Of course it does. Fuck those people.

(May 16, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(May 16, 2018 at 2:33 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: @RoadRunner79
Seriously dude, you can easily search abortion rates for different countrys, compare those that have the same abortion laws and you will see that those who have sexual education have lower abortion rates by far.
Than you can look at communist countrys in history(Romania before 89) and you will see that abortion didn't dissapeared but women had a great chance to die.

Edit:You have to think about this questions:
Would laws against abortion stop rape?
Would laws against abortion stop sex between teens?
Would laws against abortion stop pedofilia?
The answer to this questions it's obviously no. You have to realize that some words on a piece of paper in this case won't solve much.

I've tried using those same arguments in this thread, but I honestly am not convinced Roadrunner even cares about the negative consequences of making abortion illegal. If "pro-lifers" did, they probably wouldn't be pro-lifers.

And that your reasoning leads you to that conclusion is astounding. Frankly it’s not about not caring about the mother in need. It’s that purposefully taking a life for the reasons that are often given is wrong and takes priority over what poor choices a person may make.

Do you support the death penalty, RR? Isn't supporting that kind of sanctioned murder the same as, according to your logic, supporting abortion?

(May 16, 2018 at 3:42 pm)Kit Wrote: Do you support the death penalty, RR? Isn't supporting that kind of sanctioned murder the same as, according to your logic, supporting abortion?

There is a difference however. The death penalty is based on the consequences of your actions and often for the most horrible crimes (so also a consequence of the heart).

Contrast this with the reasons most often cited for abortions.

Morality isn’t just about the end result.

I’m on the fence about the death penalty by the way.

(May 16, 2018 at 12:09 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(May 16, 2018 at 11:40 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that it is difficult to justify the killing of a preborn baby based on less harm as stated above. Given that a successful abortion results in the harm (specifically death) of a human being. This is the intended result. (Not exactly fitting under the Hippocratic oath.  I’m assuming, that you are not trying to indicate that every legal abortion would result outcomes as you described above, if they where made illegal. While I think that it is difficult to calculate, I also think it’s difficult to say that less harm is done with legalized homicide.

How about, we educate people. Teach of the risks of doing a alley way abortion.  Give them
support, and do every thing possible to discourage the on demand killing of these human beings. Would you agree to that?

This one I can actually get behind. I would still discourage making it illegal until we actually get to the point where abortions are really rare, which I honestly doubt will actually happen. The only way we can reduce abortions is by reducing the demand, and reaching a point where abortion is rare enough to justify its illegality may actually be impossible.

Also, given that the vast majority of abortions happen before the fetus has even developed the capacity to even be properly sensate (roughly around the third trimester, where abortions become extremely rare and almost always happen due to severe problems), it's really not that hard to use a less harm justification.

---

(May 16, 2018 at 12:08 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:
Looks pretty human to me.

And, like Roadrunner, you chose to use an image of one at a stage when abortions become very rare. And, for the record, it's not exactly inherently parasitic, but it can certainly become parasitic in the wrong circumstances. Seriously, look at an acorn, call it an oak tree, and then tell me that a fetus still counts as a full-blown person.

Actually it is Parasitic as it takes without giving anything back . A parasite does not have to be harmful .

---

(May 16, 2018 at 3:42 pm)Kit Wrote: Do you support the death penalty, RR?  Isn't supporting that kind of sanctioned murder the same as, according to your logic, supporting abortion?

Not to mention if he believes abortion is murder . Would execute a woman for having one . And no the excuse she didn't kill it is bullshit . If i hire some to kill someone else it's still murder .

(May 16, 2018 at 4:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Add to that rolling back environmental regulations that could results in countless deaths . And being against work regulations that result in worker deaths . BECAUSE JOBS .

Not JOBS, man.  PROFITS.

(May 16, 2018 at 3:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 16, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I've tried using those same arguments in this thread, but I honestly am not convinced Roadrunner even cares about the negative consequences of making abortion illegal. If "pro-lifers" did, they probably wouldn't be pro-lifers.

And that your reasoning leads you to that conclusion is astounding. Frankly it’s not about not caring about the mother in need. It’s that purposefully taking a life for the reasons that are often given is wrong and takes priority over what poor choices a person may make.

And if we’re only concerned about that, it appears to be a deadlock: the quality of life of the mother vs. the life of the insensate fetus inside her (since, yes, by the time the part of the brain that can actually perceive is actually formed, abortions become extremely rare) if we put them on equal footing.

Unfortunately, such a simplistic take on morality (especially if one attaches the law to it, like the law in the OP does) cannot actually be tenable in itself. Do you remember Prohibition? In 1919, Congress passed the Vollstead Act, And the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, making alcohol illegal. Judging by the simple metrics you have been espousing throughout this thread, this would seem a good idea; a drug that causes the deaths of thousands of people per year and ruins the quality of life of millions. Did it work? Hell, no! People still drank, crime skyrocketed, and organized crime gained a strong foothold in America that hasn’t left since. So, naturally, they passed the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th and alcohol was legal again, and things were relatively back to normal (except, of course, for the Great Depression that started four years prior.)

This is why working solely on right or wrong WITHOUT stopping to consider the real-world consequences is bad. Here's a dramatization of the problems inherent in such a worldview:



Also, eventually, in situations like this, ethics and morality eventually end up boiling down to a question of “how dare you think of your selfish needs when you could be thinking of MY selfish needs?” And nothing gets resolved, unless you decide to choose a side, whether it’s the prospective mother whose life could be thrown out of balance by the bun in her oven (by anything from financial issues to the simple fact that sometimes, pregnancy causes mental health issues that pretty much force her to kill herself or the baby), or that little bun in her oven, the little insensate bun that is very likely to live a hard life because someone like you told her mother that he had to be born into a world where he wasn’t even wanted.

And before you say “adoption,” parents looking to adopt tend to want healthy, preferably white, babies. A lot of the time, they aren’t. And even if they are, just look at David Berkowitz’s backstory. The revelation that his birth mother didn’t want him ended up being the big thing that ended up turning him into Son of Sam, so, yes, that’s liable to backfire.

(May 16, 2018 at 7:07 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(May 16, 2018 at 3:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And that your reasoning leads you to that conclusion is astounding. Frankly it’s not about not caring about the mother in need. It’s that purposefully taking a life for the reasons that are often given is wrong and takes priority over what poor choices a person may make.

And if we’re only concerned about that, it appears to be a deadlock: the quality of life of the mother vs. the life of the insensate fetus inside her (since, yes, by the time the part of the brain that can actually perceive is actually formed, abortions become extremely rare) if we put them on equal footing.

Unfortunately, such a simplistic take on morality (especially if one attaches the law to it, like the law in the OP does) cannot actually be tenable in itself. Do you remember Prohibition? In 1919, Congress passed the Vollstead Act, And the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, making alcohol illegal. Judging by the simple metrics you have been espousing throughout this thread, this would seem a good idea; a drug that causes the deaths of thousands of people per year and ruins the quality of life of millions. Did it work? Hell, no! People still drank, crime skyrocketed, and organized crime gained a strong foothold in America that hasn’t left since. So, naturally, they passed the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th and alcohol was legal again, and things were relatively back to normal (except, of course, for the Great Depression that started four years prior.)

This is why working solely on right or wrong WITHOUT stopping to consider the real-world consequences is bad. Here's a dramatization of the problems inherent in such a worldview:



Also, eventually, in situations like this, ethics and morality eventually end up boiling down to a question of “how dare you think of your selfish needs when you could be thinking of MY selfish needs?” And nothing gets resolved, unless you decide to choose a side, whether it’s the prospective mother whose life could be thrown out of balance by the bun in her oven (by anything from financial issues to the simple fact that sometimes, pregnancy causes mental health issues that pretty much force her to kill herself or the baby), or that little bun in her oven, the little insensate bun that is very likely to live a hard life because someone like you told her mother that he had to be born into a world where he wasn’t even wanted.

And before you say “adoption,” parents looking to adopt tend to want healthy, preferably white, babies. A lot of the time, they aren’t. And even if they are, just look at David Berkowitz’s backstory. The revelation that his birth mother didn’t want him ended up being the big thing that ended up turning him into Son of Sam, so, yes, that’s liable to backfire.

Did you just use the Son of Sam as an example for why to not give kids up for adoption?????