Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 19611 times)

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.

I agree with you here. I worded this very, very poorly. Sorry about that.

This was in reference to the crime reduction benefit of abortion. If the reason to abort is to stop crime, terminating criminals after a first offense would be a better course of action to reduce crime.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

If society deemed it acceptable to terminate someone after a first offense (either candy bar stealing or mass murder or anything else it felt was undesirable) would you find it okay - knowing that all morality is completely subjective and no one has any more "insight" than anyone else? After all, not everything is black and white.

It's akin to saying that one color is better than another - completely subjective. There is nothing more to it. This is why I find it really hard to understand social justice people who don't believe in a higher level of morality (everyone just makes up their morality as they go along). It's like getting upset if someone is driving a different color car than you. There is nothing deeper to it than that.

So the question is, do you really believe that? ;)
Paul


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867


Quote
Just like mothers who choose to have an abortion, nobody owes you anything.
I'm not even sure what this means?

Quote
You've still not addressed the case of rape. Do you think the fetus of rape is entitled to the same rights as any other fetus? Will you be forcing rape victims to carry their pregnancy to term?
I think rape cases are extremely difficult to deduce. On one end of the spectrum you have a person forced into something against their will in a terrible brutal fashion. On the other end you have a baby which has been forced into the world and has done nothing wrong. I think in most cases I can understand an abortion in this situation. But I wouldn't be against using (tax funds) to compensate the woman if she is willing to carry the baby to term. This compensation would offset medical costs, perhaps education an anything else she has to remove herself from in life while carrying the baby. An adoption should be arranged so that the baby can be taken once born. Again, I'm not sold on this and I think it should be up to her in this circumstance.


And in some cases, the law would let a child make a decision on their future after being raped...no informed decision, only that she would have to have the child.  These are the types of people that this law will affect:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/05/16/shannon-dingle-intv-rape-survivor-mxp-vpx.hln

Why do you keep bringing up rape while you're in favor of the choice being only up to the woman (from what I can tell, regardless of the reason)? Do you feel there is ever a time where an abortion isn't okay?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my parent question by the way. ;)

Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.

I agree with you here. I worded this very, very poorly. Sorry about that.

This was in reference to the crime reduction benefit of abortion. If the reason to abort is to stop crime, terminating criminals after a first offense would be a better course of action to reduce crime.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

If society deemed it acceptable to terminate someone after a first offense (either candy bar stealing or mass murder or anything else it felt was undesirable) would you find it okay - knowing that all morality is completely subjective and no one has any more "insight" than anyone else? After all, not everything is black and white.

It's akin to saying that one color is better than another - completely subjective. There is nothing more to it. This is why I find it really hard to understand social justice people who don't believe in a higher level of morality (everyone just makes up their morality as they go along). It's like getting upset if someone is driving a different color car than you. There is nothing deeper to it than that.

So the question is, do you really believe that? ;)

I donít think babies become criminals because they were always going to be criminals. They become criminals because they were perhaps unwanted, were abused, were born into a low socioeconomic household, had parents addicted to alcohol or drugs amongst numerous other potential reasons.

Punishing a petty crime like a more serious crime is just an extension of the lack of empathy that those that are antichoice have for women who are trying to be responsible and not bring a baby into those environments.

We will just end up with more income inequality, more crime, less happiness, more welfare spending, more unrest etc....

I wish we lived in an ideal world where everyone had the same intelligence, education and thoughtfulness when it comes to decision making. I think if that was the case, every woman would have access to and would use birth control if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.


Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
Quote
I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

So you think these friends of your would have been better off being aborted so as to avoid the issues they are dealing with today? I sincerely hope that's not what you're saying.

Legislation does NOT change how people think. If these people need help then it needs to be handled at a personal level. Building relationship, being a mentor, etc is the most effective way to fix these issues.

You can't say you champion personal responsibility and advocate for legislation that throws personal responsibility out the window. The issue with Liberal logic is they don't want anyone to suffer anywhere at any point in time. They believe legislation can end all suffering. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away. Sometimes you have to go through Hell to get to heaven. I recognize the spiral affect of situations like the one you mentioned. This speaks to our failures as humans at the communal and personal level. So naturally I can understand how legislation is where people want to turn to fix the issue. But it won't fix the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | RTX | MSGS | TPL | WFC | USB | PNC | BAC | VZ | VNO | PCYO | PLNT | ESPO | HACK

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Quote
I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

So you think these friends of your would have been better off being aborted so as to avoid the issues they are dealing with today? I sincerely hope that's not what you're saying.

Legislation does NOT change how people think. If these people need help then it needs to be handled at a personal level. Building relationship, being a mentor, etc is the most effective way to fix these issues.

You can't say you champion personal responsibility and advocate for legislation that throws personal responsibility out the window. The issue with Liberal logic is they don't want anyone to suffer anywhere at any point in time. They believe legislation can end all suffering. You can't legislate the unfairness of life away. Sometimes you have to go through Hell to get to heaven. I recognize the spiral affect of situations like the one you mentioned. This speaks to our failures as humans at the communal and personal level. So naturally I can understand how legislation is where people want to turn to fix the issue. But it won't fix the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I know it makes me a cruel individual that I value the life of a grown woman more than a fetus the size of a raspberry and weighing 0.04 ounces.

There is lots of suffering now despite abortion being legal. There will be a lot more without it but I know Christians celebrate suffering. Sometimes you do have to go though Hell to get to Heaven. Unfortunately, so much legislation like these new abortion laws are trying to make sure more people stay in Hell and never make it to Heaven.

You definitely can't legislate unfairness away and you shouldn't try but you can try to help especially when that legislation will improve society overall.


Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
If the US moves towards an anti-abortion stance, the post-decree Romania may be a useful reference:
https://srh.bmj.com/content/39/1/2.full

The decree was deemed a success, with fertility rates getting a short-term boost and resulted, in large part, in what is now called Ceausescu's orphan children.

The US does not closely compare to the then Romania but predictable changes can be expected on top of unintended consequences, such as a large increase in children born into this world without any sort of family. If US policy moves towards limiting or criminalizing abortions, the children problem will need to be addressed, either through a centrally planned and subsidized program or through, if personal responsibility should be handled at the personal level, by putting your name on the list of community surrogate families ready to accept newborns. The community program may include instructions on how to deal with baby withdrawal symptoms:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/dramatic-increases-in-maternal-opioid-use-neonatal-abstinence-syndrome

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
If US policy moves towards limiting or criminalizing abortions, the children problem will need to be addressed

If I understand Castanza's position on this, nothing should be done legislatively to solve this problem. Those children will suffer (i.e. go through Hell) and maybe one day they will make it to Heaven. Maybe we will have lots of children begging in the streets like a lot of third world nations. Eventually, they will learn personal responsibility and their problems will be fixed.

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Is it okay to kill criminals after the first offense? This will, almost certainly, decrease future crime. It will deter others and stop those that are more prone to do so. Is this also not black and white?
Sometimes we do just that. Mass murder? Yeah probably going to get the death penalty. Stealing a candy bar from the store? Probably not. So no, not black and white.

I agree with you here. I worded this very, very poorly. Sorry about that.

This was in reference to the crime reduction benefit of abortion. If the reason to abort is to stop crime, terminating criminals after a first offense would be a better course of action to reduce crime.

I'll try to explain it in a different way.

If society deemed it acceptable to terminate someone after a first offense (either candy bar stealing or mass murder or anything else it felt was undesirable) would you find it okay - knowing that all morality is completely subjective and no one has any more "insight" than anyone else? After all, not everything is black and white.

It's akin to saying that one color is better than another - completely subjective. There is nothing more to it. This is why I find it really hard to understand social justice people who don't believe in a higher level of morality (everyone just makes up their morality as they go along). It's like getting upset if someone is driving a different color car than you. There is nothing deeper to it than that.

So the question is, do you really believe that? ;)

I donít think babies become criminals because they were always going to be criminals. They become criminals because they were perhaps unwanted, were abused, were born into a low socioeconomic household, had parents addicted to alcohol or drugs amongst numerous other potential reasons.

Punishing a petty crime like a more serious crime is just an extension of the lack of empathy that those that are antichoice have for women who are trying to be responsible and not bring a baby into those environments.

We will just end up with more income inequality, more crime, less happiness, more welfare spending, more unrest etc....

I wish we lived in an ideal world where everyone had the same intelligence, education and thoughtfulness when it comes to decision making. I think if that was the case, every woman would have access to and would use birth control if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

I have friends who grew up in abusive households and they often develop symptoms of BPD. They make bad decisions because they donít take time to think through the repercussions of their actions. Itís not necessarily because they arenít intelligent but it might be because when they were kids, their motherís boyfriend would scream at them or hit them if they took time to think. They adapted but now they are adults and are still reactive as opposed to proactive.

Access to abortion was an attempt to slow down these cycles. It gives women who suffer from these conditions the time to think about their options and potentially have a chance to improve their socioeconomic status.

Like most of the antichoice people on this thread, I am a champion of personal responsibility and that should be taught and preached on a micro level to everyone but on a macro level there should be some recognition that some people havenít learned that lesson potentially because no one ever taught it to them.

Empathy? What empathy do you have for the smaller human? Do you really think an innocent human is less valuable than a criminal human?

I'm not advocating for killing people for stealing a candy bar mind you. I believe that all human life has value so that would make me logically inconsistent.

Now, let's get on your slope and think more about this. Be careful though. It's slippery!

They become criminals because they were unwanted, unloved, abused, drugged, etc as children? I find that partially true. I think it increases the odds of those actions. But that's not the full story. There are many stories about people who come from those environments who don't turn out to be criminals and there are plenty of people who come from loving families who do become criminals. I'll say there might be a genetic component to it too: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/64_2_4_0.pdf

So, rather than terminate semi-random unborn humans to reduce crime, it would make much more sense to terminate humans who have already committed an offense. This is beneficial in several ways. They're gone, so they can't commit crime. Their would be children are never born so they don't inherit the genetics or their parenting styles. Other would be criminals see how serious punishment is and that thwarts their desires to commit.

This would in turn, reduce wealth inequality, more happiness, less crime, less welfare spending, less unrest.
 

Granted this is related to eugenics, which Margaret Sanger was a huge fan of. And that's who founded the roots of Planned Parenthood.


« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 10:07:56 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
Just some data points to scope the argument:

1) Somewhere between 20 and 25% of all women will have an abortion before the age of 45. Are 1/5 or 1/4 of all women morally bankrupt murderers?

2) About 20% of all reported pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are these women criminally negligent? Guilty of some involuntary manslaughter?
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Move over KY
I read through the thread and it seems everyone is talking past one another. There are two beliefs:

1. Life begins at inception and interrupting that is murder.

2. It is the woman's choice to have an elective procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

The courts have tried to strike a balance on by giving women a choice up to the point of viability. This compromise doesn't work for those in camp 1 because murder is a binary ethical question.

Instead of the straw man argument back and forth maybe both camps could consider the other side's position. Camp 1: Under what circumstances is abortion acceptable, and what rights does a woman poses to choose what happens to her body? Camp 2: You have to acknowledge the other camps side and assume abortion and murder are equivalent. What support is needed for women and these new babies to make sure there is as little suffering as possible?

 
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options