Why the Arkansas abortion ban is right

10 Mar

Yesterday, I put forth the argument that there can be NO restrictions on abortion because it violates a woman’s right to decide if her blood, her organs, her body can be used to sustain the life of another person, who is absolutely a person, but utterly dependent upon her for survival.

belly

My reasoning was that we do not force people to give up any part of their bodies, no matter how many lives we might save in doing so.

But that isn’t true, is it? We DO force other people to give up their bodies so that others may live.

draft

But only some people.

soldiers

Men.

Since the US Constitution was signed into law in 1786, more than ONE MILLION men have died in battle to protect the rights of every one, and another (almost) THREE MILLION were wounded. American men are required, by law, to sign themselves up to be sacrificed so that others may live in freedom. They are required, by law, to offer their blood, their guts, their organs, their bodies, their lives, to be spilt on any battlefield we collectively decide is worth that sacrifice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

I have argued before that the most basic obligation of a man’s citizenship is his willingness to pick up a gun and defend his rights with force, and die in that pursuit. His freedom comes with a price. Women’s citizenship carries all the same rights as a man’s, but NOT that obligation.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/01/25/those-who-deny-freedom-to-others-deserve-it-not-for-themselves-abraham-lincoln/

That does NOT mean women have no obligations. Producing the next generation of citizens IS the principle obligation of women.

baby

I am actually in agreement with commenters who think that once a baby is a viable person, it cannot be murdered. But it is not the personhood of the baby that matters, to me. It is the obligation that women have to their society – the price they must pay to have the freedoms and wealth and privileges they have.

Women who DO NOT WANT to be mothers have choices. They can choose celibacy (yuck), they can use birth control (more than one form, if necessary), they can place the child for adoption with either the baby’s father or another willing family or they can hire a caregiver for the child and just be a mother in name only (a pretty popular choice these days).

I wrote yesterday that we should use the same standards to determine when life BEGINS as we use to determine when life ENDS, but even that is flawed. A person on life support, unable to think or feel or perceive the world in any meaningful way WILL NOT IMPROVE WITH TIME.

life support

We can keep them alive indefinitely, but they are not going to somehow overcome the conditions that placed them on life support. That is not true for a baby. From the moment of conception, a cluster of cells will become a human being unless nature dictates otherwise. Left alone, the egg and the sperm will become human. Do we have any obligations to that potential humanity?

From a purely moral point of view, I think we do. Just as a man who wants to claim the privileges of American citizenship understands that he may be required to sacrifice his life for those privileges, any woman who wants to claim the same privileges must understand that she will also be required to make a sacrifice if she becomes pregnant – once life has begun, a human being has been created and she will be required to bring that human into full existence. She doesn’t have to raise the baby if she doesn’t want to: giving birth does not equal becoming a mother.

From a practical standpoint, how could this ever be enforced? Just as rich men avoid the draft, rich women will always have access to abortion. The rules will never be applied fairly.

bush

Is a 12 week window a good compromise? I don’t know. It’s obviously a very fraught subject. And one that I think I’m done with.

Sorry to be such a downer this weekend.

debbie downer

I’ll get back to my regular judgy bitchiness tomorrow!

Lots of love,

JB

31 Responses to “Why the Arkansas abortion ban is right”

  1. The Observer March 10, 2013 at 14:09 #

    Dear Mrs. JB,

    First off, allow me to apologise if I came off too strong in my comments on the previous post. Abortion is a hot-button issue for me, one of the reasons being that my mother came under heavy pressure by her Ob-Gyn *spit* to abort me simply because I was apparently causing changes in her mood (she became highly introverted and reclusive, and almost completely refused to leave the house). I was perfectly healthy otherwise, and am glad she didn’t cave in to pressure.

    Nevertheless, until the counterargument to the violinist argument is refuted, I cannot accept the right to bodily autonomy as a valid reason for abortion.

