A Moral Dilemma For Pro-Choice Liberals?

[FerventGodSeeker]

I'm not "beating around the bush," I strongly disagree with you. Being pro-choice does not equate to being anti-life, no more than being an agnostic equates to being anti-god.

Agnostics generally give an "I have no opinion" answer on the God question; pro-choicers, however, do give an opinion to the abortion question.....it's OK and the woman can get one if she wants one. Thus, they are pro-abortion. Thus, they are anti-life, just as pro-lifers are anti-choice.
You're acting like just because pro-choicers don't personally agree with every reason to get an abortion, that means they're not pro-abortion. This is just ridiculous on it's face. If a person supports the death penalty, that doesn't mean they agree that every crime, even every death-related crime, warrants the dealth penalty. Their exceptions don't make them any less pro-death penalty, just as certain pro-choice exceptions, slim as they may be, don't make them any less pro-abortion, and thus, anti-life.

 

[doppelganger]

How could we study the effect that anti-murder laws have on the incidence of murder?

But anti-murder laws don't make the murders that occur any "worse." So, yes, it's a red herring.

You're suggesting that we sacrifice millions of innocent lives on the chance (unestablished as of yet, as you seem to be as ignorant as myself) that it could help others. You realize that's basically what the crazy guy in Deja Vu said, right?

How do you know it's unestablished? I haven't asserted anything yet. I've merely asked some questions, some of which you've tried to avoid. Let us reason together. It may turn out that there is evidence for a net gain of life still from anti-abortion laws, but then we'll know, and the use of numbers like 46 million worldwide abortions (impliedly suggesting that your moral stance would prevent them) would be stripped of any misleading element and thereby improve your credibility.

 

[Papersock]

Wouldn't being anti-life mean you want all pregnancies to be aborted?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But anti-murder laws don't make the murders that occur any "worse." So, yes, it's a red herring.

Actually I think they do. If people were not deterred from murdering others and they felt that it was totally morally defensible to murder someone, there would undoubtedly be more rampant murders.

How do you know it's unestablished? I haven't asserted anything yet. I've merely asked some questions, some of which you've tried to avoid. Let us reason together. It may turn out that there is evidence for a net gain of life still from anti-abortion laws, but then we'll know, and the use of numbers like 46 million worldwide abortions (impliedly suggesting that your moral stance would prevent them) would be stripped of any misleading element and thereby improve your credibility.

A couple of things here. First, the idea is unestablished in this particular conversation because you haven't presented any evidence to suggest it yet. If you have some we can look at it.
Second, I think you missed the implication of my statement regarding 46 million annual abortions. Now, if Wiki is accurate, then anti-abortion laws, it would seem, do prevent abortions to some degree. The other aspect here would be how well the laws are enforced in countries where it's illegal. However, that wasn't even my point. Lilithu presented some statistics of deaths in Iraq, Darfur, etc, and suggested that pro-lifers care far more about unborn lives than those lives. My stat was presented to show that abortion statistics far, FAR outweigh the statistics she presented, and thus the pro-life emphasis is not misplaced in the slightest, nor could it ever be suggested by such numbers that pro-lifers care more about unborn life than born life.

 

[Nanda]

Agnostics generally give an "I have no opinion" answer on the God question;

I know a great number of agnostics here on RF who would disagree strongly with that statement.

pro-choicers, however, do give an opinion to the abortion question.....it's OK and the woman can get one if she wants one.

No. My opinion is "It's not up to me to make that choice or impose my morality on another woman. It's up to her what she does with her body, not me."

Thus, they are pro-abortion.

Thus, I am pro-CHOICE.

 

[Nanda]

Wouldn't being anti-life mean you want all pregnancies to be aborted?

Grar! I am anti-life! *kills Papersock* :tuna:

 

[doppelganger]

Actually I think they do. If people were not deterred from murdering others and they felt that it was totally morally defensible to murder someone, there would undoubtedly be more rampant murders.

More rampant and "worse" are not the same thing in this context. And since you won't answer the question, we have not established the effect, if any, on the incidence of abortion from the passage of laws criminalizing abortion. If, in fact, anti-abortion laws have little or no effect on the rate of abortions, then we should know about that in considering matters of public policy, especially if illegal abortions create a heightened risk of death, serious injury and permanent infertility compared to regulated abortion.

