A question for the "so-called" pro-life people:

[Pandora]

then why the word "tend" ? if its never happened then tend is unnecessary. if its the shorthand version of the expression (a body in motion absent external force will stay in motion then its poor shorthand.

generalization without qualification is suspect.

Also on a side not, love the signature. Way to use that strike out. I have been wondering how I could use that cool function and you did it very well.

 

[PLC1]

then why the word "tend" ? if its never happened then tend is unnecessary. if its the shorthand version of the expression (a body in motion absent external force will stay in motion then its poor shorthand.

generalization without qualification is suspect.

So it seems. Why "tend"? Perhaps because a body in motion can actually be brought to a stop, at least relative to objects around it, if another force is acting on it.

A car that has lost its brakes tends to remain in motion, but eventually it will stop one way or another. It stops because another force acts on it, whether it is a tree or simply friction.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Well, at least you are being fair. . .as my "attacks" are usually triggered by your "attacks!"

So. . .we do recognize that we are even in this matter. Too bad so many are not honest enough to recognize that trend.

However, have you ever considered that your own annoyance may also be provoked by exposure to rational thinking that doesn't meet your own agenda and create cognitive dissonance >>>(avoid this cliche')<<< in your mind?

What you refer to as my "attacks" are often exercises in "self-defense".
If you carefully examine the threads--you will see this.
I sometimes offer expositions--and one can choose to agree/disagree/condescend to/revile or whatever.
I try to 'hint' to others that one can disagree strongly with an opinion and offer a humorous diversion as a way to make your point.
The endless recriminatory invective--is so common and low-class it ought to be avoided by all.
It is the curse--and credo--of those of the democrat persuasion.
Make your point like Addison DeWitt (George Sanders) would have in "All About Eve".
Smooth and to the point--but with a flair for subtlety.

 

[Dr.Who]

clearly directed at members on this forum but agreed that its not the most the most blantant of hers.

Actually I was not directing that at a particular member.

 

[Dr.Who]

What makes you think that outlawing abortions would reduce their frequency in the US, when other places where abortion has been outlawed actually have more of them?

First consider what you claim (perhaps you mean to make a different claim)

You are claiming that in some population x number of women get pregnant and a percentage of them get abortions legally. Then it becomes illegal and either the number of women getting pregnant increases and the percentage of them that want abortions goes up or the number of womean getting pregnant stays the same (or decreases) and the percentage of them that want abortions increases and also that larger percentage of woman wanting abortions produces a greater number of woman willing to break the law than were willing to get abortions when it was legal. I just dont see a way that making abortion illegal would increase the number of pregnant woman, or increase the percentage of woman that want abortions. The most it would likely do is shift some legal abortions to illegal ones which would predictably be a smaller number than the previous legal number.

In fact if one doubts that laws can decrease behavior then one is arguing that the existence of the state is a flawed concept. We don't need laws if they don't do what they are intended to do.


But to answer your question before roe v wade abortion in the US was very very rare (fractions of digits). Since roe v wade it has become very common (double digits). I think most of that increase was due to it becoming legal.

[IMG/]

 

[Dr.Who]

Abortions, legal or not, should be avoided for the reasons you have given.

The reasons I gave were:

To protect the lives of mothers and to protect the lives of babies. Do you agree with both of those?

 

[PLC1]

First consider what you claim (perhaps you mean to make a different claim)

You are claiming that in some population x number of women get pregnant and a percentage of them get abortions legally. Then it becomes illegal and either the number of women getting pregnant increases and the percentage of them that want abortions goes up or the number of womean getting pregnant stays the same (or decreases) and the percentage of them that want abortions increases and also that larger percentage of woman wanting abortions produces a greater number of woman willing to break the law than were willing to get abortions when it was legal. I just dont see a way that making abortion illegal would increase the number of pregnant woman, or increase the percentage of woman that want abortions. The most it would likely do is shift some legal abortions to illegal ones which would predictably be a smaller number than the previous legal number.

In fact if one doubts that laws can decrease behavior then one is arguing that the existence of the state is a flawed concept. We don't need laws if they don't do what they are intended to do.


But to answer your question before roe v wade abortion in the US was very very rare (fractions of digits). Since roe v wade it has become very common (double digits). I think most of that increase was due to it becoming legal.

[IMG/]

What you are saying makes sense logically, and yet, the experience of governments that have outlawed the practice is that it doesn't actually limit abortions so much as drive them underground. Places where abortion is illegal often have higher rates than places where it is legal.

