New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

^^^

---

SMiLes, Yes

To ME AT Least;

It's No Debate,

If The Crux

of the Debate

Is Relative Morality;

i Don't Debate, HEhe;

You Can't Force me to Debate Either With SMiLes;

i Actually DO Philosophy And Offer Opinions; Yet of

Course, i Don't Expect Anyone to Even Read Them Now;

i'm Inspired By ALL Other Opinions, What i See As DarK oR LiGHT Same,

Not 'People' Here in Any Competition; i Gave That Up in 'Grade-School';

Basically it Didn't Seem Fair; It Was Just too Easy for me in 'Grade School';

Again,

i Am

Enough

Complete

Whole As Is;

i Generate my

Own Wins Within aT Ease,

God YeS ETernAlly Now; Holy
Creative Sacred Spirit Breathing Real..

---

I think you forgot the ruby slippers. The things you're claiming about me still aren't coming true. It's still adorable that you think the silly little things you say actually mean anything.

See, you keep arguing "deterrence and punishment". "Life begins at conception" is the core of YOUR argument. Not mine.

My point is prevention and pre-emption. Don't need an abortion if you don't get pregnant. Prevent a pregnancy, and you don't NEED to prevent an abortion. If there is no conception, there is no life to be lost. Prevent pregnancy INSTEAD of preventing abortion. I know, crazy idea, right?

But some people seem vehemently obsessed with the desire, the need, to punish people. Not unlike the way you're trying to socially "punish" me by portraying me in whatever negative light you can invent. Such as implying that I "have been trained to see the unborn as less than human". So obsessed with the idea of attacking and punishing that you even claimed that I was only "attacking" you in retaliation (punishment) for feeling "ThReAtEnEd!" or "ChAlLeNgEd!" by you. Just cos punishment is your answer to everything doesn't mean everyone else works the same way.

Near as I can tell, you think ALL abortions are frivolous - even though His Majesty will deign to ALLOW them for purely practical reasons when it comes to rape or incest. Such compassion.

And continuing to honk and squeak about "frivolous" abortions just drives the narrative that women are just willy nilly silly things that neither think nor care about the consequences of their actions, and just get abortions so they can continue to be irresponsible and frivolous. That really says more about what you think about women than it acts as a rationalization for your punishment party.

You don't honestly believe that stuff about algorithms being able to identify gayness, do you? Every couple of years some "genius" comes up with a way to "identify" gays, or terrorists, or criminals - and every time it's just another rehashing of phrenology, cos in the end, all of the "indicators" just turn out to be based on pre-existing stereotypes or tropes that have already been extensively refuted. It's all fundamentally based on the idea that a person can "look gay" or "act gay" or "sound gay". If you're referring to the employee that got outed as being gay by google ads, google didn't "figure it out" - that person had literally searched "gay cruises", and google suggested more. If you think that is "amazing!", you have REALLY low standards...

Here's how it would go. On Monday, I find out I'm pregnant, privately, in my own bathroom. I tell nobody. On Tuesday, I google plane tickets to europe. Nothing fishy there. That Friday, I catch a flight to paris. Nothing fishy there. No mention of pregnancy. I get my abortion. I fly home. SuCh PaRaNoId! CaReFuL tO ExTrEmE!! UtTeRlY iMpOsSiBlE!! ! ThAt WoUlD tAkE yEaRs oF pLaNnInG!! !! Or, y'know, a couple of days, maybe a week to enjoy paris while there.

Also, you reference an illegal abortion, but if I go to France, it's not illegal, so it's not an illegal abortion. Unless His Majesty presumes to preside over France, too - and until then, France can still do as it pleases. If not france, germany. Legal there, too. Laws end at borders.

But lets PlAy PrEtEnd MaKe BelIeVE! that google can in fact predict these things. Even if google did know I was pregnant, if all I google is plane tickets to france, are you just gonna assume that it's for an abortion? What then? If they go, it's legal. You've prevented nothing. So I guess The State will have to put travel restrictions on anyone it flags as pregnant. Cos what if I book a flight to a country that doesn't provide abortion, but is right next to one that does? How do we track all these women to make sure they don't go wayward?

Go ahead, keep talking. Remember, I'm just a silly troll, so surely there's no harm in explaining His Majesty's plan further.

Tell us what other punishments you have in mind, and who would receive them. Not just "frivolous" ones, but any abortion that His Majesty would disapprove of?

So far we've established that we need Big Tech (Google, as you say) to cooperate with The (21st century) State in order to conduct mass surveillance for some type of pregnancy database, so that if any of the women that are being invasively monitored show signs of trying to get a frivolous illegal abortion, they can be severely punished by the state. Those who help them are also severely punished. No doubt monitored the same way.

Anywhere from psychiatric treatment to life in prison? That's quite a range. So, "anything except death". Really narrowed that down, didn't cha. What would a "can't be around kids" abortion look like compared to a "life in prison" abortion? What are these mystery factors?

Tell me again how this isn't just about punishing women?

Punish them!

