Author Topic: Abortion debate  (Read 15781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #140 on: November 17, 2012, 09:48:12 PM »
To 1), while that may be true in some cases, I seriously doubt most women who are denied a legal abortion seek out an illegal one.

Actually, H, countries with no legal abortion have similar abortion rates to countries that do offer abortion legally.  It's the sort of thing that people do anyway if they really need to -- and if abortion is illegal, then that means their only option is unsafe abortion.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40299
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #141 on: November 18, 2012, 04:34:07 AM »
To 1), while that may be true in some cases, I seriously doubt most women who are denied a legal abortion seek out an illegal one. I don't know if there are any trustworthy figures on the black market of abortion, but I doubt it's as big of an issue as you think.
It depends. There are countries that have lots of abortions with them illegal, countries that have few abortions with them legal, and countries with everything in between.
Right. But I don't think it follows that if abortions are restricted in any way, there will therefore be a rise in illegal abortion numbers.
Yes, because we have no evidence that when something that is legal is made illegal, a black market will arise to supply the demand already in place.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #142 on: November 18, 2012, 11:03:10 AM »
We also have history as an example, as well as contemporary countries. Abortions WILL happen if the woman wants one. It's too easy really to make yourself miscarry.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #143 on: November 18, 2012, 11:08:52 AM »
Right. I misspoke. What I meant to emphasize is that it's a nonsequitur to assume that since a woman who wants an abortion can't get it legally, she will get it illegally. Maybe some women would do that. But I doubt that all or most would do that.

It seems like a minor issue to be caught up in, is all.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #144 on: November 18, 2012, 11:33:36 AM »
Except it's not. It's one reason it became legal in the first place. There's states that have made it practically illegal, and it doesn't prevent woman from getting an abortion. Some have even gone to Mexico to get harmful chemicals to make them miscarry.

I really don't know how you can defend a position that has been shown to be factually incorrect. Its obviously not a non sequitur, when it's what happens. It DOES follow, because that's what follows. It's tautologically impossible to deny that.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40299
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #145 on: November 18, 2012, 01:52:21 PM »
Right. I misspoke. What I meant to emphasize is that it's a nonsequitur to assume that since a woman who wants an abortion can't get it legally, she will get it illegally. Maybe some women would do that. But I doubt that all or most would do that.
Why do you doubt that?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #146 on: November 18, 2012, 04:20:05 PM »
Look, I'm not making an absolute claim that there aren't any woman that will seek out illegal abortions if they can't get a legal one. Evidently, there will be.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26892
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #147 on: November 18, 2012, 04:27:47 PM »
You're saying its an insignificant minority. We disagree.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #148 on: November 18, 2012, 04:43:08 PM »
That it's insignificant, or that it's a minority, or both?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26892
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #149 on: November 18, 2012, 05:32:26 PM »
Definitely the latter. Possibly the former.  I'd need more info.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #150 on: November 18, 2012, 11:14:10 PM »
I, too, doubt that it's an insignificant minority because a woman who gets one does so in spite of a huge stigma associated with the action. Making it illegal would be unlikely to change the amount of stigma and would likely change the resolve of the women in question by a pretty small amount.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26892
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #151 on: November 18, 2012, 11:16:12 PM »
I don't mean to sound crude or anything, but if abortion were to become illegal...........wouldn't a good hard punch to the gut essentially do the same thing?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #152 on: November 18, 2012, 11:50:34 PM »
The woman who got a punch to the uterus would live with the stuff in her however long it took for her body to naturally discharge the contents. With the abortion, this doesn't occur since abortions usually include the removal of all that through a vacuum technique or through dilation and curettage (D&C).

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26892
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #153 on: November 18, 2012, 11:51:41 PM »
The woman who got a punch to the uterus would live with the stuff in her however long it took for her body to naturally discharge the contents. With the abortion, this doesn't occur since abortions usually include the dilation and curettage (D&C).

Yes, but from a pro-life point of view, they both equally kill the fetus.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #154 on: November 19, 2012, 07:27:57 AM »
Right. I misspoke. What I meant to emphasize is that it's a nonsequitur to assume that since a woman who wants an abortion can't get it legally, she will get it illegally. Maybe some women would do that. But I doubt that all or most would do that.