It's a bit like the war on drugs. Since that started, drug abuse has become much more common. Just outlawing a practice does not end it.

 

[Dr.Who]

What you are saying makes sense logically, and yet, the experience of governments that have outlawed the practice is that it doesn't actually limit abortions so much as drive them underground. Places where abortion is illegal often have higher rates than places where it is legal.

It's a bit like the war on drugs. Since that started, drug abuse has become much more common. Just outlawing a practice does not end it.

Outlawing a practice would probably reduce it but not eliminate it. I highly doubt that increases in a behavior after it is outlawed are the result of the law. Drug use for example probably increased more because of the influence of Timothy Learly and the 60's culture than the laws.

If we compare two different places one where it is legal and one where abortion is illegal we are likely to find differences that are do to factors other than the law.

I still do not think that there is any logical way in which the rate of abortions in the US would go up because it is illegal. The rate if illegal abortions would probably go up while the total rate went down. Which scenario would save the most total number of human lives?

 

[PLC1]

Outlawing a practice would probably reduce it but not eliminate it. I highly doubt that increases in a behavior after it is outlawed are the result of the law. Drug use for example probably increased more because of the influence of Timothy Learly and the 60's culture than the laws.

If we compare two different places one where it is legal and one where abortion is illegal we are likely to find differences that are do to factors other than the law.

I still do not think that there is any logical way in which the rate of abortions in the US would go up because it is illegal. The rate if illegal abortions would probably go up while the total rate went down. Which scenario would save the most total number of human lives?

No, it is not logical to think that outlawing abortion would actually increase the incidence, but it is not going to end the practice, nor radically reduce the numbers. It will just drive it underground.

If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, that could best be accomplished by education and widely available birth control.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, it is not logical to think that outlawing abortion would actually increase the incidence, but it is not going to end the practice, nor radically reduce the numbers. It will just drive it underground.

If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, that could best be accomplished by education and widely available birth control.

Do you really think that nearly 100% of the woman getting legal abortions would go to get illegal ones? Making it illegal would stop many woman from seeking abortion. In fact it would stop many many couples from being reckless with their sexual behavior - and in fact this is the main thing that many fear is it not?

I do not think that birth control could be significantly more available. It is already cheap and easy to get. What to do about dumb people? Anyone with half a brain knows how not to get pregnant. But we hear these interview laughing at dummies all the time where common everyday people are asked questions that everyone should know and they don]t have a clue. Are some non-retarded people just too dumb to be educated?

To find an area of agreement: I think you are saying that the best way to decrease abortions is to decrease unwanted pregnancies. Contraception is a great start. I don't know how to get dummies to stop acting dumb. I wonder what the rate of unwanted pregnancies was in the 40's? Do we need a return to previous cultural norms? If we had the values of the 40's where premarital intercourse was frowned upon almost universaly but kept the values of today where oral sex is commonplace we just might be able to beat their presumably lower rates of unwanted pregnancies (though it would do litle to help the rates of STD's).Why we even have much much better forms of contraception than they had in the 40's.

 

[PLC1]

Do you really think that nearly 100% of the woman getting legal abortions would go to get illegal ones? Making it illegal would stop many woman from seeking abortion. In fact it would stop many many couples from being reckless with their sexual behavior - and in fact this is the main thing that many fear is it not?

I do not think that birth control could be significantly more available. It is already cheap and easy to get. What to do about dumb people? Anyone with half a brain knows how not to get pregnant. But we hear these interview laughing at dummies all the time where common everyday people are asked questions that everyone should know and they don]t have a clue. Are some non-retarded people just too dumb to be educated?

To find an area of agreement: I think you are saying that the best way to decrease abortions is to decrease unwanted pregnancies. Contraception is a great start. I don't know how to get dummies to stop acting dumb. I wonder what the rate of unwanted pregnancies was in the 40's? Do we need a return to previous cultural norms? If we had the values of the 40's where premarital intercourse was frowned upon almost universaly but kept the values of today where oral sex is commonplace we just might be able to beat their presumably lower rates of unwanted pregnancies (though it would do litle to help the rates of STD's).Why we even have much much better forms of contraception than they had in the 40's.

Of course, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Going back to the norms of the past when premarital sex was unacceptable to most people and the word "bastard" had a real life meaning would no doubt accomplish such a reduction. How such a change could be legislated is difficult to understand.