PuNish ThEm!!

PUNISH THEM SEVERLY!! !

PUNISH ANYONE WHO HELPS THEM!! !

PUNISH THEM ALL!! !! !!

You just have to punish them hard enough, and they'll stop. That's how that works, right?

His Majesty will subjugate the world, make abortion illegal everywhere, task The State with monitoring women, encourage backstabbery and entice people with bribery to engage in snitchery to turn on and turn in the evil women.
Feasible or not, pardon my language, but that's f****n' creepy AF.

Throw some more insults at me. They're funny. Can I play too? Try calling me a:

Abortio-nazi
Baby blender
Child choker
Death dealing daddy
Embryo Enemy
Frivolous fornication fiend
Ghoulishly gynocentric
Hyperemotional hypocrite
Impregnation Invalidator
Jaded jackal
Killer of Kids
Lamentably Ludicrous
Monstrous Mutilator
Non-Sequitur Nincompoop
Obliterater of Ovaries
Pregnancy Popper
Questionably Quiescent Quibbler
Ridiculous regurgitator of rhetoric
Shtopemfrompoppin (get it? cos germany)
Tirading Tantrum Troll
Uterus Undertaker
Violent Vulva Violator
Wayward wacky whacko
Xenogenic xenophobe
Youngling yakuza
Zygote zealot

Ok, your turn

No really, it's adorable the way you think you can make people insecure just by saying stuff about them. Does it usually work? Does it ever work? Or do you just assume that others share the same insecurities that you do, and strike at them in desperate hopes that it's effective?

Try barking louder...

Tell us more about His Majesty's Master Plan for when He becomes King of the World. Who else will you punish, and how severely will they get it? I'm sure it will stop sounding like a weird revenge fantasy if you elaborate in more detail. No really. Please. Keep going. This is getting interesting. A global state-run pregnancy monitoring agency and punishment organization.

Hey, auntblabby, are you reading all this? And you thought chastity belts were a scary idea. This cat's gone and invented the Global FBI - Female Body Inspectors - to carry out his monitoring and punishment of any women who defy his decree, and any who help them, too.

I await His Majesty's wisdom

Educate us feeble peons further in your mighty vision for the perfect world.

@Mikah and uncommondenominator:

I get that abortion is one of the most contentious things to discuss, but all you’re managing to do at this point is make complete asses of yourselves.

That the nature of the unborn is the centre of the argument is quite obvious. If the unborn are not human, you don't even need an excuse to do away with them - which for some reason the pro-abortion side are always very keen to provide. If they are human, almost all abortion is wrong.



I have no problem with preventing pregnancy.



Was that your thought process regarding Derek Chauvin? To hell with George, let's punish a cop? Of course it wasn't. The desire is to stop unjust death, punishment is just a means.



This is just a statement of fact, unless you believe the unborn are human and you are fine killing them with the thinnest of justification. In which case there are other things you might be called.



All law involves punishment of a sort.



Most abortions. In an old thread here I dug out some survey data that suggested that less than 1% of abortions are for rape, incest and medical reasons.



"No U" again. You could at least try to be original.



Yes, but this is not the thread to discuss it. Humans are fairly predictable and you'd be shocked what algorithms can figure out just from a listing of sites visited, and it isn't obvious links like gay cruises. They can guess with frightening accuracy before you even start googling that stuff.



As above, the algorithm may know before you even figure it out. Hormonal or dietary changes might show up as a change in browsing habits, or picked up by other subtle changes recorded by our Stasi devices.



While you wouldn't be able to do anything about the French doctor, you could arrest and charge the woman if she ever returned to your shores under such a hypothetical law and you had grounds.



These are questions for other people really, I can only offer opinions, and they are not hugely related to the main moral issue that is the act of abortion.



It's about punishing would-be criminals. And those who perform the abortion if applicable.



That is the basic idea of how law and the justice system works, yes.



Whatever works, we're not talking about failure to pick up dog mess here, we're talking about killing.



Abortio-nazi is new one. As an aside have you ever wondered what you would have done if you had been born in Nazi Germany? Or perhaps some other historical state where the innocent are killed on an industrial scale? You might have your answer. As the world turns, as it always does, the future will look back and wonder...



I do seem to have had some effect on your mental stability, judging by your posts.



You are probably right. Who is the greater ass, the ass or the one who keeps responding seriously to him? I won't respond to him again in this thread.

I ignored it because theft is nothing like abortion. There is no debate surround theft, no even split of views about the morality of theft. I don't even know what you mean by "safe theft".





Human life should not be taken without very good reason, yes? Based on this, I assumed that you would choose the lesser of two evils if imposing more restrictions doesn't actually decrease the number of abortions and only increases the number of deaths by women undergoing unsafe abortions. Is this really not the case?





I'm simply wondering how you can state that the number of abortions have risen dramatically since legalisation, if it is, as you say, hard to measure the number of abortions before legalisation. This is one of the foundations for your assumption that the law against abortion has a substantial deterrent effect right?



Let me rephrase the question so that it is absolutely clear.

Would you still want more restrictions on abortion even if it can be shown, to your satisfaction, that such restrictions do not actually decrease the number of abortions?

the righties who persist in believing the law will prevent the lions' share of abortions, are just choosing to ignore reality. it didn't stop many abortions back in the old days at least among the 1% or even among the 99% who lucked into knowing the right people or who out of desperation did things to encourage miscarriage, IOW it did punish the 99% women however while leaving the 1% unscathed. so that tells me they really seem to get off on punishing pofolk at least. the calvinists here seem to think the poor can't be punished enough and are congenitally hellbound, as pat robertson has hinted at on at least one occasion.

Thought I might dip a toe into this argument, as I have an opinion no-one seems to have put forward.

To me it's all about the relative values we put on human lives.
Most people tend to think of human life as being priceless and beyond value, with which my heart would tend to agree.
However, in practice we as individuals and our governments make decisions all the time based around our evaluation of human life. For example, I work for a state highway department, and decisions are constantly being made over how much money will be spent to improve a section of road so as to reduce deaths, which is essentially a way of placing a value on a human life, even if no-one dares to explain it in those terms. Governments also weigh up pros and cons taking consideration of other factors such as economic considerations - for example while we know that motor vehicles kill people, we do not ban them altogether. There is recognition that while banning vehicles tonight would undoubtably save lives which might otherwise be lost in road accidents, the impact on society of such a ban would be too extreme.

When a woman decides to have an abortion, she and her medical team will have gone through a similar process of weighing up the pros and cons. I don't believe any pregant woman would take this decision lightly. She will have considered the price she and/or the future baby will pay in suffering and hardship (physical and/or mental) to go through with the pregnancy and birth. In this way, she will make an individual decision on the value of the fetus, based on her own views and circumstances.

Now in this case it seems the state wishes to make the decision for itself by banning abortion or extending limitations on when or in which circumstances that is allowed. In this case the state is placing a very high value on each fetus, perhaps higher than an individual woman might herself, and indicating that it can afford the negative impacts to society.
In my view, the state is entitled to make that decision provided that it will pay for the consequences. That is, that it will provide additional health services to cover the extra physical and mental health issues suffered by the mothers affected, allow for additional social payments for lost working time and so on, and that it will provide a home for all unwanted babies which result.

To me, Mikah's argument is overly simplistic in taking the value of the fetus as exceeding all other considerations, both financial and in terms of human suffering.

Personally, I believe that the best people to decide whether abortion is justified in any case are the relevant medical personel and the pregnant woman herself, as these are the people best able to judge the human costs involved in the individual case.

Taking lessons from the past and looking at the reasons why abortion was legalised for certain situations in the first place - across the whole of the developed world - I would tend not to trust that a state placing a wider ban on the procedure has taken all societal factors into consideration. Just as I would question a state which decided to place a blanket ban on motor vehicles for the purpose of saving lives, without any consideration of the impacts.

The only difference is that in the banning of abortion, only a minority are adversely affected by the legislation and thus the state does not endanger its wider support base, whereas in the banning of motor vehicles, it could never achieve majority support. In other words, as far as I can see, it is a self-serving decision made for political gain without due consideration of societal impacts.

that is likely too much nuance for your typical amuuurican calvinist.

Are you not aware everything you just said can be used by conservatives to argue against gun control, a predominantly leftist position???

i am aware that conservatives are experts at taking the bible and like satan, twisting it to their satisfaction. so anything else is child's play to them. it does not pay to interact with them. and if you research the early days of the NRA you will find they actually supported gun control [re: the gun control act of 1968 which regulated so-called "saturday night specials"] when it suited their purposes [i.e., getting guns out of the hands of POC].

@ auntblabby

You see? They realize they've said too much, and swiftly retreat back to the shadows of vagueness and avoidance. After 7 pages of smug pretentiousness and feigned superiority, suddenly someone chimes in to say we're both being asses, and they leap all over it, "yEs! YeS! We ARE bOtH bEiNg AsSeS!" But I'm still apparently the bigger ass, says the other ass "BoTh SiDeS aRe JuSt As BaD bUt YoUr SiDe iS sTiLl WoRsE!" If things are equal, one can't be more than the other, or else they're not really "equal" are they?

Imagine having so little ground to stand on that you're willing to flip a 180 and admit to being an ass, if it means getting to call your opponent an ass, too... And then in an act comparable to "losersayswhat?", the other ass declares that they're going to stop now - implying that if I continue, I must still be "acting like an ass". While it does give you an "out" to dodge engaging further, it also undercuts the legitimacy of everything you've said so far, since, as you admit, "you've been acting like an ass" just as much as I have. Or is this a case of quantum excuse theory, where your actions are both "acting like an ass" but also entirely right and valid and true, at the same time. More pedantic semantics? Your points were right, but you said them wrong? How did that happen? Did something "stress you out" into acting that way?

You see? Despite their claims that what I revealed earlier was merely "no, I troll youuuu!" antics, how quickly the tune has changed all of a sudden. His Majesty doesn't want to play anymore, and will sink his own flagship if he thinks it can disable the entire confrontation. Like shooting yourself in the foot so you can "surrender" and plead for "mercy".

His Majesty Decrees that all abortions shall be illegal, across the globe. His Majesty Decrees that all abortions shall be severely punished. His Majesty Decrees that anyone who gives aid to the enemy shall also be punished. His Majesty Decrees that the crime of abortion shall be treated as cold blooded murder. His Majesty Decrees that the punishment for this crime shall include punishments up to lifetime incarceration. His Majesty Decrees that all women shall be invasively monitored by Big Tech and The State working cooperatively. His Majesty Decrees that informants who are loyal to the cause and help spy on women will be rewarded for their loyalty.

His Majesty has no problem with any of this. But NOW, SUDDENLY, His Majesty Decrees that for once, something is NOT their decision to make! All the rest of that stuff was not only fine, but ideal. But any further than that, like decreeing who deserves His Majesty's greatest punishment, even though His Majesty has Decreed that it shall be used as a punishment, well, THAT'S just a bridge too far. THAT is now magically a privilege for someone else

That's like saying "some of them should be killed!" Ok, which ones? "Oh, I dunno, YOU figure it out." Or a mafia boss telling his underlings to go kill someone, and being able to say, honestly, "I'VE never killed anyone!" even though it was their idea done at their behest. Apparently His Majesty wants His offenders punished to his satisfaction, but doesn't want to get His hands dirty with the actual execution of the punishment. His Majesty just makes the rules. Don't blame Him for your punishment!

Back to "sOmEoNe ElSe!" eh? Leaving it to "someone else" just lets you avoid specifics again, as before.

Ah, so it's not about punishing WOMEN, it's about punishing CRIMINALS. Who all happen to be women. I see how that works. "I'm not attacking THEM! I'm attacking something they all happen to BE!" And let's be clear. By "criminals!" you mean "women who seek or get abortions". But they're only criminals cos you've chosen to make that thing illegal. If it WASN'T illegal, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

Homophobes: "We aren't punishing GAYS, we're just punishing CRIMINALS! Cos we made gay sex a crime!" If gay sex wasn't a crime, they wouldn't BE "criminals".

Conservatives: "We aren't punishing pot smokers, we're just punishing CRIMINALS! Cos we made smoking pot a crime!" If smoking pot wasn't a crime, they wouldn't BE "criminals".

Nixon: "We're not punishing war protesters, we're just punishing CRIMINALS! Cos we made protesting war a crime!"

America: "We're not punishing POC for trying to vote! We're punishing CRIMINALS! Cos we invented the term "loitering", which just means "lingering in a public place too long" and LOITERING is a CRIME!"

America: "We're not punishing the poor or homeless! We're punishing CRIMINALS! Cos we invented the term "vagrant", which just means "being homeless" and VAGRANCY is a CRIME!"

"We're not punishing women! We're punishing CRIMINALS! Cos we made something that only effects women a CRIME!

Mm-hmm. BIG difference. You can play this game with ANYthing.

"We're not punishing meat eaters! We're punishing CRIMINALS! Eating meat is illegal!"
"We're not punishing vegans! We're punishing CRIMINALS! Eating veggies is illegal!"
"We're not punishing mac users! We're punishing CRIMINALS! iOS is illegal!"
"We're not punishing pc users! We're punishing CRIMINALS! Windows and linux are illegal!"

As for comparing abortion to theft, there's one thing that separates them. Theft demands a lack of consent. It's not theft if you have permission. Theft means something was taken from YOU. If I go into my own home and take something of mine, that's not theft. A woman's abortion has nothing to do with your property or rights unless you helped create that exact pregnancy. THEN, on some level, it's also "yours". But if you ain't the daddy, it literally "isn't yours". And when His Majesty Decrees that other women must have HIS consent, for a thing that he has not stake in, is reversing the expectation of consent.

Consent means "you can't do that to ME", not "you can't do that AT ALL!" Some people don't seem to fully understand how consent works. A woman needing YOUR consent to make decisions about HER body is no different than going around telling other people that they can't have sex with each other unless YOU approve. It reeks of religious conservatism, which seems to follow the ideology of "If YOU don't like it, YOU can leave! If I don't like it, YOU can leave!"

Even in the Land of Laws, in order to be punished, someone has to press charges. If someone steals from me, I can choose NOT to press charges. And they WON'T get punished. I have that right to choose, cos it effects ME. Abortion may make you feel sad iside, but that doesn't make you "right" for demanding that the planet needs His Majesty's consent for women to have autonomy over their bodies.

If you want to talk about crime and laws, we can do that too.

Conservatism largely engages in more quantum excuse theory, wherein "lAwS dOn'T kEeP dRuGs fRoM cRiMiNaLs, wHy ShOuLd LaWs StOp GuNs!" and yet, while this implies there's "no point" in regulating guns, it is somehow ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! to keep drugs illegal, but there's no reason to bother when it comes to guns. Laws stop neither drugs nor guns, but we MUST have drug laws, but don't dare even try gun laws. Like a coin being heads on both sides, and tails on both sides, at the same time.

It's important to note that many of the previous gun control legislations have had provisions where the law could be avoided with the proper application of money. Machine guns are illegal! UNLESS you pay a $200 tax to the gov't. THEN you can have one. Suppressors are illegal! UNLESS you pay a $200 tax to the gov't. THEN you can have one. Sawed off shotguns are illegal! UNLESS you pay a $200 tax to the gov't. THEN you can have one. And you have to pay that tax for EACH weapon or item. So it really only prevented POOR people from having access to them. CHEAP guns were outlawed. EXPENSIVE guns were ok.

Money is used as a filter. A barrier to entry. "Don't BAN it, just make it incur a lot of EXPENSE, and the poors can't do it anyways! And if a poor person DOES buy a gun, well, we just KNOW they're up to no good, cos why else would a poor person need a gun? They're poor! What are they protecting?" And the stereotypes pile on.

But these new laws don't let money do as it pleases. Even money has to be subjected to them. Money can't buy their way around it.

Much of the dismissal of the problems faced by poor people reminds of Yzma from emperor's new groove. "You say you want some "food" so you can "live"? You should have thought of that before you became a peasant!"

His Majesty keeps threatening to reveal this mighty document that "proves" that certain abortions are in fact as rare as He decrees they are. I'm sure that, if the article exists, that it totally doesn't set a super high bar for what it considers a rape to be, and totally isn't using that to make the number of rapes appear smaller, by finding reasons to disqualify them from the count. If His Majesty can provide us with the source of His Wisdom, it would certainly be worth a look. IF His Majesty can find it. IF His Majesty is still willing to back up his bragging. But it totally exists. He promises

His Majesty has NO problem with preventing pregnancy. But in His Wisdom, He has decided that women are better served by punishing them.

Now we're barking about gEoRgE fLoYd AND dErEk ChAuVin! Cool. Killing a suspect isn't a cops job. They're supposed to NOT do that. But an abortion doctor's job is to abort a pregnancy. "BuT tHaTs StIlL mUrDeR!" Cool. It's also their job. The guy that executes the prisoner on death row doesn't then also get put down for murder cos he just killed a guy, too. So really it's just a matter of when someone decides killing is or isn't ok.

And just like I wouldn't just want to punish the cop, yet ignore the suffering of mr floyd, I also wouldn't want to punish a woman, yet ignore the suffering that forcing her to birth and raise a child might cause, just cos the loss of HER fetus hurts MY feelings - and to hell what the mother thinks. Just blame and punish!

And it really comes down to when you consider something to be "life". And this is part of the conversation that people REALLY like to avoid. "Life begins at conception!" Does it? Can you remove it from the mother and it will be ok? Can it survive as an independent organism? Or is it essentially part of the mother, up to a certain point. Hard questions that are easier to run away from than to consider. Seems like more quantum excuse theory, where a fetus both is and isn't life. Or, it's LIFE, but it's not a PERSON. So a fetus has just enough "personhood" to be considered "muder" if you terminate it, but it's magically not quite enough "person-y" for a mother to claim their fetus as a dependent, or gain access to child support services. And Life is JUST sacred enough that women should be punished for ending a pregnancy, but not so precious that action beyond punishing women for doing so should be taken.

"Im not saying other actions shouldn't be taken, I'm just saying that we need to punish them!"

See? Now we 're back too the "I'm not saying that / I'm just saying that..." shuffle. While that's technically true, you do seem to be single mindedly focused on only the punishment stuff. "Yes yes, other stuff too, but the punishments!"

"Justice"? Justice is another word thrown around to imply moral superiority, but in the end, when it comes to what "justice" and "fairness" actually mean, everyone has their own version. Some people only recognize "justice" that serves THEIR desires. Sometimes the vessel labeled "justice" is actually just a mislabeled container of "vengeance", "wrath", or "spite".

My concern is not "unjust" deaths, but rather "unnecessary" deaths. Which yes, does imply the existence of necessary deaths. I am not a naive child. Death is a part of life. Death for the benefit of life is part of nature. Some people have to make bigger decisions than that every day. Movies allude to it, in scenes where a military commander has to issue orders that he knows will result in the death of his men. Doctors who have to decide which patient has the better chance of living to pick which one to work on, cos they can't do both. Much bigger, much harder choices than His Majesty seems willing to make.

People fret and ponder over the "railway" paradox, sacrifice one person to save many. But few people actually think about these things any deeper than empty philosophical debate regarding "what if"s - few people have the balls to say "yes, I would sacrifice one person if it meant saving many more". Not many people would say "yes, I would let an old person die to save a young person". You can't save everyone, and nobody gets out alive anyways.

Does that make me a monster? That's not my determination to make. If I do ever make that choice, I leave it to those I save, and the survivors of those lost, to decide for themselves, as to whether they think I made the best choice. I'll have to live with having made the choice either way. And I fully recognize that it may mean my life might be the one sacrificed as well. I do not consider myself above the privilege. I do not want to die, but I do not think that my life is so special that I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice it for others.

Forcing things into the context of "ok, so up until when is it ok to murder a baby?" mostly serves to let them call their opponent a baby murderer, but also ignore that you can't really make a hard and fast rule for things that vary from person to person to begin with. Pregnancies last however long they last. Things develop however fast things develop. Demanding one single hard fast rule in a situation where none can be had only serves to give the excuse that since the question can't be answered to THEIR satisfaction there must not be an answer.

When do I personally think abortions should be cut off? When the fetus is of sufficient development that it could be removed from the mother, whether by induced labor or surgical removal, it's too late to get an abortion. When it can survive without the mother providing life support, it's life. That should give the mother plenty of time to decide what she wants to do. I can't imagine a woman carrying a pregnancy to 7 months, just to abort it, when she could have done it as soon as she found out she was pregnant - assuming pregnancy tests and abortions are legal and available, and not cost prohibitive. To suggest otherwise is merely to play on the trope that women are indecisive or flighty, or have or had ulterior motives for getting pregnant. I also think that even though I do have an opinion on the matter, it's still not actually MY decision to make, even if my opinion is asked or stated.

Just cos my respect for life takes a different form than yours doesn't mean I don't have it. The spider and the fly cannot coexist. I can save the flies and starve the spiders. I can feed the spiders at the expense of the flies. Or I can just stay the hell out of it, and not feel like I have to micromanage the world just cos some aspects of it make me uncomfortable. Some flies may get eaten. Some spiders may starve. Those were not my choices to make. While we humans have gotten spoiled from living in cities with the wildlife all but driven from them, we are not exempt from also being eaten or killed.

Fixed your meme.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 12 Jun 2021, 10:54 am, edited 4 times in total.

I fear you missed the point of what I was saying. That there is little or no debate about the morality of theft is of no relevance. What if the WHO came out with something like the following?

(these are real burglary statistics from the U.S.)

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.

In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member experienced some form of violent victimization.

Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred.

Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.

Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

Households composed of single females with children had the highest rates of burglary while someone was present

It is not unusual to hear of thieves dying accidentally while committing theft or at the hands of enraged property owners

I and the WHO recommend that systems of safe legal theft are extended worldwide, where burglary is regulated and professional standards applied so neither owner nor future owner of property needs to resort to unsafe methods of property transfer. This plan will minimise unfortunate cases of violence and death in the course of burglary, improving health outcomes for both property owners and future property owners.

Mikah P.h.D.
Professor of Theft and Larceny Studies, World Health Organisation

Is your first instinct "Good Idea WHO!" or "Wait a minute..."?

Faced with that you'd probably want to argue about the morality of theft ("theft is nothing like abortion") as I want to argue about the morality of abortion when faced with the numbers argument. This is what I mean when I say this line of argument side steps the morality of abortion itself.



Taken is the key word here. A life taken is not the same as a life prevented or a life ended (another problem when arguing numbers here or discussing car ownership vs capital punishment). If you could prove to me that shooting someone innocent today would statistically save a hundred tomorrow, I wouldn't shoot.



No, it's not the foundation. I believe simply in the basic idea of law and criminal justice and that a law that is well enforced and punishment judiciously applied will have a deterrent effect. I am sceptical of data that claims otherwise, often it is massaged or misses vital analysis of how well enforced a law is, as per my marijuana example in the UK. I can dig up some data that suggests contrary things, but as I said it isn't that useful, given all the ways it can be interpreted and besides I'm hoping you'll understand why the argument is wrong as above before we go off on that particular tangent.



Yes. Even if it could be proved that laws against "regular" murder had no deterrent effect I would still wish it to be against the law, if only to seek justice on behalf of the victims.

So it's NOT actually about the deterrent effect, it's about revenge and getting to punish people. "On behalf of the victims", of course



I'm sure those 100 dead people are totally impressed with your respect for life. Good thing it's not about numbers for you.



So data can be manipulated, and is therefore untrustworthy, except for the data YOU believe in, which TOTALLY iron-clad trustworthy, and incapable of being manipulated, subverted, or just made up entirely. Unlike that other data. "Im HoPiNg YoU dOnt ExPeCt Me To ExPlAIn MySeLf, tHaT wAy I cAn AvOiD tHaT pArTiCuLaR cOnVeRsAtIoN".

Your continual comparisons between theft and abortion just serves to falsely equate the two. When you say "side steps the morality of abortions", I think what you mean is that it side steps your assertion that all abortions are immoral, by questioning it, rather than simply obeying His Majesty's decree, and accepting it a truth cos His Majesty said so.

It's a rehashing of the same tactic used for undercutting gay rights by comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia. Compare something that you don't like with something that everyone typically agrees is bad. Insist that the thing IS in fact that bad, and don't even allow anyone to question or debate it. Cos if people start to question or debate it, they might not just blindly accept it as His Majesty desires. "Don't disrupt the foundation of my argument! I need it to hold up the rest! Stop attacking the weak points of my argument! Just accept what I say!"

And let's come back to this again:



Even if it had no deterrent effect, you'd still want it illegal, for the revenge part. As long as people are punished, it doesn't even matter if it changes anything. Just make sure to punish the people His Majesty says to! On behalf of the victims, cos His Majesty knows what's best, and people aren't capable of making their own decisions, and even if they are, they're wrong - His Majesty Says so! Just give him a minute and he'll totally find that magic data that proves him right, and is incapable of having been manipulated or doctored, cos it totally agrees with him, so it can't be wrong!

It's creepy when people are this obsessed with revenge and punishment. It's even creepier when people are this obsessed with revenge and punishment when they weren't even the ones that were wronged. TOTALLY for the VICTIM, and absolutely NOT just to justify their desire for revenge and punishment.



And hey, even if punishment has no deterrent effect, at least that means His Majesty will never run out of people to punish in order to satiate his desire for revenge "respect for life". Sounds like a case of punishing the individual while saying too hell with the victim. Cos who cares if it happens again, as long as His Majesty knows he punished the bad guy!

I can't help but wonder, if a punishment didn't prevent an act from occurring, especially an act like "regular murder", wouldn't you be the least bit curious as to WHY it was having no effect? Or does it not matter so long as you get to keep punishing people?

I notice you keep on comparing abortion to other crimes like theft and murder, even though they are not alike. See, there is no question that theft and murder is morally wrong. Literally. Gallup conducts polls on the values on beliefs of Americans and the latest poll (https://news.gallup.com/poll/312929/record-low-say-death-penalty-morally-acceptable.aspx) doesn't even mention theft and murder.

Note that abortion is actually in the poll. According to that poll, 44% viewed abortion as morally acceptable, 47% did not and the rest didn't know or said it depends or that it wasn't a moral issue. Even among the 47% there are probably more nuanced views like believing abortion to be morally wrong but still being pro-choice.

While you might lump abortion, theft, and murder in the same category of "morally wrong", plenty of people do not. Which is why, in the context of policy making, you cannot compare abortion with theft and murder because society does not view those things as similar.

Anyway, since you have made it clear that the deterrent effect doesn't matter and you would still want laws against abortion no matter the consequences, I don't think I can say anything else besides: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

---

"Morality is Relative";

In Fact, Reality Is All

Connecting too

With No Real

Separation;

God Yes It is...

At Least Science

Shows This Real

In Fact All Is Relative

When it Comes to Human Existence....

Yes, 44 Percent of the Public Polled Agree

Abortion is Moral And 47 Percent Do Not Believe

Abortion Is Morally Acceptable By Gallup As Polled...

Here's Another Pew Survey As Linked That Shows 59 Percent

of Americans Believe Abortion Should Be Legal, So What This Means

Is Some Folks Employ Cognitive Empathy, Realizing Not All Share the Same

Moral

Values

And The Golden
Rule Without the

Clause of Do No Harm Basically

S88KS LIKE AN EXTRAVERTED HUSBAND
TREATING AN INTROVERTED WIFE YES THE

WAY HE WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED MOST...

Or those Who Have Varying Levels of Disgust

And Varying Levels of Libido As Per the Reality

of 44 Percent of Women Enduring Marital Rape in

India In Some Parts of the Country Where Marital Rape is Still Legal....

Here's Another One, In Another Survey, 98 Percent

Of Men Used Pornography in the Last 6 Months

And 73 Percent of Women Did the Same;

And to Be Clear Used it for Sexual

Gratification which Means

Masturbation;

Of Course In Church

Circles This is still Seen

As Morally Reprehensible,

Haha, Particularly Among Guilt Ridden

Catholics While They Claim They Change A Wafer

of Bread into A 2000 or So Year Dead Man And Wine

Actually Literally Into His Blood too And Cannibalize

(Surveys Show That 70 Percent of Catholics See this as The BS
It Truly Is) {Yet On the Other Hand, for the 30 Percent;
'Sugar Pills' Like 'Jesus As Placebo' Also Work For Real)

Him Cause Someone took A Frigging Free Verse Poem

In A Book Literally When the Dude Was Just Likely Suggesting (One Body, One Blood)

That We Are All Part of the Cosmos; Yep Star Stuff Same, Like Stellar 'Carl Sagan' Did...

Go Figure, Perhaps The Real Jesus Dude Was More of A Scientist than A 'Fruit Loop'...

Yeah, It's Like the Study Within the Catholic Church That Found That Up to 58 Percent

of Catholic Priests Are of the Homosexual Sexual Orientation; Yet of Course, When Thou

Doth Protest too Much, It's Just More Guilt of Not Being Able to Be Truthfully Who One Actually Is

As Studies of Sexuality AND GENDER Show THAT Is a Rather Relative Part of Life too; As there Is

Nothing 'Black And White'

In this Existence

Except

(CHANGE)

Human

Illusions

That Haha

Are Never Black And

White As Illusions Are Illusions;

Particularly Again As Neuroscience

Suggests We Basically Hallucinate Our Realities (HOW DONALD J TRUMP BECAME

PRESIDENT TOO) As We Go Based on Our Realities We Co-Create By Hallucinating Them From

Before... What Would Truly Be Amazing Is if People Could Just Be Authentically Honest About Who

They Truly Are; At Best We Feel Each Others Struggles And Understand Life Gets Rough And Yes Give

Other Folks Slack For This Human Condition That Is Never Text Book Perfect; Indeed, Never Black and

White Always Changing As Rivers Flow and Become Oceans Same; Yet Again, It's True; Yes, Reality Is More

Fabulous Than Any Old Antiquated Book From Thousands of Years ago; We Understand Through Science

That We Really are Star Stuff; By God We Truly Are Star Flowers and Star Seeds Same; That's Truly Amazing;

Like Neil deGrasse Tyson Scientifically 'Evangelistically Related' in 'The Theme Song' Here The Knowledge

That We Are all the Cosmos Inspired Him So Much He wanted to Go Out in The Street And Shake Folks

Up Telling them

'HAVE YOU

HEARD ABOUT THIS!'

WE ARE ALL THE COSMOS

THERE IS NO REAL SEPARATION IN LIFE

YES WE ARE ALL ONE BODY AND BLOOD THIS WAY!

Jesus F in Christ
Reality

is

F
in Enough

For those Who Understand

Like the Scientist in the Theme

Song; Nature Is Mystery And Will

Always Keep Us Guessing; Jesus F in

Christ, Why Do Folks Have to Be So Frigging

Possessive And Tribal About the Forms They

Use; Yes, the Abstract Constructs; When The Essence

of the Message Is Clearly The Same yet Never Black and

White And This

Is the

Reason

We Will Always

Never Agree And

Always Disagree And that's

Great As It Gives Us something

to Do on A Discussion Board Relating

The Nature of Our Existence; We aRe Different And Same True

That's An UlTiMaTER Paradox; Yet It is the Truth As Far as i see and feel;

True, Others See and Feel Differently, i am So Dam Glad my Wife Doesn't

Look Just Like Me; Yet on 'the Other Hand', i Masturbate With my Self Like

the Other 98 Percent of Males Do and the 73 Percent of the Females Do and

The Other Ones

Who Likely

Are Born

Asexual

or Become That

Way Through the

Environment Or Are Just Afraid

Of Pleasure Cause Someone Told 'Em Pleasure is Bad

or Someone Told Them Worship After Death More than Life...

Humans Are Frigging Hilarious Liars as i Listened to Jeffrey Toobin

Apologize For Getting Caught Masturbating by Not Turning Off Zoom

In A Deadly Pandemic; When People Get Stressed Out They Masturbate

Like the Medicine Pleasure is Naturally Evolved to Be As Healing Our Human Nature...

Yet People

Regularly

Lie And Suggest

They Aren't Even Human

And They Must Reform Themselves

By Direction of Abstract Constructs Other Folks Create...

These Discussions on the 'Wrong Planet' Are Amusing

As the Autism Condition Often Relates Rigid Black

And White Thinking As a Deficit in Life; Considering

The Reality That Life is Always Changing Every Now;

Autism in this Way is Indeed Quite a Challenge; It took

me 53 Years to Figure Out; And That's for Damn Sure;

Yet i Persevere With Curses Gifts Come too; Let's all Give Each

Other Some Slack if we Can; If Not, Understand that too Is part of the

Whole Human

Condition...

Anyway,

Happy

SuNDaY

Cheers to

Never Ending

Pleasures And Never

Leaving Self-Created Boot

Camps as too Much Instant

Gratification Turns All of Life 'Grey Scale'

And Way More Than '50 Shades of Grey' too...

And For the Folks Around Here Who want me to

Use 'Plain English' Or Go 'Shorter'; i'm Not Here to Water my Human Potential Down...

i am Here to LEarn; Every Word That comes, i Teach Myself Something New in Potential

OF Meditative Flow...

Best Part of

All is i Get

to Be 100 Percent

Authentically True to Who i am: Free...

"Play The Song Carl" And Don't Forget to Dance And Sing..

And Beat The Drums to Keep A HeART Alive With Art

Who Smiles And Breathes FreelY in Truth iN Light REAL NOW.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201802/when-is-porn-use-problem

---

I make the theft parallel to expose why an argument about numbers and lives saved is flawed. That there is disagreement about the morality of abortion doesn't make the numbers argument any more valid, it just wilfully ignores the morality. Thus even if you are right about the numbers, that doesn't make abortion moral unless as you hoped to argue: what is moral is what saves the most lives, which is a morality no one, especially me, really holds.



Must. Resist. Godwin...



Is my answer so shocking? Would legalise murder if it could be proved that there was no deterrent effect?