Phank on "truly terrible political policy"

[phank]

And yet, you inexplicably support a party platform dedicated to the erosion of individual rights and liberties.

No, sorry, I'm not a Republican. More seriously, I do not support ANY attempt to nibble away at our individual rights, regardless of which party is trying to do that. But it's not the Democrats trying to outlaw the right of abortion, or trying to outlaw the right to marriage.

It doesn't matter if a foetus is a person or not. If it's human, it has the same human rights as every other human. Shifting the topic to personhood is simply a red herring.

On the contrary, it lies at the heart of the controversy. After all, to the best of my knowledge there is no dispute about the developmental biology here. The dispute is over whether we as a society are better off, and if so how, if abortions are done safely by professionals or unsafely by unqualified butchers. And my approach in this dispute is to try to identify the causes of unwanted pregnancy, and suggest ways that these causes can be minimized. The anti-abortion crowd doesn't ever seem to grasp the idea that an unwanted pregnancy, forced to term for ideological reasons, becomes an unwanted child. And unwanted children are a problem in many ways, EVEN IF the anti-abortion folks are indifferent to such problems.

Abortion is one way to nip the unwanted children problem in the bud, but it's far from the best way. The best way is to nip unwanted pregnancy in the bud. If you have some useful suggestions for doing so, that would be a big help. Chanting slogans unfortunately improves nothing.

[Christianbookworm]

So, if parents want to safely dispose of their unwanted toddlers...

[Raphael]

You repeatedly seem to be ignoring the right of the innocent human child to not be murdered.

As Gianna Jessen (born during a saline abortion) says: you talk of womens rights, who was standing up for her rights?

[Paprika]

The dispute is over whether we as a society are better off, and if so how, if abortions are done safely by professionals or unsafely by unqualified butchers.

This statement smuggles in the assumption that the number of abortions would be the same if it was prohibited. It would decrease, and we would have less murdered babies. How does it not make the society - which also consists of said babies - better off?

[phank]

So, if parents want to safely dispose of their unwanted toddlers...

What they do, in practice, is become absentee parents. The children often grow up ignored, malnourished, and uneducated. As soon as possible, many of them join street gangs where they can have the semblance of a family. I'm sure you're aware of this. So what we need to do, I think, is focus on the entire issue from pre-sexual activity all the way to being an adult who was an unwanted child. And we have to look at this entire unfortunate history, and ask where it could best have been avoided. What do you think?

[phank]

You repeatedly seem to be ignoring the right of the innocent human child to not be murdered.

That's because I think the whole point is to find a way to avoid the issue altogether. But it seems you are ONLY interested in depriving women of their options. You don't care about contraception, you don't care about unwanted children, you don't seem to care about anything involved except your narrow issue.

But once again, before birth there is no child. And murder is a legal category. I listed several instances where taking a life is not only permitted but required. I see you ignore these. Yet none of them are murder either. So you are making a category error. I understand that you are wedded to this error, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.

[phank]

This statement smuggles in the assumption that the number of abortions would be the same if it was prohibited. It would decrease, and we would have less murdered babies.

We don't know it would decrease, but we do know that records wouldn't be kept because abortion would be illegal. And of course this is not murder by definition, and of course before birth there are no babies. But hey, truth is irrelevant to the fanatic.

How does it not make the society - which also consists of said babies - better off?

A fetus is not part of a society. The appropriate question is, is society better off with or without unwanted children raised in ignorant poverty? Ideally, every child should be a wanted child. How can we achieve that? How can we even come closer to that?

And I suggest that talk about "murdering babies" completely misses the important point. It's nothing but an ideological slogan. The point is to have all children be wanted, to have all pregnancies to be cause for celebration and not terror. But again, I despair of making that point. One poster after another after another after another completely ignores contraception and starts bellowing about murdering babies.

Q: Will free birth control reduce unwanted pregnancies?
A: You're murdering babies!
Q: How can the number of unwanted pregnancies be reduced?
A: You're murdering babies!
Q: Would it help to identify at-risk populations and try to understand the risks?
A: You're murdering babies!

Do any of you people have anything useful to contribute?

[Paprika]

But once again, before birth there is no child. And murder is a legal category. I listed several instances where taking a life is not only permitted but required. I see you ignore these. Yet none of them are murder either. So you are making a category error. I understand that you are wedded to this error, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that.

Some acts are malum in se, such as murder.

[Paprika]

I notice you ignore the point I brought up that people can be and have been charged with murdering fetuses.

[phank]

Some acts are malum in se, such as murder.

So if you kill an enemy soldier in battle, that's murder? If a policement kills someone in the line of duty, that's murder? If you kill someone in self-defense, that's murder?

I agree that murder is evil. But taking lives is not automatically murder. Murder is a legal condition. When you start applying this word indiscriminately, without regard to the legal conditions to which it applies, your position becomes incoherent.

Abortion is not murder. Period. Calling it murder doesn't make it so, but it does make you look pretty brainless. Unable to grasp even simple principles.

[Paprika]

I misspoke by using "babies" earlier rather than "feti".

A fetus is not part of a society. The appropriate question is, is society better off with or without unwanted children raised in ignorant poverty?

What is your point? If society is "better off" (according to whatever standards you propose) without some people, we kill them?

[Paprika]

I agree that murder is evil. But taking lives is not automatically murder. Murder is a legal condition. When you start applying this word indiscriminately, without regard to the legal conditions to which it applies, your position becomes incoherent.

Abortion is not murder. Period. Calling it murder doesn't make it so, but it does make you look pretty brainless. Unable to grasp even simple principles.

Silly one. Killing a fetus can be and has been considered murder in recent American law. Neither did I claim that taking life is automatically murder.

[phank]

I notice you ignore the point I brought up that people can be and have been charged with murdering fetuses.

Of course, we discover here that

the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf"

What we're seeing here is a bitter battle over control of the language. The anti-liberty forces have been stretching the meaning of such terms as "person" and "child" and "murder" beyond all rational sense, because (typical of religious thinking), they understand that SAYING something is so, makes it so.

So these laws, at least so far, all hinge on the consent of the pregnant woman (or person authorized to act on her behalf). To some degree, I actually agree with these laws -- if the woman wishes to bear a child, it should certainly be unlawful to kill the fetus. I would support severe punishment for fetal homicide in any case where the pregnant woman wanted a child.

I see a parallel with purchasing vs. stealing. If the person is willing to sell something (or even offer it as a gift), the purchaser or person receiving the gift has done nothing wrong. But if the person gets the item by stealing it, EVEN IF it was to be given away free, then that's a crime. I'm not aware of anyone being charged with fetal homicide in any case where the woman is trying to abort the fetus anyway.

[phank]

I misspoke by using "babies" earlier rather than "feti".


What is your point? If society is "better off" (according to whatever standards you propose) without some people, we kill them?

Yes, we do. We maintain a large standing army to do exactly that. And police forces, and death rows. Of course we do.

[phank]

Silly one. Killing a fetus can be and has been considered murder in recent American law. Neither did I claim that taking life is automatically murder.

Killing a fetus the pregnant woman wishes to keep alive should certainly be a crime. After all, it's HER decision and should be nobody else's.