CDZ Abortion

[Chuz Life]

the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe [is what will likely result in the SCOTUS revisiting Roe.]

You're probably correct on that.

I think so too. . . but it's odd how few other pro-lifers and other anti-aborts have picked up on the same thing.

Do you know offhand whether pro-lifers have pushed for Congress to initiate the Constitutional Amendment process to settle the matter once and for all?

Yes. I have watched as several such personhood amendments have been proposed in states like Ohio, Mississippi (I think) and Colorado. So far, none have been passed. However, those efforts will likely continue until one of them does pass and then it will go to the Supreme Court that way.

the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb

Off Topic:
Can the SCOTUS be compelled to hear arguments? I don't think it can.

I think you mis-understand the context of what I meant by "compelled."

Our Supreme Court decides for themself what cases they will hear. What it is that actually "compels" them to do so is probably unique to every case they decide to hear.

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly. ....

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily.....

I think Elvis Obama meant "achieve" in the absolute sense of "outcome" rather than in one of the qualified -- such as "intended outcome" or "unintended outcome" -- senses of the term.

Knowing that you've been on both sides of the issue and you thus know the matter very well, perhaps better than most or all of the "regular" commentators in this forum, I'm surprised you address only the few plausible and probable outcomes you did. I wonder whether that was due to time limitations or rhetorical strategy?

I gave a short and generalized answer to a short and fairly non specific question. I see no benefit to my position to load the cannons of those who obviously might intend to turn them against me.

(I'm pretty certain it wasn't because others didn't cross your mind.) I "get" the reasons for both, I'm just curious.

Like I said, I can't foresee the future and I don't see any reason for speculation.

More important than that - I don't see any alternatives. If a child in the womb is a human being and a person (as I clearly believe they are) then they are entitled to the same Constitutional rights and protections that anyone else is entitled to... Regardless of the unforeseen or undersired consequences of their recognition MIGHT be.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything

As goes what Elvis Obama cited as the compelling argument, is it really even an argument. It seems to me to merely be a fact, although I understand how that fact can be used to make an argument. Just wondering whether you see it as a fact too and thereby don't see it as a compelling argument for anything?[/quote]

That's very confusing. . . but I think I just answered what you are trying to 'get at' - above.

Is your remark driven by something that basic? I suspect it's not and that you've duly evaluated the arguments accruing from/using that fact, but I have to ask as I don't know. (Better to ask than to guess when it comes to others' remarks, especially others whom one believes to be well informed and strong analysts.)

Like I said. . . if the child in the womb is a person, there is no alternative but to respect their Constitutional rights accordingly. So, any arguments based on the down side of recognizing their right is a Red Herring/ Non Sequitur/ Non Starter.

 

[320 Years of History]

Like I said, I can't foresee the future and I don't see any reason for speculation.

L-ingOL cynically.

 

[320 Years of History]

Like I said. . . if the child in the womb is a person, there is no alternative but to respect their Constitutional rights accordingly. So, any arguments based on the down side of recognizing their right is a Red Herring/ Non Sequitur/ Non Starter.

Truly, as the largest part of my post suggests, I'm not as much interested in the abortion related arguments issuing from the downside of legalization. I'm most interested in what be your proposed mitigating approaches assuming abortion is made illegal. That's what I'm interested in because I know the question of abortion's legality, whether it shouldn't be available, performed, etc. isn't going to change between you and me. You and I are at an impasse in that regard, and we both know it, so I've asked the questions I did to bring up something we can discuss.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like I said, I can't foresee the future and I don't see any reason for speculation.

L-ingOL cynically.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like I said. . . if the child in the womb is a person, there is no alternative but to respect their Constitutional rights accordingly. So, any arguments based on the down side of recognizing their right is a Red Herring/ Non Sequitur/ Non Starter.

Truly, as the largest part of my post suggests, I'm not as much interested in the abortion related arguments issuing from the downside of legalization. I'm most interested in what be your proposed mitigating approaches assuming abortion is made illegal. That's what I'm interested in because I know the question of abortion's legality, whether it shouldn't be available, performed, etc. isn't going to change between you and me.

Could give some examples? Maybe make it like a multiple choice?

Then, maybe I will know more specifically what you are driving at.