    I don’t listen to what people say, I look at what they do. And the same people pushing loudest for bodily autonomy when it comes to abortions are the same people looking to ban sodas, drugs, smoking and alcohol and remaining silent about highly intrusive cavity searches by DHS and the draft, and clamouring to give up their bodily autonomy and getting the government involved in their bodies when it benefits them (the whole War on Women thing).

    I can only conclude that whether they really seeking after the power of life and death over others or not like I believe them to be, they have no interest in bodily autonomy as a right and are merely using it as a front, otherwise they would be in an uproar over those other issues. If it is permissible to kill another for convenience, why is it not permissible to drink or drug yourself to death? That’s certainly less controversial.

    You say that it is impossible to enforce an abortion ban. I agree; a ban will be impossible to enact, let alone enforce in these degenerate times. Just as in the last days of the Roman Empire, where the Romans literally ate their contraceptive/abortifacent herb (I forget the name) out of existence, so we sacrifice our children to the great Hobbesian Leviathian, the modern machine god of cash, convenience and comfort. It may be sad and inevitable, but duty demands I must still present my arguments where they must appear, and if they are refuted, either come up with counterarguments or concede the point.

    Best of fortunes to you and your family.

    The Observer.

    Like

  2. Maureen from Canada March 10, 2013 at 14:19 #

    I only recently found your blog, but have very much enjoyed your postings and have forwarded them on to others who I was surprised to find also enjoyed your take on the world today. So I was perplexed about your posting on this topic yesterday and while I was tempted to write a condemning comment I’m glad I didn’t.

    Maybe 50 or 60 years ago abortion was a needed option because the lives and options for women were very limited and the social stigma of having a child out of wedlock was horrific. That is not the case today – it maybe should be but I will go into that later.

    We know much more about the development of a baby before birth which should give every man and woman pause if they are even thinking abortion. As you stated, the only option for a clump of cells is a baby – it doesn’t grow into a table or a puppy (although given our skewed views these days I’m sure there are many that would prefer a puppy!)

    I’m not convinced of the abortion in the case of rape or incest argument – why should an innocent child pay the ultimate price because of the action of the father (and since there seems to be no real numbers on the number of abortions needed because of rape or incest I have huge doubts about the validity of that argument to begin with).

    Health of the mother? Oh please – unless the woman is living in a such a remote community that NO medical care is available that reason is full of holes. The news outlets consistently report on mothers who carried their child through some of the most horrid health conditions.

    As you noted, women today have a wealth of options around NOT getting pregnant (and as a 57 year old woman I can attest to having a great sex life and not getting pregnant). It takes some minimal responsibility and the will to occasionally say no! What are we teaching young girls and women in sex ed classes or in any type of education – that they have no responsibility for things that happen in their own lives? Clearly that seems to be the message.

    While I have huge concerns about single moms raising a child, particularly if there are a series of baby daddys in the picture, they at least have access to public assistance. Again I think there needs to be some better education for young women about the consequences of having sex early (it is not all love and rainbows – it is a lot of hurt as well; hurt that many are not emotionally prepared for). Abortion is not a solution and a high rate of abortion is not success but complete failure as a society to address the needs of young men and women.

    We do not explain some basic facts that have been evident for a long, long time including the factors that get people into poverty and keep them there. It is not unequal opportunities or the evil 1% keeping people poor – it is choices that are made. And the three factors that keep people poor and have been consistent over time are:
    1. Do not complete high school – a real high school diploma (which is getting harder to do as we dumb down more and more of the courses). Hopefully people can go further to take other education (even a 1 year certificate at a community college), but completing high school is a must.
    2. Not getting into a long term committed relationship (not always marriage, but a relationship with someone who has your back) – it is helpful if the other person also has completed high school.
    3. Having a child before doing 1 and 2.
    Do all three and you will be poor for the rest of your life.

    Yet these are the facts that are never explained to young people and I blame the somewhat easy access to social welfare – the children are held hostage for the failings of the parents. But that is still no reason to kill the children!

