New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

Personally I wouldn't make any legal ruling on that matter and leave it to the discretion of those involved. I don't believe it would be right for the state to coerce a doctor into performing an abortion.

The risks associated with termination increase as it gets closer to the end, so I'd leave it to the choice of the woman and her doctor and trust that doctors would encourage away from it once the risk is significant enough.

It's good to see that you do recognize that there are some instances where a hardline anti-abortion stance no longer makes moral sense.

Although, I'd argue a medical excuse exists anytime it may potentially harm the mental or physical health of the person involved.

"I'm nOt A pAcIfIsT. I jUsT dOn'T DO aNyThInG!"

"SoMeOnE aGrEeD wItH mE tHaT mEaNs I wIn!! !"

"I wIn i WiN I wIn i WiN!"

"LeTs gO pUnIsH sOmE wOmEn! MaKe SuRe ItS sEvErE eNoUgH! MaKe SuRe iTs EnFoRcEd!"

Severe penalties carried out by enforcers, in order to punish women. How is this not about "punishing women" again?

"ItS nOt AbOuT pUnIsHiNg WoMeN!! ! iTs AbOuT eNdInG aBoRtIoN!! !"

So abortion is the EXCUSE being used to justify PUNISHING WOMEN. Cos however you slice it, you've openly acknowledged that enforcing severe punishment on women IS in fact part of "the plan".

Hey smart guy, if a woman tries to get an abortion and gets arrested before it happens, now you have a "precious little unborn life" in jail, too. And under the premise "if the punishment is severe enough", if that punishment is more than 9 months of incarceration, odds are that kid is gonna be born in jail, to a (thanks to your laws) "criminal" mother. Do you let this prison baby stay with it's criminal mother, or do you take it from her and put it in foster care and hope for the best? Or maybe you just FINE the mother. But then she's being deprived of resources to help raise the "precious important life". You could make her do hard work, but she's pregnant, and that could harm her "precious little package". So how exactly do you propose we "punish" these women?

Sorry, how exactly do you propose we "severely punish" these women? How do you suggest we "enforce" it?

Hey smart guy, if a woman goes to a country where abortion IS legal, they can still get one legally.

Hey smart guy, even if abortions are illegal, what if a pregnant woman just just acts carelessly, and causes a miscarriage? Now what? It wasn't an abortion. It was an "accident".

How tight of a leash would you say we need to keep women on, to make sure they don't go get an abortion, or otherwise risk losing their precious packages?

These are not "unrelated non-sequiturs" - actions have consequences - often more than just the ones you immediately see in front of you. Just cos you aren't aware of the larger picture, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Tossing out that you simply don't believe in ending life "frivolously" only serves to push the narrative that women just act willy nilly silly without though, and only use abortions so they can escape the consequences of their "frivolous" behaviors, and partake in them again.

Comparing abortion to theft only serves to quietly sneak in the idea that "there is no valid reason for this act to occur", which totally avoids the discussion about whether or not there IS in fact a valid reason for abortion, and just assumes that there isn't. Which may be what you BELIEVE, but other people BELIEVE other things. "BuT iM rIgHt!" Sure you are.

"BuT yOu ThInK yOu'Re RiGhT!! !" No, I don't. And that's what you've never understood. I don't think there is a "right" answer. I think we're a bunch of hairless apes making it up as we go along, trying to do the best we can, with the information we have available. I don't claim to have the right answer. Anyone who does is probably trying to sell you something, or sell you ON something. We shaved apes love certainty, and will cling to it even when we know it to be untrue, cos it makes us feel "safe". Lacking the "right" answer, whatever that is, I am simply living the best way I know how. This is what I believe, and this is why I believe it.

At least now we have an honest answer to the question of how you're going to protect unborn babies.

"Severely punish women. Make sure these severe punishments are enforced."

So, when are you going to get started? What punishments did you have in mind? How are you going to enforce them? Or are these also "uNrElAtEd nOn-SeQuItOrS!! !"

I would point out, that your argument regarding rape exceptions and term exceptions being "the same thing", is flawed in that, one is arguing WHEN, the other is arguing WHY. Also, the late term abortion restriction does not "force", as it gave the option TO CHOOSE beforehand. NOT GETTING ONE during that period WAS THE CHOICE. Sort of like, "you have 30 days free trial, and then you will be billed" doesn't mean you've been FORCED! into a contract.

