Abortion: Legal or Illegal

I have far too little knowledge of the process and science behind the matter to make a good judgement. And I feel many others SHOULD be making the same call as me. If I had to vote on it or something I'd read up on it I guess

The Truth wrote: Freaking bumps. They never are good things. It's a matter of choice regardless of a laws. If it was made illegal, some would still abort. Blackmarket abortions. Personal ethics are the only factor in this argument. For everyone it's different, so don't make a public law. Keep it a personal opinion.

As I tried to point out earlier, this is an unhelpful observation.  Murder is illegal, but people still do it.  Ditto theft or arson.  Should we keep these things a personal opinion and not make a law about them?  If we should make a law, then why? 


Edited by Epignosis - January 29 2012 at 08:19

About the most pointless thing to argue about a law it that people are going to break it anyway.  Another thing trotted out is "you can't legislate morality".  Yeah you can.  What you shouldn't codify into legislation is religious morality.

People confuse the idea of an unenforceable law with a law that people will break (otherwise known as every law). Trying to apply the latter as an argument in favor of abortion's legalization clearly proves too much.

Epignosis wrote: I am sorry, but still you make no sense to me.

I can't spell it out any more clearly, considering that I said it explicitly. If you cannot understand, I cannot help you.

Epignosis wrote: I also question how you can speak for "most people."  Do you know most people?

I have data that is ideally representative of "most people" for a 5-to-1 situation (I used 400-to-1). Given that it comes from Americans, who are notably individualistic, it would probably be an underestimate for the rest of the world as a whole.

Epignosis wrote: Can you prove that I am in a tiny minority?  Even if you can, it doesn't make the majority right.

See above. Whether it makes the majority right is moot. I merely proposed that for most people, the ultimate consequence of the action would normally figure into their judgment of whether it is ethical. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that there is an absolute right in matters of moral judgment.

Epignosis wrote: And I fail to see what this vain hypothetical question has to do with abortion.  Surely one fetus won't destroy 400 people right off.

You suggested that the outcome of the law should be divorced from the debate of whether it is ethical. I provided a counterpoint. If the outcome of the law is to produce 1,000 dead women in alleyways every year, and that can be foreseen, there are certainly ethical questions about the law.

That's not to suggest that it would always happen. Morality is typically emotional. Want to know how you can convince people to switch sides on the 5-to-1 experiment? Connect them with the action. General terms? Do it. Shoot them? Do it. Pull a level? Do it. Stab him? Throw him on train tracks? Now wait just a darn minute, Jim! Now switch them back by saying those 5 are children. Psychology is mean, innit?

Epignosis wrote: Please start making sense.

Good God. If your neighbor shoots someone for just being on his lawn, is that ethical?

I'd vote for legalization because of this:

 

Gamemako wrote: Not that it's a simple question. I'm sure you could find those who would agree with your interpretation. Regardless, your beliefs here -- particularly the mystical Stamp of Scientific Proofiness -- are immodestly off-base. It's also unusual that you go to such such efforts, revealing the unquestioned assertions behind your beliefs, to attempt to disprove something that isn't even stated as a fact but rather as a consequence of a traditional and common definition of life.

Late response, but whatever.

I'm not sure why you are getting so uptight about this, nor do I know why you think I am putting much effort into this point. (Which, I really am not.) Let me make it simple though: gametes are a kind of cell and all cells are considered life. And here's the almighty wikipedia citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology) If you want to have your absurdly strict definition of life, then go ahead, but this discussion is getting ridiculous, and there's really no point in continuing this.

The T wrote: I think you are complicating things a bit too much. Yes, technically abortion might be another contraceptive method, but I would be quite scared of trivializing it so much as to be seen in the same light as the pill or other alternatives. It would be morally dangerous, and I'm quite the one against any type of moral judgments in most cases (people here know that). But to start treating abortion just like "another option open" seems to me wrong. I encourage people to always use some form of contraceptive, but I won't say "hey, just do it, you can abort if anything". Is it really that easy? Yes, let it be legal, get the state out of the choice, but don't start painting it as just some alternative to other methods. Don't make it so mundane. Don't promote it. One thing is to be "pro-choice" another one to be "pro-abortion", and calling it "just another contraceptive method" seems to make it something we should promote.

I really fail to see how it is morally dangerous to promote abortion as just another option. I have no problem with people promoting it or making it mundane.    

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: By this reasoning, outlawing automobiles would be ethical since there are more than 30,000 fatal crashes each year. You are hell-bent on ridiculous straw-man arguments. You know an additional consequence would be economic collapse and thousands if not millions of other deaths. Stop being a douche.

US laws should not exist to control consequences- that is not their Constitutional purpose.  If that is their purpose, then laws are largely failures.  Constitutionally, laws are to protect life and property.  Abortion visits violence on another unique human individual.

When you can hide behind the constitution it doesn't matter if a thing is right or wrong.