    Like

  3. judgybitch March 10, 2013 at 14:23 #

    No apology required, Observer. This is an enormously difficult topic to address and there are no obvious solutions.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond.

    Like

  4. Maureen from Canada March 10, 2013 at 14:53 #

    I should also note that Canada has NO abortion law – you can get an abortion up until the baby is born and I believe there was at least one judge who questioned if letting a baby die after birth was OK as well. AND my tax dollars pay for this because we have “FREE” health care.

    Now the medical profession and the pro abortion crowd insist that late term abortions ;just never happen’, but they have no actual numbers to support their position – so I really don’t trust them. And besides our Statistics Canada (our national stats agency) has provided evidence that about 500 babies each year are aborted and left to die. But the Quebec Medical Association has a way to help doctors avoid that unpleasant situation by recommending that the baby be killed first in the womb with some type of chemical so that it is not born alive (all the while claiming that it is just a clump of cells) – the hypocrisy of the medical community knows no bounds.

    And more of a problem is our politicians who will not even open the debate because it might harm them in the polls – I curse them.

    Like

  5. Exfernal March 10, 2013 at 15:00 #

    Perhaps the 12 week limit is a bit excessive? I know, it’s the principle that counts, but without functional nerve cells within the foetus there should be much less psychological burden on the prospective mother, should she decide to abort it.
    Take this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392340 for example.
    If the woman is unable to stop smoking for the period of pregnancy, she is endangering the mental health of her child anyway. The same argumentation goes for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and effects of other psychoactive substances. Excessive maternal stress has its own significance – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20546772
    Women who choose to harm their future kids’ well being with irresponsible behavior should be able to “ditch” the whole pregnancy obligation. Nobody wants to be born mentally handicapped.

    Like

  6. Wilson March 10, 2013 at 15:18 #

    On the other hand, the reason abortion is allowed might not be really because of individual rights, but because of the benefits to society of culling certain undesirable children, with women exercising a sort of pseudo-freedom as the “draft” officers.

    Like

  7. Exfernal March 10, 2013 at 15:36 #

    There are more studies addressing maternal stress during pregnancy and HPA axis impairment in the child, like this one
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18049295
    and many others – http://goo.gl/Cgtzw

    Like

  8. The Observer March 10, 2013 at 15:36 #

    Again, quality of life argument.

    If it is okay to kill a fetus because they are disabled and spare them the horrors of life, then why do we not round up all the disabled and crippled and put them out of their misery for their own good and reduce the total suffering in the world?

    Ask a disabled person of any sort why they cling to life so desperately, and hear what they have to say. If they truly want to make an informed choice about being euthanised and truly believe they would be happier off dead, then let them, but not before they have a voice.

    Yes, I agree with you it’s horrible, and there are those who deliberately harm their children via fetal alcohol syndrome to collect more welfare from the government.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258589/Horrifying-story-pregnant-South-Africans-deliberately-binge-drinking–welfare-babies-harm.html?printingPage=true

    “Women who choose to harm their future kids’ well being with irresponsible behavior should be able to “ditch” the whole pregnancy obligation.”

    With the caveat of permanent sterilization, assuming that I give you the quality of life argument.

    Like

  9. Athan Nyx March 10, 2013 at 15:40 #

    I support abortion to a point… I wanted to wait on your next post Judgy because of earlier posts of yours. I disagree with abortion when it is used to get rid of a kid due to gender bias or when it is completely selfish. That twin abortion was horrible! Twins have a connection with each other and I can’t imagine a twin losing their other half before they are born!! So those bug me and not just because I really like twins.

    On the other hand I do have to say your previous argument. Abortion has to be around to prevent unfit parents from having kids. Even those against Abortion will apparently use abortion services and go right back to protesting abortion. Teen mothers who are actively having sex but do not understand the consequences of a baby really shouldn’t have kids the majority of the time.

