Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2013, 06:51 PM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2013 09:28 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
Sorry for the delay, this took a bit of thought and a lot of writing.

(11-04-2013 01:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-04-2013 10:19 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'll leave off time travel ethics until time travel is at least feasible.

The time travel hypothetical is a bit farfetched and outlandish but so was your headless human being. I was kinda glad when you pulled that one out because that suggested to me you'd be receptive to mine. I don't have a problem using such thought experiments to make a point.

Wait, what? You're equating the two in terms of farfetched-ness and outlandishness? ... okay, let's do this.

Here is an example of how you can have a headless human, not only theoretically feasible but actually demonstrated. I'll produce five more if you can produce just one similarly feasible and demonstrated method of people being able to travel backwards in time and changing the course of history. Here's a well-documented example of a headless human. I'll produce a HUNDRED more examples if you produce a single well-documented case of a person traveling back in time and changing the course of history. Until and unless you can produce such examples, I'll have to consider this equivalence of feasibility to be utterly ridiculous. Actually produce such an example, and I'll not only field your time-travel questions, I'll nominate you for the Nobel Prize in physics, every year since it started. (Also, it should be noted that several models of time travel have been advanced, and WHAT model is in play would significantly affect the ethics involved.)

(11-04-2013 01:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The problem I have with your position is you arbitrarily created some criteria to justify killing an innocent human being. "It's okay to kill a fetus in the womb because the have no agency or control over their life".

First, I did not provide those criteria with the purpose of justifying. Not in the least. Nor excusing. Their role in this argument, if you would backtrack to confirm, was to provide a reason why killing someone under anesthesia is a moral ill (though, again, we COULD spin out a scenario where that'd be okay). Before that, the purpose of these "arbitrarily created" criteria was to address YOUR arbitrarily created criteria of future life to justify personhood for a fertilized egg. My response to your future-life criteria was, first, to show that future-life wasn't necessary to condemn murder by providing other criteria by which that murder could be condemned (and no, that list was not meant to be exhaustive), and second, by tracing that criteria backwards to before the moment of fertilization to ask, as a manner of argument ad absurdum, why it should not apply then as well.

If you're happy to declare the unfertilized egg as off-topic on the subject of abortion and avoid comment on it, even when the question is meant to examine the principle criteria of personhood that you hold up as key to your position, then how much more off-topic is the subject of someone being killed while under anesthetic when those questions are simply trying to knock away a few items of a non-exhaustive list, meant simply as example alternatives to that same criteria?

(11-04-2013 01:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  When dealing with the lives of human beings, when in doubt you are obligated to take the safest route. If you are out hunting in the woods and you see something rustling in the bushes. If you shoot at it and kill another hunter, your guilty of manslaughter. You had an obligation to know that it wasn't a human before you shot it. The onus isn't on me to prove abortion is morally wrong. The onus is on you to be 100% sure it isn't morally wrong before you can support it. What is true of you is true of society. Collectively we aren't even close to being sure there is nothing wrong with killing a human being in the womb therefore we should restrict that act until we know for sure what it is that we are doing.

All right, this is a more feasible metaphor than time-travel, but it can use some improving.

First off, manslaughter is a stretch. Sure, criminally negligent homicide (which is what you're trying to describe) is classified as manslaughter, albeit the weakest, least-criminal kind. But the standard for that crime is gross negligence. This isn't a case of needing to be 100% sure that it isn't a person, but just needing to make a reasonable effort to determine. Perhaps the hunter calls out and get no answer. Perhaps she listens for a bit and determine, by a sound trail of logic but possibly in error, that the bushes are too small to contain a person. It would still be a tragedy, but gross negligence would be absent, and thus no manslaughter. And, of course, it would be the prosecutor in such a case who'd have the burden prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the hunter had failed to make a reasonable effort to check, and that a person had actually been killed. The fertilized egg has "reasonable doubt" written all over it.

Furthermore, suppose the thought enters the hunter's mind that this is not only an animal in the bush, but a dangerous one, such as a bear or a boar. Perhaps it occurs to her, not unreasonably, that if she does not shoot, she will be attacked, potentially suffering agonizing pain, serious injury, and/or death. If the possibility of it being a dangerous animal isn't absurd on its face, then the type of precautions that are needed to meet the legal "reasonable effort" criteria to avoid negligence shrink, because taking a long, detailed effort in the face of imminent danger is much less reasonable.

