for those against abortion

[Totenkindly]

I notice a lot of people on this thread and IRL equate abortion to murder. For sake of their argument let's say this is correct. Okay. What punishment should those who get abortions have?

Abortion is murder (premeditated) so anyone who is guilty of this should be either sentenced to death or incarcerated for 25 to life according to our laws. Yet when I ask this question of someone who expresses this opinion they are dumbfounded or say that's too harsh. Or too severe a punishment.

It's a great point.

While some people would like to equate it with murder, morally, in terms of practical response they do not actually treat it as murder. They just want to stop people from doing it, but they wouldn't want to see their sister be executed on the chair for it... if even sent to jail.

So I'd say the contraceptive implants for females which, in all but a small percentage of cases work for between five and ten years and do not have major health consequences, roll them out as mandatory to everyone, unless you exercise an opt out for whatever reason you or your parents. Roll it out to cover the years when most accidential pregnancies occur when people are physically mature but not any other way.

It'd save the taxpayer a fortune, surely its a pro-life measure because it prevents abortions, only a small group of those faith communities who still actively reject artificial contraception actually adher to and practice compliance with those guidelines but if they want to opt out let them. It's not the people who're thinking hard enough about their sexual health and decisions that we need to worry about its the people who forget or neglect or who're impulsive anyway.

Or we could just impose mandatory contraception on the males instead. After all, they're far more sexually driven than females at that age, and as long as the males are shooting blanks, no one will get pregnant either.

Wow, I hope someone puts that into law!

 

[Lark]

Or we could just impose mandatory contraception on the males instead. After all, they're far more sexually driven than females at that age, and as long as the males are shooting blanks, no one will get pregnant either.

Wow, I hope someone puts that into law!

Either way, I dont mind, although I'm only familiar with chemical implants working with any success on the female side, there's also the issue that if you where able to roll out this treatment it would be for a particular age group, the chances of older males in the community who are outside of the catchment group impregnating younger females is unfortunately higher than vice versa.

 

[Totenkindly]

I hope you do see the typical issue being addressed here, though, in terms of the sort of social statements you're making. There are some human aspects to the problem you're failing to consider, which is one reason why your suggestion would never be implemented.

 

[Lark]

I hope you do see the typical issue being addressed here, though, in terms of the sort of social statements you're making. There are some human aspects to the problem you're failing to consider, which is one reason why your suggestion would never be implemented.

Not sure what you're saying, you'd need to clarify.

 

[Aleksei]

Sure, the total number of abortions would rise but the number of spontaneous abortions would remain the same.

I can see no reason to connect the number of spontaneous abortions with the number of induced abortions.

However I have noticed that when religion and morality are involved, reason flies out the window.

But there is always the still, quiet voice of reason.

You're hilarious Victor

 

[Take Five]

part of the genesis of so many abortions is that our society is sex-driven in the first place, perhaps women aren't receiving effective protection under the law, the institution of marriage is being cheapened and destroyed, tax laws often make it easier financially to be single than married, etc. There are so many factors that contribute to abortions that there is no one single solution to stopping it. And the lobbying groups for reproductive "rights" make it more difficult.

Were it illegal, it most certainly should be severely punishable. However the excuse of "we'll have to lock up so many women" is short-sighted. Why? Because anybody who knows anything about law enforcement knows that the priority goes to stopping the supplier of criminal behavior. So while the women (and possibly male financiers) should be held accountable for the crimes, the more sever punishment would be given to the abortion operator.

Lark, abortion is prohibited by the constitution in the Republic of Ireland--how do things operate there?

 

[Totenkindly]

Not sure what you're saying, you'd need to clarify.

What, I have to explain that a government-run mandatory contraceptive program for one gender or the other (and ESPECIALLY for women, considering how some countries don't yet even have gender equality in society, and in the United States women didn't even get the right to vote until the 20's and still haven't quite caught up with men financially) is an extremely volatile idea socially and could even fall into discriminatory practices?

(At least China's one-child-per-family rule did not single out one gender to be repressed.)

Aren't you also one of those who doesn't like government intervention and invasion into social issues, especially where they involve personal freedoms? Mandatory contraception certainly seems invasive to me. I'm not seeing a consistency of position here, except one of convenience.

I'm actually being nice by assuming you have no actual bias here and simply are not considering the human aspect of and cultural response to your proposed social programs.

 

[Take Five]

another thing worth noting is that many would-be abortion abolitionists simply shrug their shoulders and give up thinking that Roe v Wade will never be overturned. They get discouraged, understandably so.

It's important to note that there are other ways to chip away at the evil of abortion aside from overturning Roe v Wade. For instance (in 2003 I think) Congress passed a law to make partial-birth abortions illegal murders. There are also executive orders involved such as Obama's which allow federal funding to go to overseas organizations that promote or perform abortions, which was previously an exec order revoked by Bush. Also, there are matters of parental consent, education, and many other ways of curbing the amount performed outside of rescinding Roe v Wade.

Furthermore, there are Justices that think Roe v Wade will be overturned, including some who are actually supporters of the ruling. The future is not at all clear.