It seems like a minor issue to be caught up in, is all.


A minor issue?  :eek   I beg to differ.  There are major considerations here.  Do we go back to underground abortion clinics that operate outside the law and more importantly, outside of the purview of oversight by the professional medical community?  That would be a disaster.  Don't think it will happen?  I give you:  History

It would happen because it has happened before.  Making abortion illegal will not prevent abortion from happening, nor will it effectively reduce the amount of abortions.  What it likely would do is result in needless death and disease, mostly among the poor and minorities who would not have the financial means to travel abroad to seek a legal abortion.


« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 03:10:17 PM by kirksnosehair »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #155 on: November 19, 2012, 08:42:38 AM »
I realized something interesting last night:

The people arguing for subjective morality are the ones trying to use objective - historical and comparative - facts to argue for why it should be legal, and they aren't invoking morality in their argument.

The person/people arguing for objective morality doesn't seem to want to accept the objective - historical and comparative - facts , and they are invoking a morality in their argument.

In other words, it seems to me that the "subjective" people are being more "objective" than the "objective" people.

I really do think this entire debate could be solved if we just agreed to try to reduce the amount of abortions that would happen legally. Everyone, in that case, would win. Pro-choicers would see legal abortion, and not have a problem. Pro-lifers would see a reduction in abortion rates, and their end-goal would be achieved.

This debate isn't going to be solved talking about ideology, because that's basically arguing for religion and a very specific morality (true for both sides). And morality is a very tricky thing to change, and I think it's almost impossible for it to change by having an intellectual debate.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #156 on: November 19, 2012, 09:07:06 AM »
Sheavo, do you claim to be a person that uses objective facts without invoking morality to frame our laws? Earlier you posted this:

"That ~15% of pregnancies end in unwanted miscarriages. That making abortion illegal wouldn't make abortions go away, just make them more dangerous. That defining a zygote as human life would involve an insane amount of interest in the on goings of a woman's womb by the government. That the real way to lower the number of abortions, and thereby achieve the goal of reducing unborn childs being "murdered," is achieved not by making abortion illegal, but by changing social policies to reduce pregnancies and increase the number of adoptions."

Now, those are the objective facts. What should our law be, without invoking morality?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #157 on: November 19, 2012, 10:25:45 AM »
I never said laws can't invoke a morality - that has been other people, and you're conflating my views with theirs simply because we agree on a lot else.

Our laws should be sex education, as well as requiring insurance to cover birth control pills and other contraceptives. We should also fund things like Planned Parenthood. In addition to that, we should have no laws around gay couples marrying, and allow for gays to form civil unions like everyone else. That would help in adoption rates, and thereby help with women who want to adopt a child instead of aborting it - and while this is certainly invoking a change in our moral laws, it would do so by largely getting rid of a law based upon some religions morality. We should also have a strong social safety net in place, so that single women who become pregnant aren't horrified at the idea of giving birth and living in poverty - which, as our society currently is, is pretty much going to be the case. In the long run, any cost this incurs will almost assuredly be made up in future taxes.

That's why our laws should be if reducing the number of abortions is our prime-concern. Gay people make amazing parents, and even the study you linked to before in another thread didn't refute that concept. Birth control and contraceptives don't have to be used, and they don't incite sexual behaviors - our hormones do.


Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #158 on: November 19, 2012, 10:51:37 AM »
Without invoking morality, Sheavo, why "should" our laws be this way?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3055
  • Gender: Female
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #159 on: November 19, 2012, 11:45:38 AM »

I really do think this entire debate could be solved if we just agreed to try to reduce the amount of abortions that would happen legally. Everyone, in that case, would win. Pro-choicers would see legal abortion, and not have a problem. Pro-lifers would see a reduction in abortion rates, and their end-goal would be achieved.