A couple of things here. First, the idea is unestablished in this particular conversation because you haven't presented any evidence to suggest it yet.

I know. I'm asking you to demonstrate with evidence that criminilizing abortion will save lives (assuming for this discussion that an aborted, unborn fetus is a "life").

Second, I think you missed the implication of my statement regarding 46 million annual abortions. Now, if Wiki is accurate, then anti-abortion laws, it would seem, do prevent abortions to some degree.

How so? I think your math might be "fuzzy". :sarcastic

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I know a great number of agnostics here on RF who would disagree strongly with that statement.

Ok. If you'd like to present an agnostic opinion that you think detracts from my overall point there, go for it. However, I don't think you'll be successful, and it will only detract from the thread as a whole, not my point.

No. My opinion is "It's not up to me to make that choice or impose my morality on another woman. It's up to her what she does with her body, not me."

Yes, in other words, "Abortion is OK, and a woman can get one if she wants one." That's exactly what I just said.

Thus, I am pro-CHOICE.

Yes, and thus anti-life, as I just explained.

 

[JayHawes]

This problem is like any other problem, it all depends on who you ask. It's like a murderer who kills a child. If you ask the prosecution, he's guilty and should be put on the death penalty. If you ask the defense they'd argue that's he doesn't deserve the death penalty but simply life in prison.

Relating to the politely titled "pro-Choice" or in other words baby-murder, if you ask some....it's all right, if you ask others it's not alright. I personally dont think humans have the right to end anyone's life. If anyone must die, let it be themselves, dont sacrifice the lifes of others.

 

[Quiddity]

More rampant and "worse" are not the same thing in this context. And since you won't answer the question, we have not established the effect, if any, on the incidence of abortion from the passage of laws criminalizing abortion. If, in fact, anti-abortion laws have little or no effect on the rate of abortions, then we should know about that in considering matters of public policy, especially if illegal abortions create a heightened risk of death, serious injury and permanent infertility compared to regulated abortion.

I personally don't think that would be the case. No real way to find out but to implement it.

 

[doppelganger]

I personally don't think that would be the case. No real way to find out but to implement it.

How do you know there's not? There's no field or combination of fields of the social sciences that could help us understand the effect criminalizing abortion has on the incidence of abortion?

After all, someone could just assert "I personally think it would be the case." And you'd each go your own ways not having actually learned anything from the exchange.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

More rampant and "worse" are not the same thing in this context. And since you won't answer the question

Sorry, you keep saying this, but I don't know what question you're referring to. I've responded to everything you've said that I can see.

we have not established the effect, if any, on the incidence of abortion from the passage of laws criminalizing abortion.

I don't see how this is relevant. If anti-rape laws do nothing to deter rape, does that mean we should make rape legal?

If, in fact, anti-abortion laws have little or no effect on the rate of abortions, then we should know about that in considering matters of public policy, especially if illegal abortions create a heightened risk of death, serious injury and permanent infertility compared to regulated abortion.

Again, why? If people hurt themselves to do things that are illegal/immoral, that is not an argument for legalizing the thing.

I know. I'm asking you to demonstrate with evidence that criminilizing abortion will save lives (assuming for this discussion that an aborted, unborn fetus is a "life").

Well, 46 million lives per year won't be ended...thus they'll be saved. I would think this would be relatively obvious...It's all on you if you want to claim that more than 46 million people will die annually as a result of 46 million more babies....am I understanding your argument correctly?

How so? I think your math might be "fuzzy". :sarcastic

The stat was 26 million where abortion is legal, 20 million where it's not. Thus, if you want to make a direct correlation (although it's more complex than this) anti-abortion laws result in 6 million fewer abortions per year.

 

[JayHawes]

The world will always find an ecxcuse as to why their evil is not really evil. Darkness claims to be light when all it is is darkness.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't see how this is relevant. If anti-rape laws do nothing to deter rape, does that mean we should make rape legal?

Red herring.

