Why you can't make abortion illegal

[dam prayer noobs]

First of all, I never said the government wouldn't be able to enforce the law. I was stating that if something is illegal, you are not supposed to do it whether or not you will get caught. Wouldn't you agree?

What gives the government the right to tell me what I am allowed and not allowed to do with my body?

I can't believe you're calling me ignorant when you still believe 100% of women who would have gotten an abortion if it was legal would still get it if it were illegal.

There is no such thing as "every single person." That is the fallacy of your argument. There is always going to be someone who disagrees with the whole or does something differently, it's human nature. In the study that I showed you, maybe a few hundred out of a hundred thousand chose not to get an abortion if it was illegal, but hundreds of thousands still did it illegally. That small number doesn't even show up on statistics, because it is so dang small, therefore we don't even account for it because it doesn't represent a large portion of the population.

In statistics you have something called the margin of error. You can never get the exact result from a statistical survey or experiment, so if there is less than a few percent difference in the study, it doesn't get taken into account. Since this is a longitudinal study and you have to take into account population increase, and surveyors' truthfulness, a 1 or 2% difference is not enough to say that there was a huge difference in abortion trends. I'd say probably 99% of women still underwent abortion illegally while maybe 1% didn't do it because of fear of going to jail. Honestly, if 95-99% of citizens that did whatever it is before it became illegal, are still doing it after it became illegal, then you have a huge problem, either with the enforcement of the law, or the morality of it.

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...t/11/2/190.pdf

^That link didn't load for me. Is that where you got the information from?

Finally, you decided to actually look at the study. Here's the correct link:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/190.pdf

If that still doesn't work, do a google search for: "does the liberalisation of abortion laws increase the number of abortions" and click the first one.

or you can see this: https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_number_of_abortions_The_case_study_of_Spain

"Decriminalization has had no observed effect on the trends in abortion"

- That can mean a lot of different things. If you're implying that that statement means "100% of the women who got abortions while they were legal still get them now even though abortion is illegal" then that is wrong. Once again, there is no possible way that 100% of the women would still get abortions.

Ok maybe not 100%, but probably around 98-99%. There, ya happy?

But I'll play along. Let's assume that 100% of all women who want to get an abortion would get it even if it were illegal. Why should it be legal? If everyone in the world who wanted to kill someone (even though it's illegal) did it, we might as well make murder legal. There's tons of scenarios you could use, but it all boils down to one point: Just because everyone is doing it does not mean it is right (or in this case, should be legal).

A better question would be, why should it be illegal? Women were getting abortions long before some government came in and said that they are not allowed to get them anymore. So how about you tell me why it should not be allowed?

You have to understand that these days the government is reaching it's hands where it's not supposed to, it is intermingling with privacy and the church, and that is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. When this country was founded, the only laws that existed were to protect the people from the government. People could take whatever drugs they wanted and have as many guns as they wanted. But over time the government started reaching their hands in people's lives little by little, and now they basically control your whole life.

 

[Straggler]

In statistics you have something called the margin of error. You can never get the exact result from a statistical survey or experiment, so if there is less than a few percent difference in the study, it doesn't get taken into account. Since this is a longitudinal study and you have to take into account population increase, and surveyors' truthfulness, a 1 or 2% difference is not enough to say that there was a huge difference in abortion trends. I'd say probably 99% of women still underwent abortion illegally while maybe 1% didn't do it because of fear of going to jail. Honestly, if 95-99% of citizens are breaking a new law, then you have a huge problem, either with the enforcement of the law, or the morality of it.

Well...not 95% of citizens... 95% of the citizens who were already willing to have an abortion. If weed was legal and then became illegal I'd bet that around 95% of its consumers would continue to use it. Remember, it's not the general population, it's the specific population of the ones who were going to do it in the first place. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Well...not 95% of citizens... 95% of the citizens who were already willing to have an abortion. If weed was legal and then became illegal I'd bet that around 95% of its consumers would continue to use it. Remember, it's not the general population, it's the specific population of the ones who were going to do it in the first place. Do you understand what I mean?