So how do you propose we reduce the amount of abortions? Birth control fails and pushing abstinence doesn't seem to make a difference.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #160 on: November 19, 2012, 11:54:50 AM »
I think he said that can be achieved by better sex education, insurance covering contraceptives, adoption open and encouraged to gay couples, Planned Parenthood, etc.

I agree with a lot of those things. If conception rates are lowered, so will abortion rates (because there's nothing to abort).

Gay people make amazing parents, and even the study you linked to before in another thread didn't refute that concept.
I mean, it kind of did. Do you think the results of that study were insignificant? Clearly there is a big difference between the lives of children raised by heterosexual parents versus those raised by homosexual parents.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4604
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #161 on: November 19, 2012, 11:58:45 AM »
Without invoking morality, Sheavo, why "should" our laws be this way?

Because he thinks the laws being this way would serve the interests of everyone involved. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #162 on: November 19, 2012, 12:01:03 PM »
Without invoking morality, Sheavo, why "should" our laws be this way?

Because he thinks the laws being this way would serve the interests of everyone involved. 
I hear you. But he's actually invoking a moral principle here on the making of laws: "Laws should serve everybody's interest." So he is invoking his own morality.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40299
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #163 on: November 19, 2012, 12:05:08 PM »
Without invoking morality, Sheavo, why "should" our laws be this way?

Because he thinks the laws being this way would serve the interests of everyone involved. 
I hear you. But he's actually invoking a moral principle here on the making of laws: "Laws should serve everybody's interest." So he is invoking his own morality.
Acknowledging everyone's best interests doesn't necessarily equal morality.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #164 on: November 19, 2012, 12:06:19 PM »
It does. It's an ethical position to think that everybody's interests matter.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #165 on: November 19, 2012, 12:20:19 PM »
H, you're falling into the objective morality trap again.  You can argue with us without resorting to non sequiturs.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #166 on: November 19, 2012, 12:21:50 PM »
I'm just responding to Sheavo. But yes, you're right, let's talk about policy.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #167 on: November 19, 2012, 12:33:14 PM »
Where this morality talk all started, anyway, is this idea that you while you should invoke secular morality on the legal system (e.g. "freedom is good"), you shouldn't invoke religious morality (e.g. "life starts at conception"). Because that would be shoving religion down people's throats.

The problem with that is to a religious person, there is no difference between secular and religious morality. It's all lumped together to compose that person's moral platform. So I think it's a little hypocritical for folks like rumborak to claim "Oh, I can vote for what I want on my secular moral platform, but you can't vote on yours because it involves religion." Basically, his platform is not restricted but mine is.
 
There's nothing wrong with voting on religious precepts. :)
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4604
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #168 on: November 19, 2012, 01:39:44 PM »
I have a question for Scheavo.

Our laws should be sex education, as well as requiring insurance to cover birth control pills and other contraceptives. We should also fund things like Planned Parenthood. In addition to that, we should have no laws around gay couples marrying, and allow for gays to form civil unions like everyone else. That would help in adoption rates, and thereby help with women who want to adopt a child instead of aborting it - and while this is certainly invoking a change in our moral laws, it would do so by largely getting rid of a law based upon some religions morality. We should also have a strong social safety net in place, so that single women who become pregnant aren't horrified at the idea of giving birth and living in poverty - which, as our society currently is, is pretty much going to be the case. In the long run, any cost this incurs will almost assuredly be made up in future taxes.

It seems to me that all of these things can be done whether abortion is legal or not.  None of them seem dependent on abortion being legal. 

So, out of curiosity, would you be okay with abortion being illegal if all of these laws you are proposing were put into effect?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 01:48:11 PM by Jaffa »
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #169 on: November 19, 2012, 02:23:52 PM »
Without invoking morality, Sheavo, why "should" our laws be this way?

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you trying to pigenhole me into an objective morality, or something? I'm a perspectivalist, a disttinction sorely missing in the way you out line philsophical possibilities right now, but to give you an example of what that means, let me ask you this:

Why do you want abortions to be legal?