And if you admit that even you agree that some abortions are ok, and that the argument is really just about how much abortion should happen, you're admitting you're ok with the loss of life, as long as it's kept to a minimum, is for reasons you personally approve of, and doesn't effect you in any way.

High horse, low bar. Big bark, little dog. Big mouth, little action.

"gEoRgE fLoYd dOgS cAn BaRk I wIn i WiN nOn sEqUiToRs StAy On ToPic SaFe ThEfT bLaCk CrImInAlS yOu'Re StUpId AnSwEr ThE qUeStiOn bUt WhAt AbOuT AnD yOu'Re NoT eVeN tAkInG tHiS sEriOuSly I cAnT bElIeVe YoU tOoK mE sErIoUsLy iTs NoT aBoUt PuNisHiNg wOmEn ItS aBoUt SeVeRlY pUnIsHiNg sOmEtHiNg ThAt OnLy AfFeCtS wOmEn BaRk bArK yOu MaKe nO sEnSE!! !"

Lets have some fun. Lets assume we do as you say. Abortion is now illegal, and nobody has them. Now what?

The child is born. The mother still doesn't want it.

Put it up for adoption! But orphanages are already overcrowded and underfunded, not enough kids get adopted, resources are cut, etc. But at least the kid is alive! They might get lucky! Or they might end up homeless and stave! But at least they had a CHANCE! Or suffer and die. Whatever.

Make the mother raise the kid! Enforce severe penalties if they don't! But if you penalize the mother, then they're even more unable to take care of the kid. How do you penalize the mother without also penalizing the kid?

Take the kid? The mom didn't want it anyways. So how is THAT a help? Kid ends up in state care. See above.

You don't help people by restricting their options. You help them by increasing their options. And I don't mean simply "give them the option to have an abortion!" - I mean teach people about sex, make birth control more readily accessible, do more to prevent RAPE, provide resources for pregnant women and single mothers - prevent PRENGANCIES rather than abortions, and alleviate some of the reasons WHY a woman might seek an abortion (address the SOURCE, not the SYMPTOM)

It seems as if some people just want to go for an easy solution that makes them feel good, rather than a difficult solution that actually solves something, but doesn't let them be a "hero" or "champion". Y'know, because "winning".

I only make room for cases where the mother's physical health is in greater danger than is normal, where life of mother and child are actually in the balance. For rape and incest, it's purely a matter of practicality. Given the emotions involved, even though it is logically just as wrong to abort a child conceived in those ways, I don't think a law that so tightly bound itself to morality could be passed or maintained for very long if it was, particularly in idiocracy. So I'd settle for ending 99% of abortions which aren't these extreme examples.

So you'll make exceptions for things when YOU deem them acceptable. Or for "practical" things. Like incest! Or rape! No need to invoke morality or emotion there! Just be practical!

Apparently His Majesty knows the line is arbitrary, He just wants to be the one to decide where the line is drawn. Naturally the most "practical" place - where His Majesty wants it to be.

I'm not sidestepping the morality of abortion. I'm saying, based on your morality, that even if killing babies is wrong it will be more moral to have less restrictions on abortion because there will be less loss of human life that way.

I find it interesting that you say you have figures for the increase in abortion rates following legalisation, then go on to say measuring something illegal is fraught with difficulty. Why would you be sceptical of WHO's figures but not your own, both of which are measuring something illegal?

Any law is going to have some kind of deterrent effect. The only question is how much. According to the WHO, the deterrent effect for abortion doesn't seem to be very substantial, maybe even inconsequential.

@Mikah, would you change your stance if it can be shown, to your satisfaction, that more restrictions on abortion would lead to a greater loss of human life?

none so blind as those who will not see.

You may not personally side step it, but this line of argument does. I notice you wisely ignored my counter using theft.



That is not an argument I have made nor a "morality" I have proffered. As I said in the post you are responding to, I think human life should not be ended frivolously. I am not making an argument of the sort that says "the maximum possible number of lives must be saved" (if you believe otherwise, please link to where you think I said so, so I can clear up any misunderstandings).