    I don’t think there should be any forcing into abortion but there are a few cases when it is viable for someone to have one. A lot of things can go wrong in a pregnancy. There are stories of people being forced to carry dead children to term because they were past the point of the ban. There are points when a pregnancy can be damaging for the mother. One of my partners is technically fertile but if they were to become pregnant from an accident or anything, they would need an abortion because their hips are not wide enough to support a pregnancy full term.

    Not to say that every person has a reason for an abortion but I am not sure if there are allowances for medical issues. Equally the first twelve weeks are around when a person could be completely oblivious to being pregnant with a kid. I’m not the most knowledgeable on the issue, I just know a lot through both feminist and researching myself in other venues, but I think blanket bans are trouble. I’d like to know more at how the abortion ban is being enforced as to whether that ban is right or wrong. Being in Canada I know that our not having an abortion law is dangerous but the issue is more how much an abortion law should be enforced.

    Like

  10. The Observer March 10, 2013 at 15:55 #

    Maureen,

    “the hypocrisy of the medical community knows no bounds.”

    Why do you think a certain line was removed from the hippocratic oath?

    As you said, abortion is only a manifestation of societal ills, and I believe banning them a this point will not solve the underlying rot – hence making a ban pointless. This phenomenon has been seen before at the end of civilisations – with the Greeks and with the Romans. Child sacrifice to Moloch and Tanit by the Phoenicians and Carthagans respectively in hopes of prosperity and a better life, only instead of fire pits and statues we use waste incinerators.

    You are right about the neccessity to educate both young men and women about the consequences of sex, but how many will listen today? I believe we are too far gone. Antibiotic-immune STDs have already emerged in North America, as I pointed out in my comment in my comment on Mrs. JB’s previous post. Syphilis in the US, gonorrhea in Toronto, and I’ve heard that completely symptom-free chalmydia is in Canada – undetectable until a woman goes and gets herself checked as to why she can’t conceive, by which it’s too late and she’s sterile for life. Perhaps if words will not teach them, experience will.

    “Now the medical profession and the pro abortion crowd insist that late term abortions ;just never happen’, but they have no actual numbers to support their position – so I really don’t trust them.”

    They have lied and obfuscated about everything else. From the developmental status and markers of a fetus, to the psychological trauma of an abortion, to the massive health risks involved in having one, especially with regards to breast cancer and death in childbed during future pregnancies, to wanting to hide from a woman the impact of what she is about to do –

    – Why would anyone believe them about anything else?

    Like

  11. Exfernal March 10, 2013 at 16:09 #

    Ask any suicide subject if they cling to life or would be happier off dead. HPA axis impairment ( http://goo.gl/KFxYK ) confers emotional instability in later life

    Like

  12. Libby March 10, 2013 at 16:26 #

    Abortion never prevents unfit parents from having children! Those whom we would mostly deem “unfit” most often are those least likely to abort.

    Like

  13. The Observer March 10, 2013 at 16:37 #

    Begging the question. Of course people who have committed suicide want to die, yet you are talking about the disabled in your first post.

    Also, evaded my refutation of the quality of life argument and the ability to give informed consent.

    Like

  14. sqt March 10, 2013 at 17:02 #

    I thoroughly enjoyed your posts. You wrote a lot of what I would say if I could only put it so well.

    I was born about 3 years prior to the legalization of abortion and then adopted out. It’s not lost on me that I would very likely have been aborted if it had been legal at the time- though I’ll never know for sure.

    I am very much against abortion at all times but, like you, I don’t think we’re going to be able to outlaw abortion based on the moral argument (which is why I don’t even try to argue for laws against it). It blows my mind that we can’t convince people of the inherent evil of the act of ending a human life, but the minute the pro-life side of the fence tries to even tentatively make their case you get massive political blow-back and bogus slogans like “the war on women.”

    That’s why I think a push to increase the rights of men to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy will help the cause. Women *need* to know that they have to bear the financial responsibility no matter what they choose to do. No government subsidies for abortions and no automatic child support from a man who doesn’t want the baby. When they start screeching about their “rights,” we can honestly say they have the “right” to do whatever they want and the obligation to take responsibility for it. I’d take away welfare if I could too- any financial disincentive to get pregnant would be great in my view (though that is pure fantasy on my part).

