Real questions about pro choice

[Lestat]

I have the Gregorian edition, which is a Catholic version of the bible and it is extremely difficult to read and follow. So unfortunately, I haven't read nearly as much of the bible as I would have liked.

Perhaps if you could point me to an online version of Exodus which is a little easier to read?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if you could point me to an online version of Exodus which is a little easier to read?

[/ QUOTE ]
www.biblegateway.com

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> What seems illogical about it? Your the one demanding that a person who has committed murder is put in jail. If it's that important to you then why not watch the prisoner yourself? </font>

Uh, I think I do play an indiviual role in this. I pay for public prosecuters, prison guards, prison housing, in the form of taxes, don't I?

I also sacrifice my time and do my part by serving jury duty. So maybe we've hit upon a solution...

Pro-lifers should be assessed a special tax that pays for all of the housing, food, education, and upbringing for all these unwanted children. And they should take turns serving as foster parents for these kids. You're a genuis! You've solved the abortion problem! Let's submit this to our congressmen today!

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe you can know beforehand that 9/11 will happen but if you tell everyone about it, it won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could it not? Jesus told (I think it was Peter), that he would deny knowing Him 3 times before the rooster crows (or something like that). Despite his genuine attempts not to, he did. Remember, we're talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing God here.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?? what does that have to do with what i said? i never said "maybe all specific prophecies preclude their own fulfillment." what i said is more like "maybe some would." maybe god could have handed out tons more prophecies but each potential one could have affected the events predicted in a hundred others (butterfly effect, etc). sure maybe god could "force" his predictions to come true, but (insert nonsense about free will).

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak to what you meant, only what you said. You said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The only way to ensure the third is to ensure the first two."

Written as a syllogism, your argument runs thus:
P1: If abortion is safe and legal, it will be rare.
P2: Abortion should be rare.
C: Abortion should remain safe and legal.

Your argument is valid but unsound, because your first premise is untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I do not intend to suggest that safe and legal are sufficient for making it rare. I do think based on evidence and human nature that well-informed, unstigmatized people make better decisions. So, to the extent that safe and legal sets the stage for better information and education vis-a-vis reproductive choices and a non-stigmatized environment allows for better decision-making, I think a case can be made that abortion rates are more likely to be reduced under such a regime as opposed to one that makes the procedure illegal.

But, really my argument is not about causality. It is about what kind of society do we want to live in and how do we want policy to interact with people's lives.

I apologize for my infelicitous expression.

Cheers.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak to what you meant, only what you said. You said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The only way to ensure the third is to ensure the first two."

Written as a syllogism, your argument runs thus:
P1: If abortion is safe and legal, it will be rare.
P2: Abortion should be rare.
C: Abortion should remain safe and legal.

Your argument is valid but unsound, because your first premise is untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I do not intend to suggest that safe and legal are sufficient for making it rare. I do think based on evidence and human nature that well-informed, unstigmatized people make better decisions. So, to the extent that safe and legal sets the stage for better information and education vis-a-vis reproductive choices and a non-stigmatized environment allows for better decision-making, I think a case can be made that abortion rates are more likely to be reduced under such a regime as opposed to one that makes the procedure illegal.

But, really my argument is not about causality. It is about what kind of society do we want to live in and how do we want policy to interact with people's lives.

I apologize for my infelicitous expression.

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

A huge amount of the intellectual problems with the pro-choice movement in general stems from this seemingly forced concession that abortion should be rare, or that large numbers of abortions are somehow more unethical than small numbers of abortions.

In my opinion this is purely to placate pro-lifers/moderates who feel there is some amount of wrongdoing taking place when an abortion occurs. I think the strongest supporters of abortions rights would argue that they don't find a single abortion an immoral or unethical act on any level, and compounding it wouldn't make a difference.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't speak to what you meant, only what you said. You said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The only way to ensure the third is to ensure the first two."

Written as a syllogism, your argument runs thus:
P1: If abortion is safe and legal, it will be rare.
P2: Abortion should be rare.
C: Abortion should remain safe and legal.

Your argument is valid but unsound, because your first premise is untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I do not intend to suggest that safe and legal are sufficient for making it rare. I do think based on evidence and human nature that well-informed, unstigmatized people make better decisions. So, to the extent that safe and legal sets the stage for better information and education vis-a-vis reproductive choices and a non-stigmatized environment allows for better decision-making, I think a case can be made that abortion rates are more likely to be reduced under such a regime as opposed to one that makes the procedure illegal.

But, really my argument is not about causality. It is about what kind of society do we want to live in and how do we want policy to interact with people's lives.

I apologize for my infelicitous expression.

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

A huge amount of the intellectual problems with the pro-choice movement in general stems from this seemingly forced concession that abortion should be rare, or that large numbers of abortions are somehow more unethical than small numbers of abortions.

In my opinion this is purely to placate pro-lifers/moderates who feel there is some amount of wrongdoing taking place when an abortion occurs. I think the strongest supporters of abortions rights would argue that they don't find a single abortion an immoral or unethical act on any level, and compounding it wouldn't make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt this is true. I am about as staunchly pro-choice as anyone, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that NO harm comes from an abortion. I am usually willing to grant (but don't personally believe) that a LOT of harm comes from an abortion, but that it is still worth it and moral to allow. But even granting that a 'clump of cells' has little value, its hard to say it has ZERO....just far, far less than the woman whose choice we want to safeguard. So, granting even the slightest amount of value to the fetus implies that we should want less abortions. We might assign a small value to the life of beef cattle, but slaughtering a couple hundred of them and then just throwing the meat away to go to waste still seems undesirable.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, the bible does not say, "Thou shall not abort a two week old fetus". At least I know this isn't one of the Ten Commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Thou shall not kill."

[/ QUOTE ]

Laughable argument. You will be the first to explain that "kill" here means a very specific type of killing, not like swatting flies. And in order to fit fetuses into that type of killing, we need to have this whole argument. So, its question-begging or meaningless...you decide.

[jogger08152]

Not to mention the (negative psychological) impact abortions often have, sometimes much later in life, on the women who undergo the procedure.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
And in order to fit fetuses into that type of killing, we need to have this whole argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, we don't. Do you agree with the following statement?

Abortion is the killing of a fetus which will otherwise naturally develop into a baby, at least as far as humans are capable of predicting.