You and I are at an impasse in that regard, and we both know it, so I've asked the questions I did to bring up something we can discuss.

Until I have a better idea of what you are looking for, I don't want to guess about what you are looking for in the way of an answer.

 

[Alan Stallion]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

Over 40 years is a long time. Keep in mind, the abolition movement against slavery took much longer. When fighting for the civil rights of any group, the fight must go on no matter how long it takes to accomplish its goals. The abolition movement against abortion is no different.

Since we don't see the Supreme Court any time soon going in the direction to respect the lives of the pre-born, just like it didn't respect the lives of African slaves in America, the abortion abolition movement must make strides wherever possible with legislation that challenges flaws in prior ruling or work to pass a Constitutional Amendment to trump SC justices.

Perhaps someday the Fifth Amendment in conjunction with the Fourteenth (“no person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, of property, without due process of law…”). Or at the very least the Tenth Amendment will reverse the Roe and Doe decisions and revert back to the states. Though for any abortion abolitionist, anything short of a national ban, as with slavery, will be unacceptable.

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

That there will be illegal abortions is no argument for legalized abortion. Rape is illegal, murder is illegal, slavery is illegal, yet you can find instances of each, even slavery (see the increase in the sex-trafficking incidents).

If it were illegal, there will be fewer abortions, though it would be only a guess as to how much it would be reduced. Some will not risk imprisonment or complications from back-alley butchers.

At this point, I want to bring in Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL (originally known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and after the 1973 rulings, the National Abortion Rights Action League), will attest to exaggerating the numbers, in particular those who died from illegal abortions.

Nathanson reflected on when he and his fellow advocates came up with deceptive and manipulated slogans…

The original abortion-rights slogans from the early '70s – they remain virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the "pro-choice" movement to this day – were "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

... snip ...

"We (Lawrence Lader and Nathanson) persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one," recalls the movement's co-founder. "Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1 million.

"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

"Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization."

NARAL's brilliantly deceitful marketing campaign, bolstered by fraudulent "research," was uncannily successful. In New York, the law outlawing abortion had been on the books for 140 years. "In two years of work, we at NARAL struck that law down," says Nathanson. "We lobbied the legislature, we captured the media, we spent money on public relations ... Our first year's budget was $7,500. Of that, $5,000 was allotted to a public relations firm to persuade the media of the correctness of our position. That was in 1969."

more...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462​

I realize abortions likely won't go down to pre-Roe levels (and certainly won't be zero), as new generations were brought up believing they has a "right" to abort, and may do whatever they believe it takes to rid the child inside, but the risk of punishment or medical malpractice would be a deterrent to many.

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

I'm capable to trying to understand, that certainly has to do with understanding one's particular worldview and values, and understanding the opposing view will challenge my positions to make sure I have a strong case and argument. However, I do not have to respect an opposing position on abortion anymore than I have to respect opposing views on slavery.

 

[320 Years of History]

Like I said, I can't foresee the future and I don't see any reason for speculation.

L-ingOL cynically.

Oh...just chuckling because I see the strategic merit of your not seeing any reason for speculation as much as anything else. Nothing more than that.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could give some examples? Maybe make it like a multiple choice?

Truly, I don't have any suggestions as go the questions I asked in the last section of that post that was long and hard for you to reply to using a phone. I don't because it's never crossed my mind to need any as abortion is legal and has been for the entirety of my adult life, and I happen to agree it should be.

FWIW, the questions were:

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed?

No one can know the future for certain. However, millions of people will not rest until it is finally reversed. The challenges to Roe are not going to simply fade away. If anything, they will continue to intensify.

A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

Ironically, The most likely challenge that will give the Supreme Court a reason to revisit Roe will come from Criminal Convictions under our 'Fetal Homicide' laws. It will be those already convicted of killing 'children in the womb' who will be pushing the issue the most on the legal front, by trying to get their convictions overturned. . . on the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Several convictions have already been appealed on that basis, already.

So far, the Supreme Court has declined the opportunity to consider any of those cases. However, as the case loads build. . . the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb accordingly.

2- What would banning abortion achieve?

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly.

One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything. . . much less something that is the violation of a child's rights.

Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies?

It's funny that you see that as draconian.

