Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Equality 7-2521 wrote: It depends on what you mean by religion in the law. Most major religions speak against murder, so our homicide laws would be religion in the law. Clearly, you do not mean that though.

I think that religion may agree with the law, but the law does not stem from religion.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Whenever I go to a really good concert I always think, I wish I didn't spend that money and I used my time more productively. Every experience combines good and bad.

You can always involve opportunity cost., but overall, you're likely to construe something as more positive or more negative. That description seems purely ambivalent. I suppose it doesn't really matter, though.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: There are very positive connotations that go along with having good teeth. I think the situation fits quite well.

Not nearly on the level of pregnancy, though. Hell, women who do not have children often report feeling ostracized. There are other psychological reasons for it as well (easier to connect pain with root canal than later appeal from teeth, for example).

Negoba wrote: I assume you are saying, then, that the sovereignty of the body of the woman trumps the infant's right to life up until birth, period, done.

I generally do agree with that statement, though I do not believe it is necessary to say that in the case above. Were it an adult in there mucking about, far fewer hesitate to agree. Regardless, once the individual has left the womb, there can be no question that there is no inherent right of sovereignty over it, and that precludes violence against it. There can certainly no longer be any conflict of rights to which to point. Whether the fetus has any rights at all at any point prior to birth is then moot.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: False and this would also be a red herring.

He's from Georgia, so I'm sure he encounters there plenty of religious zealots who believe that. Whether they are a majority... I don't know about that. Regardless, yes, it is certainly a red herring.

Slartibartfast wrote: Negoba wrote: In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a "series" of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. Taking the word of a self confessed mass murderer?  If this guy really had any conscious, and isn't making things up, wouldn't he have quit before 2000?  He's either a monster or a liar...

Gamemako wrote: I think that religion may agree with the law, but the law does not stem from religion.

I agree that all law must be moral, but not all moral must be law. It's tricky to say that law does not stem from religion since it stems from people's conceptions of right and wrong which come mainly from religion. I'm not trying to argue this though. It was more tangential.

Gamemako wrote: You can always involve opportunity cost., but overall, you're likely to construe something as more positive or more negative. That description seems purely ambivalent. I suppose it doesn't really matter, though.

We're arguing over anecdotal evidence consisting of a paraphrase of something I overheard from a female coworker who's original intentions we have no way of knowing. We're either pathetic or really junkies for argument.

Gamemako wrote: Not nearly on the level of pregnancy, though. Hell, women who do not have children often report feeling ostracized. There are other psychological reasons for it as well (easier to connect pain with root canal than later appeal from teeth, for example).

I'm not sure about that honestly give how superficial our society is. I won't argue it though as I"m not prepared to do a literature search on the subject. I was comparing degrees, just circumstances.

Gamemako wrote: He's from Georgia, so I'm sure he encounters there plenty of religious zealots who believe that. Whether they are a majority... I don't know about that. Regardless, yes, it is certainly a red herring.

They might be a majority in Georgia, but I really doubt they're an overall majority as he claims (strictly he seems to claim that it's absolute). We agree. This isn't me arguing with you.

Ivan is a lawyer, aka the one profession where correlation = causation. 

Gamemako wrote:   Negoba wrote: I assume you are saying, then, that the sovereignty of the body of the woman trumps the infant's right to life up until birth, period, done. I generally do agree with that statement, though I do not believe it is necessary to say that in the case above. Were it an adult in there mucking about, far fewer hesitate to agree. Regardless, once the individual has left the womb, there can be no question that there is no inherent right of sovereignty over it, and that precludes violence against it. There can certainly no longer be any conflict of rights to which to point. Whether the fetus has any rights at all at any point prior to birth is then moot.

OT Räihälä wrote: Just out of curiosity: I suppose those people who are most anti-abortion are more often pro-death sentence. Do you agree?   I find a great paradox there.

Well, this thread is for Americans, not Europeans. Let's not try to find rationality in this continent.

OT Räihälä wrote: Just out of curiosity: I suppose those people who are most anti-abortion are more often pro-death sentence. Do you agree?   I find a great paradox there.

CPicard wrote: OT Räihälä wrote: Just out of curiosity: I suppose those people who are most anti-abortion are more often pro-death sentence. Do you agree?   I find a great paradox there. Well, this thread is for Americans, not Europeans. Let's not try to find rationality in this continent.

I would say no it is not the case. Also, there's no reason that the two are contradictory.

CPicard wrote: OT Räihälä wrote: Just out of curiosity: I suppose those people who are most anti-abortion are more often pro-death sentence. Do you agree?   I find a great paradox there. Well, this thread is for Americans, not Europeans. Let's not try to find rationality in this continent.

Nevermind that the ones actually laying out the best arguments for and against here are American. (And Dean. )

Matter of fact, I think Europeans should step up their game on the social side of things on PA. It's easy to come down on Americans without even debating anything.

Maybe it's just in Europe or wherever it's so accepted that people don't think about it any more. Maybe they should....


Edited by stonebeard - February 02 2012 at 11:58

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: LOL, you don't live in Perú is obvious. There's no stigma against Pre-Merital sex, but normally people take care of using a condom, something that doesn't happen inside marriage. BTW: T, the sexual education in schools is incredibly basic Iván It's obvious that I don't live in Peru because I said that one of its policies doesn't work? I never said that there was a stigma against it in Peru. I just said that there's no reason to suggest that your laws against granting marriage licenses are attributing to the low disease rate.