 

[Take Five]

What, I have to explain that a government-run mandatory contraceptive program for one gender or the other (and ESPECIALLY for women, considering how some countries don't yet even have gender equality in society, and in the United States women didn't even get the right to vote until the 20's and still haven't quite caught up with men financially) is an extremely volatile idea socially and could even fall into discriminatory practices?

(At least China's one-child-per-family rule did not single out one gender to be repressed.)

Aren't you also one of those who doesn't like government intervention and invasion into social issues, especially where they involve personal freedoms? Mandatory contraception certainly seems invasive to me. I'm not seeing a consistency of position here, except one of convenience.

I'm actually being nice by assuming you have no actual bias here and simply are not considering the human aspect of and cultural response to your proposed social programs.

I'd have to say that I don't like the ideas of forced contraception because it does seem invasive and would be met with resistance from left and right, but am more than willing to support government programs that offer support and services to pregnant women.

 

[Aleksei]

aIt's important to note that there are other ways to chip away at the evil of abortion aside from overturning Roe v Wade. For instance (in 2003 I think) Congress passed a law to make partial-birth abortions illegal murders. There are also executive orders involved such as Obama's which allow federal funding to go to overseas organizations that promote or perform abortions, which was previously an exec order revoked by Bush. Also, there are matters of parental consent, education, and many other ways of curbing the amount performed outside of rescinding Roe v Wade.

LULZ! Evil? Aren't we being a tad overdramatic?

 

[Take Five]

LULZ! Evil? Aren't we being a tad overdramatic?

But a War on the evil of poverty isn't? Or the evil of refusing people gay marriage "rights"? Or reining in evil businessmen from taking too much of the wealth?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Well we're close to 600 replies in this thread, but for the few people still reading this here is my $.02.

The overall view of society is a response to current technology. For example the "sexual revolution" was the natural response to the development of the birth control pill. The "rock and roll revolution" was a natural response to the development of portable transistor radios (allowing teens to listen to music without their parents around).

In the case of abortion the relevant technology is ultrasound. As ultrasounds become clearer and more detailed, then people will naturally start thinking of the fetus as a person earlier and earlier into the pregnancy.

Although it may be the case that society does not go completely pro-life. Since the fetus does not really look human during the first trimester, it may be that abortions will stay legal during the first trimester. However laws will be become stricter and punishments more severe for those who abort or otherwise harm a fetus after the first trimester.

I know that the people most vocal about abortion see it as a black-and-white issue, but about the silent majority? Do they see the issue as black-and-white or will they decide it is some shade of grey?

 

[Aleksei]

But a War on the evil of poverty isn't? Or the evil of refusing people gay marriage "rights"? Or reining in evil businessmen from taking too much of the wealth?

Yes, that's way overdramatic too.

Evil businessmen rule.

 

[Randomnity]

Mandatory contraception certainly seems invasive to me. I'm not seeing a consistency of position here, except one of convenience.

I think in a lot of ways it'd be a good idea to have to apply for a license to have children, much like driving a car requires a license, and for the same reason - it gives you the power to irreversibly damage innocent people. Or even on a smaller scale, a license to have more than 2 children (to replace the parents). Or even on a lesser scale, mandatory contraception with social assistance. I'm disgusted to see people who aren't financially independent (social assistance, living with parents, etc) growing up a brood of children at taxpayers' expense because they're lonely and want something to love them. (see: octomom). I've heard suggestions about this in various places but not sure if it's been implemented anywhere, temporarily or permanently.

Of course, none of these would ever happen in the Western world, at least without a drastic change in our society's attitudes, and they'd also be logistically difficult with the current problems with contraceptives. so I haven't wasted much time thinking about it, but it's an interesting idea. Reason and logic clashing up against emotion and freedom, I guess.

 

[Take Five]

Passion and logic are not separate entities in my statement. I don't hold people's opinions on this topic with much seriousness unless those persons have experienced the issue firsthand.

I'm an ISTJ and even I know that not all knowledge and good decisions come from experience.

I am surprised that those who are opposed to abortion know nothing of biology where the number of spontaneous abortions far outweighs the induced abortions.

But knowing nothing of biology and natural selection, they know everything about moralism. And they even tell us they know the mind of God.

But I don't mind God, for if She exists, She has created natural selection and the unimaginably large numbers of spontaneous abortions. One could say that She has been profligate with spontaneous abortions. We might even worship Her as the Great Abortionist - casual with death as She is with life.

And to discover the origin of abortion, read Her very own book, "The Origin of Species".

Morality considers intent. If you really think this then you must put no stock into green technology or curbing global warming, because flooding and harmful natural phenomena happen anyway.

Sure, the total number of abortions would rise but the number of spontaneous abortions would remain the same.

I can see no reason to connect the number of spontaneous abortions with the number of induced abortions.

However I have noticed that when religion and morality are involved, reason flies out the window.

But there is always the still, quiet voice of reason.

Because there is no such discipline as theology or social ethics. That's all just people spouting nonsense without thinking.

 

[Coriolis]

But I don't mind God, for if She exists, She has created natural selection and the unimaginably large numbers of spontaneous abortions. One could say that She has been profligate with spontaneous abortions. We might even worship Her as the Great Abortionist - casual with death as She is with life.