We already have laws that make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. Don't we?

If you robbed a bank and fired a shot - even accidentally - hitting a pregnant woman and killing the child in her womb. . . you could be charged with that child's MURDER.

You tell me. . . WHY should a person who kills that same child INTENTIONALLY be charged with anything less?

What we are seeking is consistency in our laws.

Can we make abortion impossible?

No. I don't think so.

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily. So, yes, I understand the point of view very well.

What I can not argue against is the biological facts that lead to the conclusion that a child's life biologically "begins" at and by conception.

Likewise, I can not argue against the fact that our Constitution (which is the law of our land) is INCLUSIVE in the way that it says that "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

I can not argue against the fact that by making it a crime of MURDER to criminally kill a child in the womb - our Fetal Homicide Laws are already recognizing the personhood of "children in the womb" on a very significant level.

I can not argue against the fact that the LEGAL definition of a "natural person" is (like the Constitution) also very inclusive - in that it is simply "a human being." A "child in the womb" as defined by our Fetal Homicide Laws. . . MEETS that legal definition.

No one can know the future for certain. However, millions of people will not rest until it is finally reversed. The challenges to Roe are not going to simply fade away. If anything, they will continue to intensify.

I agree that the issue will not fade away. Statistics seem to indicate that younger people (18-29) are amongst the most strongly opposed groups, along with older Americans (65-up). These attitudes don't seem to change with age, though. People who were pro-choice at an earlier stage of their life don't tend to change their opinions as they age. This tends to buck the trend of a number of other so-called progressive issues, same sex marriage, for example, where the support increases as the polling group's age decreases.

Perhaps this is related to the fact that abortions are down, both in states where the availability is protected and those states where availability is constantly being reduced by restrictive legislation. It would be encouraging to think that abortion is enjoying less support because we are succeeding in educating people about the consequences of their actions. More responsible sex = fewer abortions and fewer people who support abortion as the "first line" defense against unwanted pregnancy.

Ironically, The most likely challenge that will give the Supreme Court a reason to revisit Roe will come from Criminal Convictions under our 'Fetal Homicide' laws.

I've never understood the notion of challenging abortion through redefining the status of the fetus. It's always seemed to me that the status of the fetus was determined by the decision that other rights and considerations were paramount. In other words, first comes the determination to make abortion legal, then, after the fact, the status of the fetus is defined to conform to that determination. Some of these laws specifically exempt abortion as an assault on the fetus. What's the point of those laws? Suspenders and a belt? The laws which don't specifically exempt abortion seem to me to be designed to be a back-door method of attacking abortion rights. Again, it seems like a waste of time. If there is sufficient judicial support to ban abortion, it will be banned. The pretext is irrelevant.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything. . . much less something that is the violation of a child's rights.

All laws need to be reviewed with an eye towards whether they do more harm than good.

If you robbed a bank and fired a shot - even accidentally - hitting a pregnant woman and killing the child in her womb. . . you could be charged with that child's MURDER.

You tell me. . . WHY should a person who kills that same child INTENTIONALLY be charged with anything less?

What we are seeking is consistency in our laws.

What I meant by "more draconian" was embracing the mistake recently made by Mr, Trump to criminalize the women as well as the abortion providers. It's considered a mistake, politically, but it is the consistent position. If abortion is murder, then everyone connected with that decision is a murderer. Why should it be murder if a third party is involved, but not murder if a woman kills her own fetus without help? That's like saying that if you hire a hit man it's murder, but if you do it yourself it's not. That doesn't seem consistent to me.

 

[320 Years of History]

All laws need to be reviewed with an eye towards whether they do more harm than good.

Agree.

first comes the determination to make abortion legal, then, after the fact, the status of the fetus is defined to conform to that determination.

No aspersion intended, but that seems like a "bass aackward" immorally arbitrary way to approach lawmaking, at least to me. Even though I don't consider a fetus to be a person, I do consider it to be living. I think first and foremost, one must at least reconcile that much -- either by declaring the fetus (1) a person, (2) some share of a person but not wholly so, thus not entitled to all the rights of a person, or (3) not a person -- before deciding whether to make abortion legal or illegal. I don't agree with the right-to-life position re: fetal personhood, but I do at least "get" the point of it and the need to have and importance of having a position on that aspect of the matter.

 

[Chuz Life]

Could give some examples? Maybe make it like a multiple choice?

Truly, I don't have any suggestions as go the questions I asked in the last section of that post that was long and hard for you to reply to using a phone. I don't because it's never crossed my mind to need any as abortion is legal and has been for the entirety of my adult life, and I happen to agree it should be.

FWIW, the questions were:

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?

I still don't understand why you (or others) believe my personal recommendations have anything to do with the issue.

It's not about -me-

I'm not a king nor a dictator. Not even for a day.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed?

No one can know the future for certain. However, millions of people will not rest until it is finally reversed. The challenges to Roe are not going to simply fade away. If anything, they will continue to intensify.

A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

Ironically, The most likely challenge that will give the Supreme Court a reason to revisit Roe will come from Criminal Convictions under our 'Fetal Homicide' laws. It will be those already convicted of killing 'children in the womb' who will be pushing the issue the most on the legal front, by trying to get their convictions overturned. . . on the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Several convictions have already been appealed on that basis, already.

So far, the Supreme Court has declined the opportunity to consider any of those cases. However, as the case loads build. . . the chances that the SCOTUS will be compelled to hear those arguments will only climb accordingly.

2- What would banning abortion achieve?

That depends on what you mean by "achieve." Constitutionally, it will achieve the goals of pro-lifers and anti-abortion minded folks of gaining the equal rights and Constitutional protections of children in the womb.

Legally, that would enable our State and Federal governments to make or to revise their laws accordingly.

One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything. . . much less something that is the violation of a child's rights.

Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies?

It's funny that you see that as draconian.

We already have laws that make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. Don't we?

If you robbed a bank and fired a shot - even accidentally - hitting a pregnant woman and killing the child in her womb. . . you could be charged with that child's MURDER.

You tell me. . . WHY should a person who kills that same child INTENTIONALLY be charged with anything less?

What we are seeking is consistency in our laws.

Can we make abortion impossible?

No. I don't think so.

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

I was "pro-abortion" myself before ever becoming "anti-abortion." I can argue all sides of the issue very easily. So, yes, I understand the point of view very well.

What I can not argue against is the biological facts that lead to the conclusion that a child's life biologically "begins" at and by conception.

Likewise, I can not argue against the fact that our Constitution (which is the law of our land) is INCLUSIVE in the way that it says that "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

I can not argue against the fact that by making it a crime of MURDER to criminally kill a child in the womb - our Fetal Homicide Laws are already recognizing the personhood of "children in the womb" on a very significant level.

I can not argue against the fact that the LEGAL definition of a "natural person" is (like the Constitution) also very inclusive - in that it is simply "a human being." A "child in the womb" as defined by our Fetal Homicide Laws. . . MEETS that legal definition.

No one can know the future for certain. However, millions of people will not rest until it is finally reversed. The challenges to Roe are not going to simply fade away. If anything, they will continue to intensify.

I agree that the issue will not fade away. Statistics seem to indicate that younger people (18-29) are amongst the most strongly opposed groups, along with older Americans (65-up). These attitudes don't seem to change with age, though. People who were pro-choice at an earlier stage of their life don't tend to change their opinions as they age. This tends to buck the trend of a number of other so-called progressive issues, same sex marriage, for example, where the support increases as the polling group's age decreases.

Perhaps this is related to the fact that abortions are down, both in states where the availability is protected and those states where availability is constantly being reduced by restrictive legislation. It would be encouraging to think that abortion is enjoying less support because we are succeeding in educating people about the consequences of their actions. More responsible sex = fewer abortions and fewer people who support abortion as the "first line" defense against unwanted pregnancy.

Ironically, The most likely challenge that will give the Supreme Court a reason to revisit Roe will come from Criminal Convictions under our 'Fetal Homicide' laws.

I've never understood the notion of challenging abortion through redefining the status of the fetus. It's always seemed to me that the status of the fetus was determined by the decision that other rights and considerations were paramount. In other words, first comes the determination to make abortion legal, then, after the fact, the status of the fetus is defined to conform to that determination. Some of these laws specifically exempt abortion as an assault on the fetus. What's the point of those laws? Suspenders and a belt? The laws which don't specifically exempt abortion seem to me to be designed to be a back-door method of attacking abortion rights. Again, it seems like a waste of time. If there is sufficient judicial support to ban abortion, it will be banned. The pretext is irrelevant.

We do not agree that that is a compelling argument for the legalization of anything. . . much less something that is the violation of a child's rights.

All laws need to be reviewed with an eye towards whether they do more harm than good.

If you robbed a bank and fired a shot - even accidentally - hitting a pregnant woman and killing the child in her womb. . . you could be charged with that child's MURDER.

You tell me. . . WHY should a person who kills that same child INTENTIONALLY be charged with anything less?

What we are seeking is consistency in our laws.

What I meant by "more draconian" was embracing the mistake recently made by Mr, Trump to criminalize the women as well as the abortion providers. It's considered a mistake, politically, but it is the consistent position. If abortion is murder, then everyone connected with that decision is a murderer. Why should it be murder if a third party is involved, but not murder if a woman kills her own fetus without help? That's like saying that if you hire a hit man it's murder, but if you do it yourself it's not. That doesn't seem consistent to me.

We (pro lifers and the like) are not redefining the personhood status of children in the womb. We are trying to correct the errors made by the SCOTUS under Roe.


As for the consistency in how abortions should be prosecuted? I am already on record for supporting that.

 

[Votto]

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973. That's 40+ years.

1- Will Roe v Wade ever be reversed? A conservative majority on the SC has not managed to achieve this goal for the pro-life cause. What could make a reversion to pre-1973 law a reality?

2- What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors? Should we be more Draconican, with mass incarcerations of both abortion providers and the women who seek to kill their babies? Can we make abortion impossible?

3- Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, are you capable of understanding and respecting the POV of those who hold the opposite position?

As with everything else, it comes down to money.

The abortion industry is just to powerful. Then add to that the fact that people simply don't want to sometimes be financially responsible for the rest of their lives for their children.

And finally, globalists that are in power politically have their panties in a wad over global population levels. For them, with each abortion the goddess mother earth gives them a smile as they have that much more natural resources to use only for themselves.

The love of money is the root of all Progressivism.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could give some examples? Maybe make it like a multiple choice?

Truly, I don't have any suggestions as go the questions I asked in the last section of that post that was long and hard for you to reply to using a phone. I don't because it's never crossed my mind to need any as abortion is legal and has been for the entirety of my adult life, and I happen to agree it should be.

FWIW, the questions were:

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?

I still don't understand why you (or others) believe my personal recommendations have anything to do with the issue.

It's not about -me-

I'm not a king nor a dictator. Not even for a day.

The answers/suggestions given in response to the questions I asked don't have to do with whether abortion should or should be legal. They have to do with the outcomes that might very plausibly occur if it is switched from being legal to being illegal.

The relevance is that like any action or policy one wants to undertake, one, at least one who is responsible, must recognize that one's actions do not occur in a vacuum. With that recognition, one must:

1. understand that one's action(s) will have consequences, some of which are those that one desired to effect by taking the actions and some of which are those one would not desire,
2. identify what the plausible negative consequences be, and
3. having identified them, develop and be prepared to implement a plan to mitigate, minimize, eliminate and/or counteract the occurrence and impact of of the undesired outcomes.

Having been on the pro-choice side of the matter, you surely are aware of the major foreseeable consequences of making abortion illegal. Now I happen to think (1) that you are not a myopic advocate of your preferred abortion legalization position, and (2) that inasmuch as you want to see abortion become illegal (save for in rarefied situations perhaps), you have also thought enough about the matter to have a plan, or some idea of what one might be, that not only achieves your goal re: abortion itself, but also that deals with the socioeconomic consequences of making it illegal. The questions I've asked identify some of those consequences and ask you to identify what plan you'd favor/suggest to address them.

Your recommendations are requested not because I think you are a king/dictator, but because I think you are responsible enough to have thought beyond the mere achievement of your primary outcome -- the criminalization of abortion -- and its most obvious impact: tossing in jail those who perform and/or aid and abet performing abortions in the U.S. I want to understand what be the comprehensiveness of your thought regarding making abortion illegal and dealing with (should it be necessary) the plausible consequences of doing so.

 

[Chuz Life]

Could give some examples? Maybe make it like a multiple choice?

Truly, I don't have any suggestions as go the questions I asked in the last section of that post that was long and hard for you to reply to using a phone. I don't because it's never crossed my mind to need any as abortion is legal and has been for the entirety of my adult life, and I happen to agree it should be.

FWIW, the questions were:

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?

I still don't understand why you (or others) believe my personal recommendations have anything to do with the issue.

It's not about -me-

I'm not a king nor a dictator. Not even for a day.

The answers/suggestions given in response to the questions I asked don't have to do with whether abortion should or should be legal. They have to do with the outcomes that might very plausibly occur if it is switched from being legal to being illegal.

I got that.

And my response is the same as I said above in bold.

The relevance is that like any action or policy one wants to undertake, one, at least one who is responsible, must recognize that one's actions do not occur in a vacuum. With that recognition, one must:

1. understand that one's action(s) will have consequences, some of which are those that one desired to effect by taking the actions and some of which are those one would not desire,
2. identify what the plausible negative consequences be, and
3. having identified them, develop and be prepared to implement a plan to mitigate, minimize, eliminate and/or counteract the occurrence and impact of of the undesired outcomes.

1. 
   

Your recommendations are requested not because I think you are a king/dictator, but because I think you are responsible enough to have thought beyond the mere achievement of your primary outcome -- the criminalization of abortion -- and its most obvious impact: tossing in jail those who perform and/or aid and abet performing abortions in the U.S. I want to understand what be the comprehensiveness of your thought regarding making abortion illegal and dealing with (should it be necessary) the plausible consequences of doing so.[/QUOTE]

Again. . . It AINT about - ME- or MY thoughts.

Let's take your request to its logical conclusion. . . shall we?

Let's assume that I have laid out the entirety of everything you are asking of me. Let's assume that you have MY answer to your every question on this matter.

THEN what?

You either like it, don't like it, pick it apart, demand I add more details. . . .
Why waste our time doing that?

My personal preferences or individual ideas of what I think the consequences should be are irrelevant.

As are YOURS.

That said, you should already know my thoughts from this and from other threads.

You already know (or should know) that I consider abortions to be a violation of a child's Constitutional rights. I have argued repeatedly for equal protections and for "consistency" in our laws.

From that, you should be able to extrapolate my answers to your questions.

Especially when I have noted in other threads. . . that "it is extremely illogical to think that a robber who even ACCIDENTALLY kills a child in the womb during a criminal act can be charged with MURDER. . . But if the mother kills that same child INTENTIONALLY it is anything less."

 

[320 Years of History]

Let's assume that I have laid out the entirety of everything you are asking of me. Let's assume that you have MY answer to your every question on this matter.

THEN what?

You either like it, don't like it, pick it apart, demand I add more details. . . .
Why waste our time doing that?

My personal preferences or individual ideas of what I think the consequences should be are irrelevant.

As are YOURS.

Well, surely someone's -- someone whom you perceive as having a more significant role in jurisprudence, policy making and legislation -- are relevant. Have you sought and thus become aware of their answers and approaches as go those questions? If so, point me to them. I'm not especially requiring they be your original ideas as go the answers, all I really want to discover is (1) what be the key ideas that are afloat as go the questions I asked, and (2) of them, what be the ideas in that regard that you are comfortable with and agree with, although if you have original ones of your own, I'd be fine with reading them too.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's assume that I have laid out the entirety of everything you are asking of me. Let's assume that you have MY answer to your every question on this matter.

THEN what?

You either like it, don't like it, pick it apart, demand I add more details. . . .
Why waste our time doing that?

My personal preferences or individual ideas of what I think the consequences should be are irrelevant.

As are YOURS.

Well, surely someone's -- someone whom you perceive as having a more significant role in jurisprudence, policy making and legislation -- are relevant.

Is it a "someone" that will decide these consequences? An individual?

Or will it be a culmination of ideas that rise through a representative government with at least subtle differences from State to State?

Clearly, I see it as the latter. Which is why your demands for specific answers to what the policy "should be" is a waste of time.

Have you sought and thus become aware of their answers and approaches as go those questions?

