to say
attack the messenger
bored w/ that
:yawn:
:dunce:
:grave:
++
glassjester
Well-known member
"If abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will get abortions."
Not a very good argument for abortion... Maybe you could sell bumper stickers!
I'm interested to know from any who thinks abortion should be legal - should abortions for any reason at all be illegal? Should abortions at any point during pregnancy be illegal? Why?
Should there be any legal restrictions on abortion at all, and if so, why?
Yes, the US government COULD make abortion illegal again , but this would be not only totally ineffective but disastrous . The problem is that there is no way to enforce laws against abortion . Laws against murdering a BORN person can be enforced, but NOT a fetus .
No country has ever been able to stop abortion by making it illegal, and more abortions happen in countries where it isillegal than where it is legal .
Take Brazil , where abortion is illegal and whichis ironically the world's largest Catholic nation . More abortions happen here every year than in America . A lot more . And many poor women die , or nearly perish .
Prohibition proved to be impossible to enforce, and enforcing laws against abortion is even less possible .
In all the years before Roe v Wade, there were millions and millions of illegal abortions, and who knows how many women died .
There's no way to know for certain, but we know that abortion was at least as common as it is now .
How many of those illegal abortions were criminally prosecuted ? You can practically count them on your fingers .
Even with today's advanced technology , it wil be impossible to enforce the law if abortion becomes illegal again .
It would be necessary for our government to keep every woman and girl of childbearing age under constant surveillance just to make sure they were not pregnant . And then when one was found to be pregnant, to put her in quarantine with other pregnant women until she gave birth .
It would also be necessary to have anti-abortion officers at every airport to examine every woman just to make sure she was not pregnant and might be flying abroad for a safe legal one in another country . And to patrol the Mexican and Canadian borders to make sure pregnant women were not seeking abortions .
How the heck would this be possible, and how much would it cost "? Billions of dollars a year .
No country has ever been able to stop abortion by making it illegal, and more abortions happen in countries where it isillegal than where it is legal .
Take Brazil , where abortion is illegal and whichis ironically the world's largest Catholic nation . More abortions happen here every year than in America . A lot more . And many poor women die , or nearly perish .
Prohibition proved to be impossible to enforce, and enforcing laws against abortion is even less possible .
In all the years before Roe v Wade, there were millions and millions of illegal abortions, and who knows how many women died .
There's no way to know for certain, but we know that abortion was at least as common as it is now .
How many of those illegal abortions were criminally prosecuted ? You can practically count them on your fingers .
Even with today's advanced technology , it wil be impossible to enforce the law if abortion becomes illegal again .
It would be necessary for our government to keep every woman and girl of childbearing age under constant surveillance just to make sure they were not pregnant . And then when one was found to be pregnant, to put her in quarantine with other pregnant women until she gave birth .
It would also be necessary to have anti-abortion officers at every airport to examine every woman just to make sure she was not pregnant and might be flying abroad for a safe legal one in another country . And to patrol the Mexican and Canadian borders to make sure pregnant women were not seeking abortions .
How the heck would this be possible, and how much would it cost "? Billions of dollars a year .
glassjester
Well-known member
So the government should only criminalize acts which they can completely prevent? Yikes.
Another question: Can I infer from what you've written, that if the government could prevent all abortions, then you would want abortion to be outlawed?
One more (unanswered from earlier): What legal restrictions should there be on abortion, if any. And why those particular restrictions?
Not likely...as you know. Though the government needs a practical compelling interest in prohibiting certain behavior pior to dispersing its limited resourses ..... incipient life ain't one of them.
glassjester
Well-known member
A human fetus is truly alive in every sense of the word. It is not merely incipient life.
Two questions, Quip: Should a mother be legally prohibited from killing her newborn baby? If so, what is the government's compelling interest in prohibiting this?
One more: What legal restrictions do you think there should be on abortion, if any. And why those?
Incipient is exactly what is it, brute fact....your projections (implied or otherwise) notwithstanding.
RvW ruled that the state has a compelling interest in the well-being of the fetus (and mom) at the "viable" stage of development. Vague, though generally understood to be around the 20 -24 week of gestation.
I've no problem with this.
glassjester
Well-known member
So you support abortions within the current legal boundaries. Ok.
Are you in support of the current law simply because it is the current law?
Or are you in support of the current law because you think abortions beyond the 24th week should not be allowed?
Week 24...the point of no return. The fetus has developed whereas the presumption of "baby" is more demonstrative and less a pleading abstraction.
glassjester
Well-known member
If the government decided to make 25th week abortions legal, would you argue to outlaw 25th week abortions?
I gave you my personal opinion...not a legal one.
glassjester
Well-known member
Ok... good thing we're intelligent enough to discuss not only what is and is not legal, but what ought to be legal.
So do you think the government should make 25th week abortions legal? Why?
Or if not, why not?
What's the major distinction between the 24th and 25th week...beyond this fishing expedition of yours, that is?
So is mold.
| in·cip·i·ent inˈsipēənt/Submit adjective in an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop. "he could feel incipient anger building up" (of a person) developing into a specified type or role. |
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=incipient
I'm not sure how you could say that a fetus isn't an initial stage of life.
I have a question for you now. Do you believe that there are any cases where abortion should be legally justified? And if so, who would you consider qualified to make the decision?
glassjester
Well-known member
glassjester
Well-known member
You're right. Mold is alive. Truly alive. And what species of life is it? Maybe Cladosporium or Penicillium?
And what species of life is the truly alive fetus we were talking about? Homo sapiens. Human.
It's truly alive. And it's truly human. It's a human organism, in a human stage of development. As am I. As are you.
You can't say that about mold.
Come on. I didn't say the human fetus isn't in it's initial stage of development. I said it isn't merely incipient.
It's a human being, in a specific stage of human development.
It is not merely incipient. Just like a child is not merely an incipient adult. (Meaning, it's not only that, but more than that)
Do you want the definition of the word "merely" ?
I trust you to look it up yourself.
1. No.
2. Our government is qualified to make legislative decisions. Sometimes they make bad ones. Citizens and their representatives are qualified to try to change laws.
Who is qualified to outlaw murder?
Who is qualified to allow slavery?
Who is qualified to stop women from voting?
The government has made each of these governing decisions. (And they're qualified to do so!)
Some of them turned out to be not-so-good.
The government is also qualified to change the laws, aren't they?
Why is that relevant? What is it about mold that we don't consider it to have rights but humans do?
Quip didn't say "merely". That was your addition. He said that a fetus is incipient life, which is true. So, you're tying yourself up over something that you said.
An early stage. See the definition of incipient.
So, what you are saying is that a woman who is pregnant is essentially a ward of the state, subject to regulation of her body for the benefit of the fetus. While she carries a child, her life and her freedom are forfeit. She eats when and what she is allowed. She takes risks as the state deems acceptable and warranted. Her right to make medical decisions for herself is impounded.