I pre-empted a reasonable counter interpretation and said that properly analysed data of this sort is a "friend to neither side in this debate" and you interpret that as me lacking scepticism regarding its validity/usefulness/interpretation?



Now of that, I am sceptical. I may actually dig in to the report later. I know how phony arguments against deterrent effects are constructed, I may be able to elucidate problems. Putting to one side the difficulty of measuring an illegal activity, there are usually problems with how stringent the punishment is, how effectively it is enforced etc.

A similar argument is used in favour of drug legalisation in the UK. The laws on the books are stern, even for marijuana - in theory you can go to prison for 5 years and receive an unlimited fine just for possession. In reality, unless you are caught doing other more serious crimes, what you will get is an unrecorded verbal warning. Pro-drugs folks love to claim "see the law has no effect" from this obviously flawed position. It's possible, if not likely that similar analysis is in play.

Anyway even if that is the case...



No. As I said above, for me it isn't a numbers game about saving the greatest number of lives. It's about how someone dies, who kills them, if anyone, and for what reason.

I believe that he already answered that:


i.e. he wants to read it first. That seems fair.

---

TaKinG The Opinion of Any Non-Health Professional;
A Nice Enough, Yet Faceless Avatar on the Internet,

Over the Global World Health Organization's Findings;

Or A Faceless Avatar's Personal Morality

As So-Called

Elucidated

Above Any

Other

Faceless

Avatar's

Morality

Is Non-Sensical

At Best And Amusing At Worst...

Yet True, i Enjoy Dipping my Feet

In All Waters of the Ocean Whole...

It's

Just

Fun to me...

Kinda Like Leg
Pressing Up to
1520 Pounds at
Age 61; Just Another

Special Interest to 'Kill'

TiMe; Hehe, God Yes

Eternally NoW In Flow;

Let's Call This Philosophy,

Personal Ones at THaT Yes; Yet

To Call It Debate is A Misnomer at Worst...

Having It All Whole Complete Enough; Competitions

Are For Others, Like Fear And Other Empty Associations, of Existence Now.

'See

What

i Just Did'...

Hint, Clue:
Killing TiME AGAiN

---

And there you have it. The number of deaths, or deaths prevented, isn't the goal - it's just making sure His Majesty approves of the circumstances of the death. As long as they're killed the right way, by the right people, for the right reasons, it's fine!

Naturally, His Majesty gets to decide what the "approved" methods and reasons are.

So, what kind of severe punishment did you have in mind for women who seek abortions?

Let's try this again.

"ALL ABORTIONS ARE NOW ILLEGAL IN THE UK!"

Cool. I'm going to France for the weekend. Abortions are legal there.

"ALL ABORTIONS ARE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE!"

That's reasonably impossible, but ok.

Oops! I "fell" and had a miscarriage! Good luck proving otherwise!

What next? So far, you've changed the NUMBER of abortions, maybe, but they still seem to find ways to happen. Now what? Are you satisfied with merely reducing the numbers? Of course not! You said so yourself! For you, it is SO NOT a numbers game. "It's about how someone dies, who kills them, if anyone, and for what reason."

So far all you've really changed in that regard is now it's a french or german doctor, instead of a british one. Or hell, maybe it still is a british doctor, just practicing in france or germany. At any rate, you haven't actually changed those things you say are THE MOST important to you. they're still dying the same way, by the same people, for the same reasons - but now they're in wine country. GOOD JOB!

Unless of course you find a way to make it illegal everywhere (except when and where YOU approve, naturally), in which case there are still all the ways a woman can induce a miscarriage.

Importantly, how would you know if they were pregnant in the first place?

Again, now what? Travel restrictions? Mandatory chaperone? Invasive health monitoring? Location tracking?

Tell us. How severe of a punishment, how short of a leash, should women get, in order for your solution to be effective, in your opinion?

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 11 Jun 2021, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

don't give the righties any ideas...

They already HAVE the ideas. But if you call them out on them explicitly, it's fun to watch them wiggle between not saying "Yes" but also not saying "No".

You'd be amazed at all the things they end up not-saying or just-saying. They even use those exact words.

"I'm not saying that..."

"I'm just saying that..."