(This metaphor is flawed because a dangerous animal in a bush won't turn into a human if you just wait long enough. But it's as close as I could adapt your choice of metaphor to the actual quandry.)

Yet all of that, ALL OF IT, is a red herring. Society is not actually the hunter. Not at all. The woman getting an abortion and/or the medical staff performing it are the hunter. And even then, only for that particular abortion. Society is a third party watching this whole sequence play out. Maybe Society is along as a friend, or just happens across this scene uninvited. The thought crosses through Society's mind, as it watches the hunter taking aim, that hey, there might be a person in there! I'm not 100% sure there isn't! And then, based entirely on its own, personal imagination and uncertainty, and seeing the crease in the brow and the tightening of the finger that indicates the hunter has made up her mind to shoot, Society tackles the hunter, wrests the gun away from her, and pins her to the ground defenseless while whatever-it-is comes out to meet her. Unless a stunning justification argument can be made, this is a case of assault at the very least, and likely some degree of liability for whatever injury or death occurs to the hunter as a consequence. And yes, preventing the killing of a person could possibly be adequate justification, but justification is a positive defense and the burden of proof would be on Society.

(Again, this metaphor is flawed, in that Society isn't actually at risk of being metaphorically harmed along with the hunter by the boar, or suffering the actual pain and risks of the pregnancy and childbirth it wishes to enforce. Also, it'd be pretty easy to demonstrate to all in the metaphor that the thing in the bush was a person or an animal after the fact, but this does not obtain in our argument.)

Certainly, we can go forever back and forth arguing the ethics of the hunter's decision to shoot. But what about Society's decision to intervene? What judgement can we make there? What level of hubris is required to take upon itself the right to review and consent, and then withhold that consent until IT is 100% certain? To utterly dismiss the other possibility with ITS own life-threatening consequences? To discount the call of the woman on the scene? To force her to endure the risk and pain simply to satisfy its own uncertainty?

I would suggest that, unless you or I are actually considering administering abortions, or considering getting abortions for ourselves, our role is that of Society, and it is the ethics of SOCIETY'S decisions we need actually concern ourselves with. To us, the hunter's decision informs our actions less than our own, pressing question of what to do about it.

Now, let's extend the metaphor one step further. Society isn't a single onlooker, but two: You and me. You rush forward to restrain the hunter, and seeing this, I rush forward to restrain you and leave her at her liberty. I'm not content with your motives for restraining her, nor am I content to leave her at risk if she chooses not to be. (Yes, in the metaphor, there'd be no time to share reasoning, but outside of it we're reasonably aware of each others' motivations, so in the metaphor we're mind-readers.) I see what you're doing as a sort of assault upon her person, and I move to stop it.

Now there are three ethical decisions to review here. The hunter's to shoot (which, as I said, we can go on forever about and likely never agree on). Yours to intervene against her. And mine to intervene against you. Can my decision and yours be held to the same standard of certainty? If I must wait to be certain before intervening, must not you? If you lunge forward with little justification, can I not do the same?

(11-04-2013 01:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The onus isn't on me to prove abortion is morally wrong. The onus is on you to be 100% sure it isn't morally wrong before you can support it. What is true of you is true of society. Collectively we aren't even close to being sure there is nothing wrong with killing a human being in the womb therefore we should restrict that act until we know for sure what it is that we are doing.

THIS. Here, I think, is the fundamental fallacy. It's not either-or. There's a wide middle-ground between supporting an action, and trying to fight it. A huge middle-ground. Lying is usually wrong (again, we can paint extreme cases, but usually), yet it's only illegal in very narrow cases such as fraud or perjury. Lying to your wife about working late when you actually went to the bar? LEGAL! Does society support it? NO! Is it restricted? NO!