Again, why? If people hurt themselves to do things that are illegal/immoral, that is not an argument for legalizing the thing.

"Immoral" is not something I would argue about with you. There's no point to an argument about "morality" between you and I. This is a public policy argument. If people hurt themselves smoking, should cigarettes be made illegal? Why not?

Well, 46 million lives per year won't be ended...thus they'll be saved. I would think this would be relatively obvious...It's all on you if you want to claim that more than 46 million people will die annually as a result of 46 million more babies.

Unless abortion laws don't reduce the incidence of abortion. In which case there would still be those 46 million abortions, plus the potential for additional deaths because of unsafe practices when abortions are illegal.

The stat was 26 million where abortion is legal, 20 million where it's not. Thus, if you want to make a direct correlation (although it's more complex than this) anti-abortion laws result in 6 million fewer abortions per year.

That is some seriously fuzzy math . . . :sarcastic

 

[Nanda]

Yes, in other words, "Abortion is OK, and a woman can get one if she wants one." That's exactly what I just said. Yes, and thus anti-life, as I just explained.

Trying to convince you otherwise is a pointless pursuit, it seems, and when you get right down to it, I shouldn't really care what you think, especially if you see fit to label me in such a vile way.

 

[doppelganger]

The world will always find an ecxcuse as to why their evil is not really evil. Darkness claims to be light when all it is is darkness.

\
The same is true of everyone, JayHawes, even Evangelical Christians.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Red herring.

You can scream that till you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it so.

"Immoral" is not something I would argue about with you. There's no point to an argument about "morality" between you and I. This is a public policy argument.

Public policy should be based on morality. If laws are immoral, they shouldn't be laws. My point still stands, and you didn't respond to it. The fact that people will continue committing crime and may even hurt themselves in the process because that crime is illegal, doesn't mean that the crime should be legalized.

If people hurt themselves smoking, should cigarettes be made illegal? Why not?

Actually I personally think they should, I hate cigarettes.
However, abortion and smoking are two completely different things (thus why I went with a more parallel murder example). Smoking does not immediately lead to the ending of a life; abortion does. Smokers inflict the pain on themselves; no unborn child has ever asked to be aborted.

Unless abortion laws don't reduce the incidence of abortion. In which case there would still be those 46 million abortions

So you're suggesting that abortion laws don't reduce the incidence of abortion AT ALL? You're suggesting that EVERY SINGLE woman who gets a legal abortion, would still get one illegally if it were illegal? I'd love to see you come anywhere near to proving that. If the laws where you live are seriously that powerless to prevent crime, you need better laws and better law enforcement.

plus the potential for additional deaths because of unsafe practices when abortions are illegal.

How many? You're speaking in vague hypotheticals; if you really want to make this argument you're gonna need some numbers.

That is some seriously fuzzy math . . . :sarcastic

You'll have to explain how. There are annually six million fewer abortions in countries where the practice is illegal than in places where it is legal. Whether that difference is due directly to such laws, is admittedly a matter of debate, as I said.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Trying to convince you otherwise is a pointless pursuit, it seems, and when you get right down to it, I shouldn't really care what you think, especially if you see fit to label me in such a vile way.

Oh, Nan, I've been labelled much worse, have no fear. But you're right, when you don't respond to my argument directly and just say, "no no no that's not it" over and over again, I can see how you would view your attempts as futile.
And for the record, I don't view you "vilely" at all. There are plenty of people who feel the way you do who are perfectly nice, polite people in person. I merely disagree strongly with your position because I believe it boils down to the allowance of a terribly immoral and tragic act. It's not anything personal against you.

 

[JayHawes]

\
The same is true of everyone, JayHawes, even Evangelical Christians.

Jesus is the light, and we are his followers. We are not of the night or darkness but we are of the light. Those who are of darkness are those who are of the World. Thus, the same is not true of everone.

 

[Nanda]

Oh, Nan, I've been labelled much worse, have no fear.

Oh, well, that makes it alright. Now we can hang out and eat cookies.

But you're right, when you don't respond to my argument directly and just say, "no no no that's not it" over and over again, I can see how you would view your attempts as futile.

You chose to see my answer as invalid, and completely ignore my arguement.