And to discover the origin of abortion, read Her very own book, "The Origin of Species".

Excellent, Victor! I couldn't agree more.

Passion and logic are not separate entities in my statement. I don't hold people's opinions on this topic with much seriousness unless those persons have experienced the issue firsthand.

I hope you are more flexible on other topics, otherwise you might be reluctant, say, to obtain medical care if the practitioner has not him/herself experienced your ailment. People who have not experienced these issues firsthand have much insight to offer, and are often able to give a clearer perspective unencumbered by the emotional baggage of the experience. Moreover, since issues related to pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing affect most people at some point during their lives, it behooves the so-far-uninvolved to consider what their values and priorities on these issues are before they find themselves in a crisis situation.

As for the discussion about mandatory contraception, or even my own somewhat facetious suggestion to dispense "homicide licenses". a saner path is to make as much headway as possible doing what can be done. Many people still oppose universal access to effective, cheap (free?) birth control, but that is politically and practically more feasible than alternatives that may be more effective but more extreme, causing more problems while solving the one. We also need to change the atttudes that make some women think they have to give in to men about sex; or that getting pregnant will help them keep a guy; or that having a baby will make them grown up, have status, etc. Men need to take their share of the responsibility for preventing pregnancy, whether that is using birth control, or just saying no. Perhaps it is time for everyone to take sex seriously again, and control its occurrence and outcomes rather than letting it control them.

 

[Totenkindly]

In the case of abortion the relevant technology is ultrasound. As ultrasounds become clearer and more detailed, then people will naturally start thinking of the fetus as a person earlier and earlier into the pregnancy.

Nice connection.
And yes, it's what actually has been happening as well.
There's been a big shift back towards pro-life attitudes because we are able to witness the fetus at earlier and earlier ages and perceive it to be a person even while yet unborn.

(In most surveys, Gen Y's are shifting more and more toward allowing gay marriage but are becoming more and more pro-life. I think this due to the experiential aspects of morality, rather than just trying to hold particular values. They experience gay people as "normal" rather than sick and don't see the marriages as any different, hence they accept them; but the unborn are also being perceived more and more as actual people, which is turning them off to abortion.)

I know that the people most vocal about abortion see it as a black-and-white issue, but about the silent majority? Do they see the issue as black-and-white or will they decide it is some shade of grey?

Probably the decision will become pragmatic rather than particularly moralistic. There will be allowances early on, in case of rape or incest or mother's health, because people don't much like to tell others what to do and want to have the freedom to act if THEY are ever in such a situation; but after a certain point in development, abortions will be cut off because of how the unborn baby is being perceived nowadays in western culture.

The less vocal majority really is about preserving as much freedom as possible while preventing overt atrocities from occurring.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I'm an ISTJ and even I know that not all knowledge and good decisions come from experience.

Yes. That's exactly what I said.

I hope you are more flexible on other topics, otherwise you might be reluctant, say, to obtain medical care if the practitioner has not him/herself experienced your ailment.

No. I'm not. I won't go to a doctor unless they've had the exact same ailments as I have. I won't go to a mechanic who hasn't owned the vehicle I drive, etc.

I mean really? I'm talking about abortion here. That's it.

Moreover, since issues related to pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing affect most people at some point during their lives, it behooves the so-far-uninvolved to consider what their values and priorities on these issues are before they find themselves in a crisis situation.

Yep. That's why I said their opinions have value to themselves. I'll hear their thoughts but I hold their opinions with much less weight.

 

[Take Five]

Yes. That's exactly what I said.





No. I'm not. I won't go to a doctor unless they've had the exact same ailments as I have. I won't go to a mechanic who hasn't owned the vehicle I drive, etc.

I mean really? I'm talking about abortion here. That's it.



Yep. That's why I said their opinions have value to themselves. I'll hear their thoughts but I hold their opinions with much less weight.

To be honest, that really seems like a very limited and unwise policy. Do you only learn about the problems of stealing from a qualified thief? Really, experience is insightful, but it has its limits.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Nice connection.
And yes, it's what actually has been happening as well.
There's been a big shift back towards pro-life attitudes because we are able to witness the fetus at earlier and earlier ages and perceive it to be a person even while yet unborn.

(In most surveys, Gen Y's are shifting more and more toward allowing gay marriage but are becoming more and more pro-life. I think this due to the experiential aspects of morality, rather than just trying to hold particular values. They experience gay people as "normal" rather than sick and don't see the marriages as any different, hence they accept them; but the unborn are also being perceived more and more as actual people, which is turning them off to abortion.)

Yeah I'm aware that is how perceptions are shifting. In political terms it takes the government a while to catch up with the younger generation. Young people have the lowest voter turnout rate while seniors have the highest. So the government tends to reflect the viewpoint of seniors disproportionately. (Also the politicians themselves tend to be old.)

Still I think Democrats should get on the front end of the trend and move toward a more pro-life stance. I think with time they are going to find themselves on the right end of most issues, but they could lose a lot of voters if they stay pro-choice. There are a fair amount of people who vote Republican just because of this one issue, and the public is just going to become more pro-life over time.