If its because you want less babies to die, due to abortions, than that means you should accept what I'm saying because that's the best way to reduce the number of abortions. As for why I care, it's because it makes for a better world, a better world measured in terms of social happiness, social welfare, etc. Mothers having unwanted children is bad economically for them, it can often lead to social problems for kids, and a bunch of other vicious cycles that helps society, as a whole, suffer. My interest is in helping those people, in also in term helping myself. We're all in the same boat. In term, I understand the logic you give when saying, if a zygote is a human life, it is murder to abort it. I understand it enough to acknowledge that abortions should not be something gleefully ran into, and that reducing their amount is an overall good thing for society.

So, it's because I think it leads to a better place than the alternative given and argued for by you. It's a results based morality, one that improves the here and now, and the world around me. In a way, I'm just disagreeing about the route you take to your goal of reducing abortions, especially not when you take the mothers health and life into consideration.

I have a question for Scheavo.
So, out of curiosity, would you be okay with abortion being illegal if all of these laws you are proposing were put into effect?

No, not at all. A few less women would probably seek abortions, but they would do so in a manner which is less safe to them, and lead to more deaths of the women involved. If abortions are going to be undertaken, I consider it better for it to be in the light of day, with certified professionals, sanitary conditions, and safer, healthier procedures. In the mean time, if they go to a place like Planned Parenthood, they could aid and education so they don't become pregnant again, which is just another problem. Education really is the most important part of this, but that's something usually scorned upon by the same people promoting a pro-life agenda.

So how do you propose we reduce the amount of abortions? Birth control fails and pushing abstinence doesn't seem to make a difference.

Reducing abortions isn't the same as eliminating them, and more people using birth control and condoms means that overall abortions will be reduced, even if they can both fail. Abstinence only education is a failure, it goes against human nature, and it shouldn't be taught.






Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #170 on: November 19, 2012, 03:05:44 PM »
Abstinence should certainly be taught, along with birth control.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #171 on: November 19, 2012, 03:14:14 PM »
Abstinence should certainly be taught, along with birth control.


Word  :hat


I support giving both perspectives to young'uns

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #172 on: November 19, 2012, 03:15:18 PM »
Where this morality talk all started, anyway, is this idea that you while you should invoke secular morality on the legal system (e.g. "freedom is good"), you shouldn't invoke religious morality (e.g. "life starts at conception"). Because that would be shoving religion down people's throats.

The problem with that is to a religious person, there is no difference between secular and religious morality. It's all lumped together to compose that person's moral platform. So I think it's a little hypocritical for folks like rumborak to claim "Oh, I can vote for what I want on my secular moral platform, but you can't vote on yours because it involves religion." Basically, his platform is not restricted but mine is.
 
There's nothing wrong with voting on religious precepts. :)

First of all, your religious views are certainly allowed to come into play when you vote.  You can vote on whatever criteria you wish.

However, I disagree with your position that there's nothing fundamentally different between voting on a "secular moral platform" and a religious one.  The difference is that rumborak's position is nonrestrictive, while yours is restrictive.  Giving people the ability to choose whether they may have an abortion isn't "shoving secularism down people's throats"; in fact, it's quite the opposite.  A vote against abortion, however, is restrictive.

Abstinence should certainly be taught, along with birth control.

This would be fine.  You could certainly say "hey, this birth control is great, but sometimes it doesn't work, so maybe abstinence is cool too".  I don't have a problem with that.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #173 on: November 19, 2012, 03:15:40 PM »
I went to a Catholic school, and we were never 'taught' abstinence. Which I still don't understand, really.

Teacher: "Ok, don't do <specified activity>. There will be a quiz on Friday."

Abstinence was taught to me by my dad.

Cool Chris' dad: "Get some girl pregnant and I will kick your butt."

Ok, it didn't really go down that way, but I got the message. But I also knew there were these things out there called 'birth control' without my dad or my teacher telling me about them. And this was 20 years ago.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Abortion debate
« Reply #174 on: November 19, 2012, 03:20:43 PM »
Abstinence should certainly be taught, along with birth control.

One reason I said "abstinence only." Which is a failure.

But it probably doesn't need to be taught. The kids who actually do follow through with it, are the ones getting it at home too. The problem is when kids have sex, but don't know anything about proper birth control.