What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that people need to be responsible. I totally agree with that. How, though, do you pass a law requiring people to be responsible?

 

[Dr.Who]

Of course, the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Going back to the norms of the past when premarital sex was unacceptable to most people and the word "bastard" had a real life meaning would no doubt accomplish such a reduction. How such a change could be legislated is difficult to understand.

What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that people need to be responsible. I totally agree with that. How, though, do you pass a law requiring people to be responsible?

Statism always leads people to look to government for the solutions.

There is no need to legislate cultural norms nor is there any need to legislate responsibility. (and neither is authorized in the constitution)

[In all honestly and earnestness I want to ask you why, having heard many here make the claim that statist programs are not needed nor constitutional do you still fall back on statist solutions? Is there some part of what is being said that you do not believe? Or believing it do you disregard it for some reason?]

Simply stop offering dependency programs and people will automatically be responsible for their own choices. People will be more free. Most people will have more money. People can use that money (not that it would be needed) to take care of themeselves. The vast majority of people would do a find jobh taking care of themself. Other people could use that money (not that it owuld be needed) to fund charities to help people who ere irresponsible without fostering dependency.

 

[PLC1]

Statism always leads people to look to government for the solutions.

There is no need to legislate cultural norms nor is there any need to legislate responsibility. (and neither is authorized in the constitution)

[In all honestly and earnestness I want to ask you why, having heard many here make the claim that statist programs are not needed nor constitutional do you still fall back on statist solutions? Is there some part of what is being said that you do not believe? Or believing it do you disregard it for some reason?]

Simply stop offering dependency programs and people will automatically be responsible for their own choices. People will be more free. Most people will have more money. People can use that money (not that it would be needed) to take care of themeselves. The vast majority of people would do a find jobh taking care of themself. Other people could use that money (not that it owuld be needed) to fund charities to help people who ere irresponsible without fostering dependency.

Now, you're on the right track. Passing laws, what you refer to as "statism", doesn't work. Getting rid of the welfare state (dependency programs) is the right move.

So, why do you want the government to attempt to decide when a woman can and can't have an abortion? Isn't that a statist solution also?

 

[Dr.Who]

Now, you're on the right track. Passing laws, what you refer to as "statism", doesn't work. Getting rid of the welfare state (dependency programs) is the right move.

So, why do you want the government to attempt to decide when a woman can and can't have an abortion? Isn't that a statist solution also?

The state exist to protect individual rights. In eactly the same way that the state should stop one person from killing his neighbor to protect that neighbors rights the state should stop a man from killing an unborn child to protect its rights. Just because I do not believe in anarchy does not mean that I support statism. So no, it is not statism. It is just a limited gov protecting an individuals right to life.

Just as killing a neighbor is outlawed but exceptions are made (rather than it bein legal all the time and left to the killer to decide) abortion should be illegal with exceptions made. Some make seemingly arbitrary exceptions like in cases of rape. I know I will be unpopular but really?, the mental anguish (not to be minimised) does not excuse the killing of a child. In actuality, the killing of the child should never ever be the goal even when there is cause for an exception. The goal when necessary should be the end of the pregnancy not the killing of the child.

 

[cashmcall]

No answer?

No one would like to take this chance to call President Obama (and myself. . .like our dear Pandora dare to do not that long ago) a "murderer?"

Getting back on message..IMO thats shallow thinking of the sometimes claim that conservatives want to impose their own will on others in the matter of abortion. To make that claim is however to confuse religion with politics. Conservatives are in fact divided about their response to abortion. The REAL opposition to abortion is religious rather than political. And the church which has historically tended to support the LEFT -- the Roman Catholic church -- is the most fervent in the anti-abortion cause. Conservatives are indeed the one side of politics to have moral qualms on the issue but they tend to seek a middle road in dealing with it. Taking the issue to the point of legal prohibitions is a religious doctrine rather than a conservative one -- and the religion concerned may or may not be characteristically conservative

A quote from the man you love to hate and place blame...Goerge Bush..he got a few things right

"I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life.

I understand there's great differences on this issue of abortion. But I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions.

Take, for example, the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls on Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. Made a lot of sense. My opponent out - in that he's out of the mainstream, voted against that law.

What I'm saying is that as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions. Continue to promote adoption laws - that's a great alternative to abortion. Continue to fund and promote maternity group homes. I will continue to promote abstinence programs".