NOR is restriction the only way of reducing the instances of abortion. For example, suppose we were to take half the money being paid by pro-life groups to get, and half the money being paid by pro-choice groups to fight, the restrictions in question, and instead roll it into various forms of assistance for low-income mothers, from daycare to medical expenses to food stamps to baby clothes and child-proofing the home. (I don't have an exact figure on how much gets tied up in this fight, but I'm pretty sure it's a huge sum.) Not enough to make an unwanted pregnancy a net positive and incentivize getting knocked up, but enough to mostly blunt the financial hardship and inconvenience of a child. How many abortions would be prevented by removing the financial and career disincentives to carrying the pregnancy to term? And how much more efficient would this be, in terms of results for resources, than pitting your resources against the pro-choice community in a war of inches?

OR how about taking the time and effort currently being used to impose social restrictions, and instead redirecting that to a public messaging movement meant to blunt the hostile, jeering, or judgmental response of society towards single women who get unexpectedly pregnant? How much less likely would a woman be to get an abortion, if she doesn't expect the pregnancy to result in being a social outcast, or being disowned by her family? I know that this is in vogue with certain subsections of Christianity, but consider the consequences of this societal reaction.

Does this cost? Yes and no. Like I said, take the time and effort and cash from the current abortion fight on restrictions. Both sides, so neither gains advantage in that fight. Its only costing what would be expended anyway. What is the likelihood that the pro-life movement, if it were only to spend its resources in THIS manner, rather than in fighting for restrictions, could prevent more abortions? If that sounds implausible, bear in mind that the pro-choice movement WOULDN'T be fighting these actions. It'd be getting behind and pushing.

... but no, you seem to think that, even if society faced only a choice between support or oppose, and even if it must err on the side of oppose, that such opposition must include restriction, no matter how inefficient that particular strategy might be.

So, yes. I do think the onus is on you to justify saying that society should restrict abortion.

EDIT: Fixed a few word choices and grammar errors.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
12-04-2013, 10:16 PM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2013 10:46 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
Your position is that abortion is a decision that should be made by the mother and not society. A day old baby is hardly a person so if a new mother decides to kill her day old baby would you not intervene? At some point you shift from not intervening to intervening and I'm curious as to what that point is?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
13-04-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(12-04-2013 10:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your position is that abortion is a decision that should be made by the mother and not society. A day old baby is hardly a person so if a new mother decides to kill her day old baby would you not intervene? At some point you shift from not intervening to intervening and I'm curious as to what that point is?

I'd phrase it, rather, that the decision to terminate the pregnancy is the decision of the mother, in part because it is she that is that runs the risks and drawbacks of the pregnancy. With a one-day-old, there is no pregnancy to terminate. Nor can she lay claim to any right to kill the child to spare herself financial hardship. Whatever justification this might normally be (and I would tend not to consider it justified at all outside of the most extreme scenarios), it is more than mitigated by her ability to put the child up for adoption or give it over into state care. In short, she has a lesser option that satisfies her own rights, without infringing on any rights of the baby (be they real or imagined, certain or uncertain, and I would regard them as real and certain at this stage). Even were a one-day-old's right to live questionable, killing the one-day-old is clearly gratuitous in light of other options.

Similarly, the LATEST that a right to an abortion might be claimed is the point (whatever that might be) of a potentially viable delivery, if this could be induced without an undue increase in harm, risk, or discomfort to the woman relative to an abortion procedure. Her own right to terminate her pregnancy is retained, but the manner of termination is such so as not to jeopardize the fetus's right to life (be that real or imagined, certain or uncertain). Once it becomes an option, the hunter uses a tazer instead of a gun, stunning the person or beast in the bush, at no risk to her and at drastically reduced chance of killing a person. Insisting on an abortion, rather than a live delivery, at this stage would be clearly gratuitous.

As for personhood own view is of a gray area, rather than a precise point, of a justification that gradually increases to where it is equal to the mother's right to choose, as fetal cognitive and sensory abilities develop, and counterbalanced by developing complications that might threaten the pregnant woman's health. But I emphasize again that while I might feel some gray boundary is crossed somewhere here, that crossing is not mine to call. In addition to the fetus achieving personhood, society would also require knowledge of that personhood, justified by a reasonable means of discerning such personhood (rather than just guessing or declaring), to override a woman's right to terminate the pregnancy. Thus, viability independent of the mother is the first point where I would say, clearly and unambiguously, that society may intervene to prevent an abortion in favor of another, equitable means of terminating pregnancy which does not terminate fetus. At this point, Charybdis no longer being an issue, society could steer as far clear from Scylla as possible.