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thank you.

 

[Straggler]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Thank you.

Well, wouldn't you agree that that applies for a lot of illegal things? If somebody actually feels the absolute need to kill you, do you think that they are even going to consider the law? Probably not, and this is why murder happens. Same with abortion. Of course, 95% of women are not going to have abortions, but 95% of women determined to have an abortion will, legal or not. As I said, I think 95% of marijuana users would use marijuana, legal or not, simply because they are marijuana users. The assertion that the law having no effect over people's decisions certainly shouldn't mean that their decisions aren't bad in any way.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Well, wouldn't you agree that that applies for a lot of illegal things? If somebody actually feels the absolute need to kill you, do you think that they are even going to consider the law? Probably not, and this is why murder happens. Same with abortion. Of course, 95% of women are not going to have abortions, but 95% of women determined to have an abortion will, legal or not. As I said, I think 95% of marijuana users would use marijuana, legal or not, simply because they are marijuana users. The assertion that the law having no effect over people's decisions certainly shouldn't mean that their decisions aren't bad in any way.

I see it this way:

1. Laws that delve into people's privacy are nearly impossible to enforce.
2. Laws that don't affect other people and have no one to report them.

Drug laws and abortion fit both of these criteria, while murder doesn't. But then the classic argument emerges that the baby fetus is the victim. And then the whole debate about if a fetus can be classified as a living thing, which is completely up to opinion, which means it can't be imposed on other people.

But this is sort of getting away from the main subject. I'll try to make it as simple and short as I can:

Who cares most about a child? The President? you? the mother? I think we can all agree that the mother cares the most about a child, she cares for it, feeds it, and holds it for years until it grows up, you can't escape this fact. So if abortion is murder, then what brings 800,000 caring mothers in the US to murder their own children? And why is there only a handful of cases of mothers killing infants or babies? That is because most mothers don't view it as a child, but a stage of what's going to become a child. So how is it that 800,000 loving mothers that care more for their kids than anyone in the world, choose to brutally murder their kids? This doesn't make any sense, if these mothers were brutal murderers like you say they are, then they would be killing infants too, but that number doesn't even compare to the number of cases of abortion. You can't classify these mothers as murderers, because most of them are normal people like me and you.

Simply put: The mother, who naturally cares about her child more than anyone in this world, would not murder it. So abortion simply can't be considered murder.

 

[Straggler]

I see it this way:

1. Laws that delve into people's privacy are nearly impossible to enforce.
2. Laws that don't affect other people and have no one to report them.

Drug laws and abortion fit both of these criteria, while murder doesn't. But then the classic argument emerges that the baby fetus is the victim. And then the whole debate about if a fetus can be classified as a living thing, which is completely up to opinion, which means it can't be imposed on other people.

But this is sort of getting away from the main subject. I'll try to make it as simple and short as I can:

Who cares most about a child? The President? you? the mother? I think we can all agree that the mother cares the most about a child, she cares for it, feeds it, and holds it for years until it grows up, you can't escape this fact. So if abortion is murder, then what brings 800,000 caring mothers in the US to murder their own children? And why is there only a handful of cases of mothers killing infants or babies? That is because most mothers don't view it as a child, but a stage of what's going to become a child. So how is it that 800,000 loving mothers that care more for their kids than anyone in the world, choose to brutally murder their kids? This doesn't make any sense, if these mothers were brutal murderers like you say they are, then they would be killing infants too, but that number doesn't even compare to the number of cases of abortion. You can't classify these mothers as murderers, because most of them are normal people like me and you.

Simply put: The mother, who naturally cares about her child more than anyone in this world, would not murder it. So abortion simply can't be considered murder.