No, because no matter what an individual lawmakers answers might be... they (as an individual) are not in a position to enact their personal beliefs or ideas any more than I can. Or you for that matter.

I believe abortions are murders and I expect consistency in our laws.

That's all you need to know about my personal take on it - to know what kinds of policies I would support and what kinds I would find to be lacking.

I'm not especially requiring they be your original ideas as go the answers, all I really want to discover is (1) what be the key ideas that are afloat as go the questions I asked, and (2) of them, what be the ideas in that regard that you are comfortable with and agree with, although if you have original ones of your own, I'd be fine with reading them too.

See above. I don't see any reason to immerse myself into pure speculation about things that I believe will be decided by "the people" sometime after the fact - when abortion has either already been criminalized or as lawmakers see that it is about to be criminalized.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let me try to answer your questions a better way and with a question of my own.

We already have laws which make it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act.

If abortion is criminalized under the reasoning that "personhood begins at conception."

Would you expect for our laws to be consistent or inconsistent when and where it comes to the criminal killing of "children in the womb?"

Looking ahead, I clearly think our laws should be consistent in that regard.

You don't?

 

[320 Years of History]

If abortion is criminalized under the reasoning that "personhood begins at conception," would you expect for our laws to be consistent or inconsistent when and where it comes to the criminal killing of "children in the womb?"

Looking ahead, I clearly think our laws should be consistent in that regard.

You don't?

I do expect the law to be applied consistently if the law also establishes that personhood to begins at conception.

I don't see the point of your asking me that question. You and don't differ on the nature of what personhood is. We don't disagree on the idea that there should be consistency in the application of the law. We both agree that the law is applied inconsistently and that doing so is not a good thing.

We disagree on:

• The point at which personhood is established.

As goes the matter of whether one can or should be convictable/chargeable for killing a fetus, my answer is that one should not be. I do not find personhood as beginning until after the fetus leaves the womb. I also would, were personhood deemed to legally commence with conception, hold all parties to an abortion liable for a crime in proportion to their role in the crime, much as we do with murders of individuals deemed presently to be persons.

As I've said, I'm not a moral absolutist. I happen to think that there are not solely two statuses of personhood. AS just one example, a child is a person, yet a child has not the right to vote. The right to vote is not the only thing we don't accord children even though they are persons. Accordingly, I also find that an in-utero fetus, need not be due the full rights of a full person. Clearly I don't think the right to not be aborted is among the rights "partial persons" or non-persons have, regardless of how that abortion takes place.

If there's going to be a reason in my mind for penalizing someone for destroying the viable fetus of a woman who otherwise intends to carry the fetus to term, it's because of "the destroyer's" having infringed on the woman's right to give birth to a child, not because "the destroyer" destroyed the fetus.

 

[Elvis Obama]

All laws need to be reviewed with an eye towards whether they do more harm than good.

Agree.

first comes the determination to make abortion legal, then, after the fact, the status of the fetus is defined to conform to that determination.

No aspersion intended, but that seems like a "bass aackward" immorally arbitrary way to approach lawmaking, at least to me. Even though I don't consider a fetus to be a person, I do consider it to be living. I think first and foremost, one must at least reconcile that much -- either by declaring the fetus (1) a person, (2) some share of a person but not wholly so, thus not entitled to all the rights of a person, or (3) not a person -- before deciding whether to make abortion legal or illegal. I don't agree with the right-to-life position re: fetal personhood, but I do at least "get" the point of it and the need to have and importance of having a position on that aspect of the matter.

There is, of course, a need to create a legal distinction between a person and a fetus, if we are intent on killing them. Otherwise? I find it pointless. It's killing. Killing is always the morally inferior course of action. We find so many different ways to justify it. We sanitize it. Abortion is one of the few instances where I clearly see both the moral peril and the moral benefit from killing. I don't see the benefit in compelling a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and then either accept parenthood whether they are ready for it or not, or else abandon the child to the adoption process. I believe in planned parenthood.

So which one of us is right? I believe that the determination of a fetus as a non-person serves the need of legalizing abortion. We determined that abortion was necessary, and created a legal status that allowed us to do that. To rob potential humans of their existence. I'm not sure what you're saying, that we determined that fetuses weren't people and then, as a consequence of that determination, decided to approve abortion?