Is this the stage where personhood begins? I don't know. I don't claim to know. While it's worth arguing as if there is an objective truth behind the concept, I don't know that there is one. Maybe it's just the values that individuals and societies ascribe. If there is an objective truth to it, I'm of the firm opinion that it's indiscernible and unknowable. That any methodology to identify it would be no better than arbitrary proclamations or guesswork. I would be highly suspicious of anyone who claimed to know, and before I would allow them to assert their own will over others without my own protest, I would demand that they present persuasive proof.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
13-04-2013, 06:37 PM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
I'd like to pose a set of question to you, oriented more towards specific actions you would take and less towards your rendering judgement on the actions of others. As of, say, two weeks ago, what specific course(s) of action would you have advocated for society to take on the issue of abortion? What goals would you have been trying to achieve in this? What alternatives to your own recommendations had you examined, and why did you regard those alternatives inferior to what you would have proposed?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2013, 01:49 AM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(13-04-2013 06:37 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'd like to pose a set of question to you, oriented more towards specific actions you would take and less towards your rendering judgement on the actions of others. As of, say, two weeks ago, what specific course(s) of action would you have advocated for society to take on the issue of abortion? What goals would you have been trying to achieve in this? What alternatives to your own recommendations had you examined, and why did you regard those alternatives inferior to what you would have proposed?

My recommendation is that society should ban all abortions. The goal of banning abortions is to save the lives of 1.2 million human beings a year(in the US). I can't conceive of any alternative that would save more lives of human beings then criminalizing abortion.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2013, 02:20 AM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(13-04-2013 12:50 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 10:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your position is that abortion is a decision that should be made by the mother and not society. A day old baby is hardly a person so if a new mother decides to kill her day old baby would you not intervene? At some point you shift from not intervening to intervening and I'm curious as to what that point is?

I'd phrase it, rather, that the decision to terminate the pregnancy is the decision of the mother, in part because it is she that is that runs the risks and drawbacks of the pregnancy. With a one-day-old, there is no pregnancy to terminate. Nor can she lay claim to any right to kill the child to spare herself financial hardship. Whatever justification this might normally be (and I would tend not to consider it justified at all outside of the most extreme scenarios), it is more than mitigated by her ability to put the child up for adoption or give it over into state care. In short, she has a lesser option that satisfies her own rights, without infringing on any rights of the baby (be they real or imagined, certain or uncertain, and I would regard them as real and certain at this stage). Even were a one-day-old's right to live questionable, killing the one-day-old is clearly gratuitous in light of other options.

Similarly, the LATEST that a right to an abortion might be claimed is the point (whatever that might be) of a potentially viable delivery, if this could be induced without an undue increase in harm, risk, or discomfort to the woman relative to an abortion procedure. Her own right to terminate her pregnancy is retained, but the manner of termination is such so as not to jeopardize the fetus's right to life (be that real or imagined, certain or uncertain). Once it becomes an option, the hunter uses a tazer instead of a gun, stunning the person or beast in the bush, at no risk to her and at drastically reduced chance of killing a person. Insisting on an abortion, rather than a live delivery, at this stage would be clearly gratuitous.

Some states are considering passing bills in which if an abortion is botched and the baby is born live, the abortionist must take steps to preserve the life of the baby. It would seem that from what you said above you would be in support of such legislation. If true, doesn't that put you in a position of being okay with the killing of human being within the womb, but not okay with killing it(or letting it die) ten minutes later when it is outside the womb?

The problem with arbitrary points where abortion is legal or not is that they are just that...arbitrary points. Instead of setting the cut off at viability, why not set it at when the fetus pain(about 20 weeks)? Or how about setting it at when the fetus has brain activity(about 6 weeks). Or how about making it so only poor people without the means to care for a child be allowed to have abortions?

Establishing laws on arbitrary points like this is unreasonable. Abortion isn't about science, or politics, or economics. Abortion is about morality.....when is it to kill another human being?....only as a last resort. Abortion is seldom the last resort.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2013, 08:09 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2013 08:13 AM by Chas.)
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(14-04-2013 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-04-2013 06:37 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'd like to pose a set of question to you, oriented more towards specific actions you would take and less towards your rendering judgement on the actions of others. As of, say, two weeks ago, what specific course(s) of action would you have advocated for society to take on the issue of abortion? What goals would you have been trying to achieve in this? What alternatives to your own recommendations had you examined, and why did you regard those alternatives inferior to what you would have proposed?

My recommendation is that society should ban all abortions. The goal of banning abortions is to save the lives of 1.2 million human beings a year(in the US). I can't conceive of any alternative that would save more lives of human beings then criminalizing abortion.


Edit: Oops, didn't notice I was in the ring.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
14-04-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(14-04-2013 02:20 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Some states are considering passing bills in which if an abortion is botched and the baby is born live, the abortionist must take steps to preserve the life of the baby. It would seem that from what you said above you would be in support of such legislation. If true, doesn't that put you in a position of being okay with the killing of human being within the womb, but not okay with killing it(or letting it die) ten minutes later when it is outside the womb?

The problem with arbitrary points where abortion is legal or not is that they are just that...arbitrary points. Instead of setting the cut off at viability, why not set it at when the fetus pain(about 20 weeks)? Or how about setting it at when the fetus has brain activity(about 6 weeks). Or how about making it so only poor people without the means to care for a child be allowed to have abortions?

Establishing laws on arbitrary points like this is unreasonable. Abortion isn't about science, or politics, or economics. Abortion is about morality.....when is it to kill another human being?....only as a last resort. Abortion is seldom the last resort.

So why the arbitrary point of fertilization?

There is a second moral ill to consider here: societal restraint of what a woman may or may not do with her own body. It can be argued that this is a lesser evil than killing a child would be, but in light of the general grayness of the personhood question, it is far more certain. (And no, it's not just me regarding it as gray, it is a significant portion of society at large.) I quite explicitly chose viability outside of the womb if labor were to be induced without increased burden to the pregnant woman as the last tolerable point of time for an abortion because that is exactly the point where this second moral ill ceases to be a competing factor, not because this is a point where I begin to ascribe personhood to the fetus. This point where the second moral ill ceases to be a countervailing factor is NOT an arbitrary point, save in that medical advances might alter the age of viability or reduce the burden of induced labor as an alternative. It is the only non-arbitrary point under discussion, save perhaps for birth itself. At this point, the caution principle becomes unambiguously applicable, and doing what can be done to ensure the life of the birth (even if we might be uncertain about whether to consider it a person) becomes a strong argument. Before then, the caution principle cuts both ways. Your questions indicate that you did not understand this motivation.

For that matter, you have not once, not in three pages of debating, acknowledged even the possibility that a moral harm is being done in alienating from a pregnant woman from control over her own person. Not even as part of an argument that this is a lesser of evils. Not once. Coupled with your apparent lack of understanding of my clearly-stated motives for selecting viability outside of the womb, I'm beginning to wonder if you even comprehend that there's a second moral ill to be considered here. I'd certainly question your capacity to balance these ills, or judge one as overriding, without your even pretending to consider both of them.

Regarding laws requiring efforts to keep it alive after an abortion, I have little objection to them in principle. Like most laws, there'd be pragmatics to work out beyond the principle. In particular, who would pay for it? The pro-choice mother or provider who might not see it as a person? The same laws covering the uninsured in emergency rooms, meaning the taxpayer? The pro-life community that actually gives a damn? (But let's see how much of a damn they'd give if called on to foot the bill.) If this is requiring providers to obtain and operate expensive natal intensive care equipment, who would pay for that? Is saving a baby's life (assuming we DO treat it as a baby, which I see few reasons not to at this point) in this manner less expensive, or more expensive, than, say, saving the lives of 20 babies with vaccines? (And if more expensive, why not pay for those vaccines first?) Again, I'm not against it in principle, even a bit in favor in principle, but I have questions about the pragmatics.

(Also, a correction. In earlier posts I referred to something I called the pianist argument. I was misremembering the name. It's actually the violinist argument.)

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(14-04-2013 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  My recommendation is that society should ban all abortions. The goal of banning abortions is to save the lives of 1.2 million human beings a year(in the US). I can't conceive of any alternative that would save more lives of human beings then criminalizing abortion.

I'll charitably assume that you are specifically focusing on induced abortions, and would not criminalize spontaneous abortions. Please correct me if you mean that spontaneous abortions should also be criminalized. By your previous statements, I guess that you would be including morning-after pills in the category of abortions. You cited 1.2 million, which unless I'm mistaken is the Guttmacher Institute's estimate for the number of abortions in the US for a couple years back, which does not include morning-after pills. I'll accept the figure for the sake of argument, and because the number has remained fairly flat. As this figure includes abortions where the mother's life is at risk or even certainly doomed should the pregnancy continue, and cases where the fetus is beyond viability or even certainly dead, I shall assume that you mean to ban abortion in these cases as well, unless you offer a correction.

How much time, effort, and resources do you think it would it take to push through such a ban? What manner of criminalization are you envisioning? What sort of jail time? Would the death penalty be in play? What methods would the police use to investigate? What would be the increased police, prison and court costs born by society? What increase in taxes or deficit, or decrease in expenditures, would be sacrificed to pay for it?

Are you of the impression that each and every one of these 1.2 million abortions yearly would be prevented with banning? Your comments suggest that you are, but I think you're smarter than that. How many now-illegal abortions would continue? How many women would, say, take a quick trip up to Canada or Mexico? In light of these questions and the questions of whether a fetus would ever be viable, would you stand by 1.2 million saved, or do you have a different estimate?

How many and which alternatives did you consider to such a ban, before ascertaining that they could not save as many lives?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
16-04-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: Open "challenge" to any believers/converters
(14-04-2013 09:31 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(14-04-2013 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  My recommendation is that society should ban all abortions. The goal of banning abortions is to save the lives of 1.2 million human beings a year(in the US). I can't conceive of any alternative that would save more lives of human beings then criminalizing abortion.

I'll charitably assume that you are specifically focusing on induced abortions, and would not criminalize spontaneous abortions. Please correct me if you mean that spontaneous abortions should also be criminalized. By your previous statements, I guess that you would be including morning-after pills in the category of abortions. You cited 1.2 million, which unless I'm mistaken is the Guttmacher Institute's estimate for the number of abortions in the US for a couple years back, which does not include morning-after pills. I'll accept the figure for the sake of argument, and because the number has remained fairly flat. As this figure includes abortions where the mother's life is at risk or even certainly doomed should the pregnancy continue, and cases where the fetus is beyond viability or even certainly dead, I shall assume that you mean to ban abortion in these cases as well, unless you offer a correction.

How much time, effort, and resources do you think it would it take to push through such a ban? What manner of criminalization are you envisioning? What sort of jail time? Would the death penalty be in play? What methods would the police use to investigate? What would be the increased police, prison and court costs born by society? What increase in taxes or deficit, or decrease in expenditures, would be sacrificed to pay for it?

Are you of the impression that each and every one of these 1.2 million abortions yearly would be prevented with banning? Your comments suggest that you are, but I think you're smarter than that. How many now-illegal abortions would continue? How many women would, say, take a quick trip up to Canada or Mexico? In light of these questions and the questions of whether a fetus would ever be viable, would you stand by 1.2 million saved, or do you have a different estimate?

How many and which alternatives did you consider to such a ban, before ascertaining that they could not save as many lives?

I said the goal of banning would be to save 1.2 million human beings, not that it would save 1.2 million human beings. What you do is extend existing statutes which govern the killing of human beings to include human beings still within the womb. Some states do this already. In some states you can be charged with the death of an unborn child. Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son just a few years back.

Abortion is the killing of another human being. The reason it isn't murder is because murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Since killing via abortion is lawful, it isn't murder. If a law was passed that made it legal to kill gingers, then killing a ginger would not be murder(it would still be immoral though...just like abortion).

I still don't see the point of considering alternatives to an abortion ban. What alteratives could possibly justify the continued practice by a society to allow the killing of some human beings simply on the basis that it is the choice of another human being?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: