Meaning it's not an issue that belongs to science. It's a Right to Life issue. Good job of gross distortion. You are guilty of over-the-top silliness in your attempt to exaggerate my position. It is amply reported that the primary reason given for the great majority of abortions sought is a desire not to have the burden of a child or another child. It is rarely about the mother's health. I've posted the stats before... This is what you wrote: "ok, tell me how a ban helps these 25,000 children in utero..." Is it really not clear how a ban on abortion would save many, many, many lives of children in utero? And please don't compare the use of mar1juana or even prohibition alcohol to abortion. Why are people so determined to dignify something which, in your own words, is universally stigmatized? There was no abortion here. "Turning pregnant women into criminals." Might there be more to those stories? I'm just trying to prevent a travesty. I don't pretend to know everything about it like you do! I just know that those children have a Right to Life. I mentioned fines as a possibility and you've characterized it as cutting off benefits. Do you have no honor? There is no guarantee that the picture will ever be pretty and certainly never perfect. Human beings are involved after-all.
I need to try that in my next presentation. "sir, sir, this is not an issue of reason, it is a right to life. Therefore ignore and context and numbers, I am right!" First, post the stats again. Second, so people don't want unplanned pregnancies---a ban on abortion helps with this by forcing them to have safe sex? It's not like bans on any other items have worked that way. A ban on mar1juana really turned people into church angels (they had to study, lest they be forced to illegal mar1juana). Again, what are your penalties going to be? Life in prison for abortions might dissuade a few. A fine? Probably not, unless it's heavy enough to ruin a mother. You can make abortions harder to obtain through a couple of economic measures, but the real legwork is in spreading contraceptives and sexual knowledge such that abortions don't have to happen, and mothers don't have to be punished. I was going to argue the rest of your points, but in reading this you seem confused and muddled in the extreme, so I haven't bothered. You yourself posted--- Please be able to consistently reason on this topic, before you attack my "honor".
Right to Life is the ultimate reasonable argument. You have to abrogate that to get to the rest of your biological stages that you think mean a difference between a clump of cells and a human being. If you don't have the absolute out, a smart person will choose more responsible behavior. That's why I recommend community service and fines to help pay those costs. Perhaps a second "event" would be more costly in every way. I'm more interested in saving lives of children than punishing anyone. Not confused at all. Your stupid article was going down the track of saying that there are forces that are wantonly criminalizing all pregnant women. That's just stupid. No wonder you won't bother! I said "fines" and "reduce benefits." You said "cut OFF." Big, huge difference. Almost night and day. One means ZERO-- yours not mine!
Giddy, I am going to ask two questions and a bonus---pay attention. Would you treat abortions legislatively different from murder? You have indicated as such. Given that both are a taking of a life according to your definition, and the penalties you have conjured are much less severe for abortion than murder, I must assume you have a different definition of life for fetuses than you do children. Tell me if this is so. If not, are you on the path to accepting that abortion is a different beast from murder and etc.---and therefore a ban is the wrong way to go about treating it? Perhaps there is a midway compromise between when the "right to life" gets fully protected---after all, if someone murdered a child would you hesitate to put them in life for prison? You seem to be positing that a fetus and its' right to life, even if there were one, should be treated differently from that of a child. You are in effect acknowledging children are not fetuses, and vice versa. Bonus question; where does life begin for you? As soon as there is the potential for life (which one can posit all the way back to the first date)? Should we be watching our sperm? Or is it as soon as there is a living organism with unique human DNA (as is true for cancer cells)?
You think I need to pay attention? HA! Here's what I wrote in the post immediately before this one of yours: "That's why I recommend community service and fines to help pay those costs. Perhaps a second "event" would be more costly in every way. I'm more interested in saving lives of children than punishing anyone. My leniency is my compromise. As I've said numerous times (including most recently-- two posts ago), I'm less concerned with punishing people than I am interested and passionate about saving young lives. I'm less concerned about what you call it or how you punish it and more concerned about these children in utero's Right to Life being recognized and honored. It's called compassion.
The definition of murder is the taking of a life. We recognize the right of children to life by punishing their murderers with lifetime imprisonment (at best). Do you therefore acknowledge that a fetus is not a child, and that you have a seperate definition of life for fetuses? Or has your principle of a right to life been compromised (every so easily) by your unwillingness to appear as a brute on an internet forum?
There are gradients to the crime of -- Murder: Manslaughter 1 and 2, Murder 1 and 2, and even In Self-defense-- maybe others? Could Abortion be another? My goal is to reduce the number of abortions. If people are going to be so self-centered that only a harsh punishment would deter their selfishness, then maybe Society ought to do something more strict. I'm not on that particular soap-box... in spite of your conning and invite!!
Abortion as a gradient of murder---at a $500 fine. Well, at least you're thinking of aspects of the debate other than "abortions are skull-crushing". If your goal is to find every possible avenue to reduce the number of abortions, where will you stop? You do seem to regard preserving a mother's life and relative safety as a red line, so I am curious as to where your goal gets---outbalanced by other interests, as you might say.
A $500 fine strikes me as insulting to the value of a life. Have to think long and hard about that one. Skull-crushing was lingo that you introduced, not me. What out-balances a life but another life-- the mother's? Not much else, I'd say. Frankly, it's about not starting abortions rather than stopping them-- if you get my drift. People are going to have to change the way they feel about a new life-- even one they don't want to be, but ARE, responsible for. Sometimes you have to take the hard way out of a situation because it is the right thing to do.
Thank you for reflecting and reasoning through your position. It's these details that the fight is over, and not over whether or not abortions are good or bad.
Nothing has changed on my position. Yes, the details are in play. Yes, abortion is bad. Why does anyone want to be for a bad thing that ends one life only to make their own more manageable?
The way you approach the issue has changed. sometimes that makes all the difference in the world. Let me know when you've thought through what enforcement options are best---and balance both the interests of the mother and the child.
Yeah, because the only possible concern a woman might have when making the choice of whether to allow her body to be used to carry a baby to term is how "manageable" her life might be. You can't ever resist the urge to speak for all women in these debates, can you?
"Allow her body to be used"? In the vast majority of instances, she pursued the activity which led to the outcome of pregnancy. I speak for the child which you never do.