    Your point about STDs is well taken too. External issues, like that, may have more to do with pushing people toward responsible behavior than any manmade law ever could.

    Like

  15. The Observer March 10, 2013 at 17:43 #

    Thank you, SQT.

    I wish I had as much optimism as you. Perhaps I’m being a bit of a tinfoil hat with this, but from where things stand, I truly believe a societal reset is the only thing that will solve anything and that one is coming. There are so many things coming to a head within the next decade or so (although I believe it will be earlier) – the end of the Holocene, bacteria gaining massive resistances to antibiotics at frightening speeds (it’s not just STDs any more, bugs like tuberclosis are becoming untreatable), western governments turning tyrannical on their own citizens, funny money and the economy, the general degeneracy of people…

    Oswald Spengler chronicled the fall of civilisations and their cycle. It has happened before, and it will happen again (after all, this is not the first time the world has seen toxic feminism). I’m not religious, but I do believe in Natural Law – basic tenets like “you can’t consume more than you produce” and “if you live a terrible life, it will eventually catch up with you”. Idealogies like feminism are a distortion, a rebellion against natural law, and things will snap back into place once the affluence that enables it vanishes.

    I’m not joking when I say I agree with Aurini that we may be facing another rerun of the Dark Ages.

    What I’m most worried for is the children of today, those whose future we have devoured to fuel our present. I have no children of my own, but I have nephews and nieces, and it chills me to think that the day may come when the lights go out, and we will have to explain to them as we walk along the broken roads of the future how we sacrificed so many of their number to the great machine god of modernity. Will they speak of us as monsters, as barbarians, as the ultimate hedonists? Will they laugh at us the same way we laugh at the Inca civilisation for conducting human sacrifices?

    Stay safe.

    Like

  16. Exfernal March 10, 2013 at 18:12 #

    Begging the question? Merely returning the ball:
    “Ask a disabled person of any sort why they cling to life so desperately, and hear what they have to say.”

    Conversely, were anyone able to give informed consent to become conceived in the first place?

    I wrote about mental handicaps, both cognitive and emotional in the first post.

    Incidence of violent crime in the US is above average in the developed world. Sociopathic tendencies don’t appear from nowhere. Also, the majority of prison population has below average cognitive ability which puts those people at disadvantage, if they try to stay on the right side of the law.

    Hardly “horrors of life” in general. More like “horrors” of psychiatric disorders and understandable social exclusion associated with them.

    Like

  17. sqt March 10, 2013 at 18:14 #

    I wish I could claim to really be that optimistic, but I’m not sure that’s accurate.

    I think we’re on track for a slow, agonizing slide into a societal collapse. I dont’ think we’ll see a cataclysm, I think we’ll see a constant chipping away at our freedoms until they’re gone– and most people won’t even realize what’s going on until it’s too late. Actually, I think that it’s already well underway.

    But what other choice do we have but to continue on and try to stem the tide of irrationality that seems to have taken over?

    Like

  18. Maureen from Canada March 10, 2013 at 21:21 #

    That argument is what concerns me about the whole ‘assisted suicide” movement – it is a slippery slope. The biggest hurdle is getting the concept approved under the guise of those who are suffering a horrible, terminal disease, but then surprise, surprise, surprise, once that hurdle is crossed it is much easier to bring it to disabled, or people who are just not happy with their lives.

    Just as abortion was presented as something that would be rare (health of the mother and all that), it is hardly rare and the health of the mother is usually the last thing considered.

    Like

  19. Maureen from Canada March 10, 2013 at 21:23 #

    Lots of things happen even if there are laws in place to stop them – murders, robbery, assault, etc. But just because they happen it is not a reason to say, ‘since we can’t do anything to stop them we might as well give up’.

    Like

  20. tarzanwannabe March 10, 2013 at 21:30 #

    I don’t have a dog in the fight. I don’t come at this from religious conviction. (I’m a Richard Dawkins kinda guy.) I don’t have a belief about when life begins — whether at conception, upon “personhood”, or even if the kid can play the flute or sustain a sense of ennui. I don’t think there’s a sanctity to unique DNA — someday soon, a clone will stand tall at a podium and proudly proclaim “I *am* somebody… in fact, that’s me over there.” I don’t think anyone’s answer is “the answer.” But my point is, we do not need to give an answer when there are so many opportunities to not ask the question beforehand. *SomeAutonomousBody* has very irresponsibly let things get too far if we have to decide to take/prevent a life. And let’s do pay homage to the elephant standing in our room. Namely, what’s the child’s say in all this?

    So consider, few understood what Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young were doing while sitting on the anti “side” of California’s Prop 8. They were not pro or anti the prop. But there were only 2 sides, neither of which represented the idea that a child might have a right to knowing BOTH parents. Likewise, regardless of one’s stance on abortion (assuming you have one), the child’s yet-attained ability to have input is not addressed. While en utero, they cannot yet feed themselves, pay rent, vote, or even gestate of their own volition. And unlike the ‘life support’ comparison, they happen to be on their way through life’s IN door, not the OUT door. So that was a numb-nuts comparison. We should give them that chance. Even if it means ‘conscription’ of someone’s uterus a few months. They’ll get over it. Haha!

    Like

  21. Ter March 10, 2013 at 21:49 #

    Oh, yesterday’s post was a JBMF! Nicely done. I appreciate what you tried to do – but a bit taxing on on the emotions!

    “It’s obviously a very fraught subject. And one that I think I’m done with.” – and taxing not just the readers’ emotions! It must have been difficult reading some of the comments. We still love you 🙂

    Like

  22. tarzanwannabe March 10, 2013 at 23:57 #

    Awesome. And welcome to life, glad you made it! 😉

    Like

  23. The Observer March 11, 2013 at 00:04 #

    >Begging the question? Merely returning the ball:
    “Ask a disabled person of any sort why they cling to life so desperately, and hear what they have to say.”

    Nope. Being disabled does not, by its very definition, require that one desire to keep on living. Being suicidal does require by its very definition that one have lost the desire to live, and hence this is begging the question.

    >”Conversely, were anyone able to give informed consent to become conceived in the first place?”

    No, but while it is easy to take life, it is impossible, one taken, to return it to the dead. Hence to err on the side of caution until informed consent can be procured.

    >I wrote about mental handicaps, both cognitive and emotional in the first post.

    Incidence of violent crime in the US is above average in the developed world. Sociopathic tendencies don’t appear from nowhere. Also, the majority of prison population has below average cognitive ability which puts those people at disadvantage, if they try to stay on the right side of the law.

    Hardly “horrors of life” in general. More like “horrors” of psychiatric disorders and understandable social exclusion associated with them.

    So, your stance is that we should force decisions regarding the ending of one’s life upon a certain group of people because they MIGHT have a greater prospensity towards crime and MIGHT feel suicidal in the future due to social exclusion which MIGHT happen.

    You do know that is running along the same lines as the pro-life “potential” argument, which I honestly think is quite silly? If you’re going to argue that it MIGHT happen, then I can argue along the same lines that the life should be saved because the individual MIGHT overcome their disabilities and find a happy life in spite of it. See what I did there? It doesn’t matter what metric you’re using for suffering, whether it be “general” or “societal exclusion”, you are still making the same argument the ancient Carthagians used to justify the execution of widows, orphans and other undesirables – to reduce the amount of suffering.

    I notice you insist on avoiding addressing my beef with the quality of life argument, so here it is again.

    By your same metric and justification, blacks and the economic underclass all show increased prospensities for crime, why should we not round them all up and pre-emptively kill them even if they have not committed a crime?

    Why should we not round up anyone with aggression issues and pre-emptively kill them? The above groups of people MIGHT commit a crime, and are statistically more likely to do so.

    Why should we not round up all the disabled, metally or physically, and pre-emptively kill them? These people MIGHT face societal exclusion, and indeed have a greater prospensity of being so.

    No further discourse will be had until you answer this to my satisfaction.

    Like

  24. Jane March 11, 2013 at 00:08 #

    The politicians want to ban abortion so that the rich have a ready, ignorant, desperate, native-born population of cannon-fodder. Brains can be imported from overseas (and paid less). Win-Win for the oligarchs! It’s as simple as that.

    Like

  25. Mike Hunter March 11, 2013 at 01:50 #

    “Maybe 50 or 60 years ago abortion was a needed option because the lives and options for women were very limited and the social stigma of having a child out of wedlock was horrific. That is not the case today – it maybe should be but I will go into that later.”

    So abortion was needed when you were young and fertile. But now that you’re womb is a dryed out shriveled up prune, access to abortion is no longer needed. How convenient for you.

    If having an abortion is truly killing children as you claim; then the fact that single mothers used to face social stigma certainly wasn’t a sufficiently important reason to allow women to have abortions during your youth.

    What was your reasoning? ‘Oh no! A woman got pregnant out of wedlock, and now she may feel ashamed because of her bad behavior. Lets just kill her kid to make the problem go away!’

    I’m actually a pro-abortion atheist by the way. I just can’t stand hypocrites.

    Like

  26. Exfernal March 11, 2013 at 14:54 #

    No further discourse would be effective when a side attempts sweeping generalizations heedless of practical consequences of applying them in practice. It seems that citizens of this country have not learned from the lessons of the prohibition era. These links should speak for themselves:
    http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v1/n5/full/tp20116a.html
    http://goo.gl/1Gvuy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Romania
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_the_Prohibition

    “Why should we not round up anyone with aggression issues and pre-emptively kill them? The above groups of people MIGHT commit a crime, and are statistically more likely to do so.” if for a specific person the future balance of livelihood of him killing someone else exceeds 50%, then what is a better alternative? Lifelong isolation, or compulsive administration of mind-altering drugs to keep him docile, right?

    Like

  27. The Observer March 11, 2013 at 16:02 #

    Time to change up the strategy.

    Dear, it would behoove you to actually address ALL points made and if you cannot field an opposing argument to a point, concede it instead of pretending it doesn’t exist and moving on. Doing so is thoroughly intellectually dishonest, something which I imagine I’ve been more than you throughout this little debate. The audience can be the judge of that.

    >”No further discourse would be effective when a side attempts sweeping generalizations heedless of practical consequences of applying them in practice. It seems that citizens of this country have not learned from the lessons of the prohibition era.”

    It amuses me that someone who complains about others making sweeping generalisations would be so ignorant and hypocritical as to be so lazy as to not expand the effort to scroll down, where I fully admit the moral fiber of society is so far gone that a ban on abortion would be useless in practically stopping anything at this juncture. But it would be so far easier for someone who is so out of tune with others to not notice what they’re saying and instead make sweeping generalisations of the sort they deplore, marking them as a hypocrite.

    Furthermore, as was pointed out, laws against murder, theft, and obviously criminal behaviour do not stop said behaviour, and *gasp* people will do illegal things to commit them! Perhaps you would like to elaborate on how morally permissible these things should be from the perspective of a functional society?

    “if for a specific person the future balance of livelihood of him killing someone else exceeds 50%, then what is a better alternative? Lifelong isolation, or compulsive administration of mind-altering drugs to keep him docile, right?”

    Here are some figures on recidivism rates of criminals based on criminal recidivism:

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

    You can clearly see that robbers have a 70% recividism rate, and that black inmates have one that’s clearly above 50%. I fully expect you to put your craven words into your own mouth, and be on the streets campaigning for the gallows or electric chair for these undesirables to society who kill, steal, and crowd prisons. I wonder who was campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty?

    I can’t grasp how you could support reducing human beings to a matter of utility versus undesirability, of pain versus pleasure. Personally, I cannot understand why a human being would do that, but I can imagine why a devious, cowardly machine would, and disguise it as a boon instead. To me, the reason a homeless man will beg for his life if you offer to kill him is hope, the same reason we attempt to rehabilitate inmates and cure the sick and disabled, no matter whether that have a 50% chance of success or any other number. Truthfully, I am aghast, but I certainly hope you stick to your words and offer yourself up to be euthanised once your social balance sheet drops into the red. Such is the way of the hopeless.

    If you are going to condemn another human being to death for what they MIGHT do, then I shall submit that you follow your own hideous creed that belongs nowhere in decent society and commit yourself to death for something that MIGHT happen to you. And there almost certainly is SOMETHING that you are susceptible to – perhaps you work in a dangerous occupation and MIGHT lose a limb or become a parpalegic, perhaps you MIGHT be at risk of cancer, perhaps you MIGHT have an innate predisposition towards criminality. Unless you claim you have no weaknesses, and are thus above mortal men? And if you are indeed above mortal men, then why the need to constantly switch your goalposts (first talking about the disabled then switching to the suicidal, then from the suicidal to the criminal) and put words in others’ mouths (when have I proposed a blanket ban on abortion, or suggested that “undesirables” be drugged or isolated)?

    If this were an honest debate, you would have been laughed out of the debate hall already. The audience here can be the judge of that.

    Of course, you have every right to think and behave this way in your personal dealings. But what is really galling, is that not only are you content to be remiss in your humanity, you expect to be able to make others be similarly mechanical cowards, worshippers of the great Hobbesian Leviathian. You demand the right to break us all down into numbers and figures, credits and costs, when I doubt you would do the same to yourself or anyone you cared for. That is true gall.

    You do not belong here. You do not belong in society. Instead, you belong in the squares of ancient Carthage, beheading widows and orphans and congratulating yourself for having eased the suffering of humanity in the same way that amputating a leg cures an ankle sore.

    Like

  28. Kai March 12, 2013 at 02:10 #

    or, you know, their constituents want them to oppose abortion because the constituents believe a baby is a life, and it’s wrong to end life…
    Not everything is a conspiracy.

    Like

  29. Billl Sanders March 13, 2013 at 03:48 #

    Much better….. Signature1

    Bill Sanders – Centrifuge Specialist SANDERS EQUIPMENT COMPANY 3505 Tarpon Woods Boulevard, I-408 Palm Harbor, FL 34685 USA 727-773-0077 (fax: same) http://sandersequipment.com

    Like

  30. Exfernal August 10, 2013 at 16:35 #

    Two of the most important pathways in the brain are the ones that transmit sensorimotor information, the thalamocortical (TC) and corticothalamic (CT) pathways. The TC relays sensory and motor information from the receptors in the retina, cochlea, muscle or skin to the sensorimotor regions of the neocortex via the major subcortical sensorimotor relay, the thalamus. The CT pathway completes the feedback loop by transmitting information from cortex back to the thalamus. These essential pathways begin to form in the later part of the second trimester in humans, and are complete by GW 26 (Kostovic and Jovanov-Milosevic 2006). The cells of the transient subplate layer of the developing brain (see Fig. 9b) play an essential role in establishing these pathways. When TC axons arrive at the developing cortex during GW22 they do not immediately make connections with neurons in the primary input layer of cortex (layer 4).

    Source.

    GW – an acronym for gestational week

    So, it’s rather safe to assume that any abortion performed before the week 21 of pregnancy would be not registered by the fetal brain, as it would be not organized yet enough to perceive being “killed”.

    Like

  31. Erik Norén October 31, 2013 at 14:23 #

    If there was to be a law designed to avoid population decline, maybe there should be a (sub)law to avoid over population?

    If population is under y it is required, if between y and x it is freely allowed, if it is above x it is restricted.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: