3 ms·

I would view such pro-choice people as making the same mistake that anesthesiologists once made about infants: if you can't hear the unborn complain, they must

I would view such pro-choice people as making the same mistake that anesthesiologists once made about infants: if you can't hear the unborn complain, they must not be complaining. Therefore it's a personal decision of the mother, because you can hear her complain. The opposite side of this debate is that maybe the unborn do complain, even if we can't hear them. And it's our moral obligation to stand up for them, because they can't stand up for themselves.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Alternatively, it is possible to find something morally objectionable while still concluding that it is not the job of the government to enforce morality.
- anon291 4y ago
  Certainly, but the days of calling abortion 'immoral' but otherwise being pro-choice are basically over.
kqr 4y ago
I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. What's your take on this?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. > > From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. > > The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. > > What's your take on this? I'm not the OP, and I can see your argument in the good faith that you intended it, but I gotta question whether the argument "It happens whether you want it to or not" is valid at all. Murder happens all the time, we still criminalize it. Rapes happen even more frequently, and have a very low successful prosecution rate, and yet we still criminalize it. Suicides happen often, harms no one but the subject, is criminalized in many jurisdictions and is also not financed by the insurance industry[1]. There are plenty more less severe actions that are criminalized, like Jaywalking, gambling, solicitation, drunk-driving, etc[2] that, in 999 out of every thousand cases, result in no harm. But, they're still criminal acts. For any $FOO, do you really want to: a) Argue that because it will still happen, we may as well make it legal and b) Because it is legal, the insurance must cover it. Because even in places where suicides are not necessarily illegal, the insurance still will not cover it! This has nothing to do with whether abortions @ whatever trimester should be legal or not, it's whether we want to go down the path of legalizing things purely because enforcement is difficult. I don't find that argument compelling at all, because if that is the reasoning then I feel that a lot of the more serious crimes should just be decriminalized due to difficulty in enforcement. [1] No death benefits are paid for suicides. [2] I'm not going anywhere near the subject of drug usage.
  - kqr 4y ago
    I think you're making my argument sound simpler than it is, by presenting it as a false dichotomy. There's a large range of options between "strictly illegal" and "encouraged as a fun Sunday activity for the entire family". So for example, there are jurisdictions in which there is a way to get murder approved by the authorities – that's what capital punishment is. Instead of illicitly murdering someone, you go through the system to make sure it's an appropriate murder. Similarly, there are jurisdictions where suicide can happen above board, often going by the nicer sounding term assisted euthanasia. Jaywalking is also not as strictly illegal as one might at first think: in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, taking the proper precautions and following procedure, road workers are allowed to traverse roads in active use. Many forms of gambling are also allowed, often disguised as "providing financial services", with plenty of regulation to make sure it's done somewhat responsibly. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with these legal choices, mind you. All I'm saying it's not as unimaginable as you make it out to be that sometimes things which we think of as criminal offenses at base could be justified in some cases, and that doesn't mean it automatically becomes a free-for-all. However, I do find it harder to even imagine a situation in which something like rape or drunk driving could be justified and that it should be allowed to happen as long as its done responsibly with relevant professionals involved. ---- So I guess now I'm in a tricky position: as a general rule, I would like to say that "yes, things that are going to happen anyway, we might as well provide a legal route for, with the proper checks and controls, and the professional support necessary to make sure the application is proper". On the other hand, if you asked me outside of this argument whether I'm a proponent of capital punishment, rape, or drunk driving in any shape, I would give you a firm no.
- anon291 4y ago
  From what I understand, gang murders happen. Period. People just naturally form tribal alliances, that can escalate into murderous feuds. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen (history provides countless examples) -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in our streets, with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the instigator. My take on that is that we thus need 'gang feud centers' where gang members can play games of rock, paper, scissors and the loser is sent to the gas chamber. That's so much better than having people become disabled due to shootings and thus become drains on the systems, or have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

rootusrootus 4y ago

Alternatively, it is possible to find something morally objectionable while still concluding that it is not the job of the government to enforce morality.

anon291 4y ago
Certainly, but the days of calling abortion 'immoral' but otherwise being pro-choice are basically over.

kqr 4y ago

I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. What's your take on this?

lelanthran 4y ago
> I've never engaged in this debate before but I'll try this once. We'll see if I regret it. > > From what I understand, abortions happen. Period. People get rid of unwanted children before they are viable. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. > > The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in a moldy basement with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the woman involved. > > What's your take on this? I'm not the OP, and I can see your argument in the good faith that you intended it, but I gotta question whether the argument "It happens whether you want it to or not" is valid at all. Murder happens all the time, we still criminalize it. Rapes happen even more frequently, and have a very low successful prosecution rate, and yet we still criminalize it. Suicides happen often, harms no one but the subject, is criminalized in many jurisdictions and is also not financed by the insurance industry[1]. There are plenty more less severe actions that are criminalized, like Jaywalking, gambling, solicitation, drunk-driving, etc[2] that, in 999 out of every thousand cases, result in no harm. But, they're still criminal acts. For any $FOO, do you really want to: a) Argue that because it will still happen, we may as well make it legal and b) Because it is legal, the insurance must cover it. Because even in places where suicides are not necessarily illegal, the insurance still will not cover it! This has nothing to do with whether abortions @ whatever trimester should be legal or not, it's whether we want to go down the path of legalizing things purely because enforcement is difficult. I don't find that argument compelling at all, because if that is the reasoning then I feel that a lot of the more serious crimes should just be decriminalized due to difficulty in enforcement. [1] No death benefits are paid for suicides. [2] I'm not going anywhere near the subject of drug usage.
- kqr 4y ago
  I think you're making my argument sound simpler than it is, by presenting it as a false dichotomy. There's a large range of options between "strictly illegal" and "encouraged as a fun Sunday activity for the entire family". So for example, there are jurisdictions in which there is a way to get murder approved by the authorities – that's what capital punishment is. Instead of illicitly murdering someone, you go through the system to make sure it's an appropriate murder. Similarly, there are jurisdictions where suicide can happen above board, often going by the nicer sounding term assisted euthanasia. Jaywalking is also not as strictly illegal as one might at first think: in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, taking the proper precautions and following procedure, road workers are allowed to traverse roads in active use. Many forms of gambling are also allowed, often disguised as "providing financial services", with plenty of regulation to make sure it's done somewhat responsibly. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with these legal choices, mind you. All I'm saying it's not as unimaginable as you make it out to be that sometimes things which we think of as criminal offenses at base could be justified in some cases, and that doesn't mean it automatically becomes a free-for-all. However, I do find it harder to even imagine a situation in which something like rape or drunk driving could be justified and that it should be allowed to happen as long as its done responsibly with relevant professionals involved. ---- So I guess now I'm in a tricky position: as a general rule, I would like to say that "yes, things that are going to happen anyway, we might as well provide a legal route for, with the proper checks and controls, and the professional support necessary to make sure the application is proper". On the other hand, if you asked me outside of this argument whether I'm a proponent of capital punishment, rape, or drunk driving in any shape, I would give you a firm no.
anon291 4y ago
From what I understand, gang murders happen. Period. People just naturally form tribal alliances, that can escalate into murderous feuds. The question is not whether or not this should happen, because it will happen (history provides countless examples) -- it happens all the time, even when it's strictly illegal with severe punishment. It's a tragedy, but it happens a lot and apparently we can't control it. The question is whether -- once it happens -- we want it to be safe, above board, with medical professionals informed. Or if we want it to happen in our streets, with a coat hanger, at significant risk to the instigator. My take on that is that we thus need 'gang feud centers' where gang members can play games of rock, paper, scissors and the loser is sent to the gas chamber. That's so much better than having people become disabled due to shootings and thus become drains on the systems, or have to live with that for the rest of their lives.