Both serve to avoid getting into the actual details. Hence all the effort into denials and reversals, with very little substance of their own ideology, except in the vaguest possible terms. Staying vague also helps them from painting themselves into corners or contradicting themselves.

the scary ones blatantly say "why YES, bring back chastity belts!" or such. those folks do exist in today's right wing.

And the covert ones can be coaxed out by asking the right questions with enough intensity. Their need to justify themselves will slowly override their desire to keep their opinions covert. Getting them to talk freely helps identify them. Getting people mildly stressed or emotionally charged makes them more likely to revert to who they actually are. Treating their ideas as silly causes them to double down on defending them. Prolonging the conversation requires them to come up with additional things to elaborate upon, lest it become too painfully obvious they are merely reciting a script on a loop. Makes more details come out. The details often speak for themselves.

Am I sarcastic, disrespectful, and a little snide? Sure. But not without reason

Sometimes you gotta squeeze them, juuuuuust a little, to get the truth to come out. Otherwise they'll spend all their time interrogating you, trying to get you on the defensive, and avoiding answering questions themselves.

Scrutiny is not their ally. They know it only as a weapon that cuts, and so try to turn it on their opponent, assuming that everyone has the same weakness as they.

When they whip it out and go "how about YOU explain YOUR ideas, HUH?" and you actually can, they then have to resort to claiming you're "not arguing right" or "going off-topic" - whatever undercuts the fact that you could actually explain yourself.

Yet if you go back and read the actual conversation, you see that they're implying that "what do you do to help stop abortion? here's what I do" is somehow OFF topic according to them - but talking about theft, black criminals, and george floyd are totally relevant - somehow - also according to them.

Hence why they edit those pesky parts out of the quotes when they respond, and will bullsh!t for several pages, in the hopes that nobody will be willing to dig through it to read the whole interlude.

@aghogday I was under the impression that you, I and the Holy Creative Spirit had an understanding not to even try debating this exact topic, given what happened last time.

Feigning shock at my "admission". Right.

Hundreds of innocent people have been wrongfully executed over the preceding decades.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died on the roads in car accidents in the same time frame.

Those who abhor capital punishment often aren't trying to have car ownership banned or seriously restricted despite the number of innocent deaths being orders of magnitude apart. Playing the numbers game doesn't hold much weight in that topic and proponents are not wrong to be more concerned over one compared to the other. Though certain folks may like to pretend otherwise for the abortion debate it does matter how and why you die.



For a frivolous abortion, with no good reason? She should be treated as though she smothered her own child in a cot. The punishment would range from mandatory psychiatric treatment, prevented from having contact with other children, to life in prison, depending on a huge number of factors. The "doctor" who performs it won't have the option of pleading insanity or emotional turmoil, being either a paid or sympathetic assassin.



I have an opinion. I am not yet King of the world, despite your flattering use of royal titles.



There will always be some who try their luck and no doubt some will get away with it. Fortunately you don't need to catch everyone, a few high profile, well publicised cases now and again should be sufficient to have a serious deterrent effect.

There are many ways to deal with the scenarios you put forward.

As for travelling to other countries you could explicitly make seeking or having an abortion abroad illegal. Set up LE traps, fake adverts, offer rewards for snitching. If women have to wonder whether every "illegal abortion clinic" is really a bunch of police officers waiting to arrest them and wondering if any of their friends might have a bad day and sell them out for a few grand, many won't take the risk.
Home abortion isn't as easy as you make it sound. It takes a lot more than the movies would have you believe to end a pregnancy that way, it's dangerous and doctors are trained to spot the signs of an amateur attempt at termination. Again a few high profile cases of women being locked up for attempting home abortions or dying in the process will contribute to deterrence.

It really is quite feasible to clamp down on abortion if you are serious about it. You seem to think that all women are stupid and irrational and will do it anyway, knowing the consequences.



Internet algorithms can identify gay people before they even know. Someone trying to get away with an illegal abortion in a 21st century state that was serious about ending abortion would have to be paranoid and careful to the extreme or else plan years ahead.





Strangely reminded of this comic for some reason.



When someone has been trained to see the unborn as less than human, examples like that can help them to understand what is wrong with the arguments they are putting forward, there isn't a better way to do it unfortunately, if they aren't willing to tackle the core of the argument - that the unborn are human from conception.