First, rephrase the second item (2.) on your list about unenforceable laws because I can't really tell what you're saying. I agree that abortion is much more common than full-scale child murder, but... the only thing that stands between the fetus you are destroying and the child you are killing is 9 months' time, that's it. The path between being a fetus and being a child is 90% of the time a completely normal and straightforward one. This having been said, it is easy to see why a mother who does not want to raise her child is much more comfortable with killing something that is less than an inch tall than something that is living, breathing and crying. On the continuum of time, however, they are the same person. The only difference between the me that is arguing with you and the me that was microscopic 16 years ago is time. Once a zygote has been created the crossing over process of the DNA has already occurred and a distinct, unique blueprint for a personality and appearance has been created and that is irreversible. In my eyes ending the process of life is murder, but I wouldn't say I'm completely for or against abortion being legal. I would say an unenforceable law that only becomes safer once it is legal is a good law, but I'm just putting in perspective that when a woman aborts her fetus, she is destroying an already developing human.

 

[kingnick0694]

First, rephrase the second item (2.) on your list about unenforceable laws because I can't really tell what you're saying. I agree that abortion is much more common than full-scale child murder, but... the only thing that stands between the fetus you are destroying and the child you are killing is 9 months' time, that's it. The path between being a fetus and being a child is 90% of the time a completely normal and straightforward one. This having been said, it is easy to see why a mother who does not want to raise her child is much more comfortable with killing something that is less than an inch tall than something that is living, breathing and crying. On the continuum of time, however, they are the same person. The only difference between the me that is arguing with you and the me that was microscopic 16 years ago is time. Once a zygote has been created the crossing over process of the DNA has already occurred and a distinct, unique blueprint for a personality and appearance has been created and that is irreversible. In my eyes ending the process of life is murder, but I wouldn't say I'm completely for or against abortion being legal. I would say an unenforceable law that only becomes safer once it is legal is a good law, but I'm just putting in perspective that when a woman aborts her fetus, she is destroying an already developing human.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, an individual sperm or egg is not a human. It may have the potential to be human, but it is not human. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, however, life has begun.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Exactly. Like I said earlier, an individual sperm or egg is not a human. It may have the potential to be human, but it is not human. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, however, life has begun.

That's 100% opinion. I can argue that life has begun when the fetus exits the mother's womb and begins to breathe. And you can't prove me wrong, because that is based entirely on opinion, just like your argument.

First, rephrase the second item (2.) on your list about unenforceable laws because I can't really tell what you're saying. I agree that abortion is much more common than full-scale child murder, but... the only thing that stands between the fetus you are destroying and the child you are killing is 9 months' time, that's it. The path between being a fetus and being a child is 90% of the time a completely normal and straightforward one. This having been said, it is easy to see why a mother who does not want to raise her child is much more comfortable with killing something that is less than an inch tall than something that is living, breathing and crying. On the continuum of time, however, they are the same person. The only difference between the me that is arguing with you and the me that was microscopic 16 years ago is time. Once a zygote has been created the crossing over process of the DNA has already occurred and a distinct, unique blueprint for a personality and appearance has been created and that is irreversible. In my eyes ending the process of life is murder, but I wouldn't say I'm completely for or against abortion being legal. I would say an unenforceable law that only becomes safer once it is legal is a good law, but I'm just putting in perspective that when a woman aborts her fetus, she is destroying an already developing human.

It doesn't matter if you think it is murder. No matter how much you try to prove to me that a small multi-celled blob is a human life, I'm never going to view it as a human life. It's like trying to convince me that the color blue is better than the color red. No matter how much you try to prove to me otherwise, I'm always going to like the color red. Same with abortion, no matter how much you tell me that the fetus is a human life, I'm never going to view it as a human life because my criteria of what a human life is are different than yours, and that is based entirely on opinion.

But this really doesn't matter since were on the same page on the legality of abortion, which is what this thread really is about.

 

[Elvy666]

*A fetus has a heart beat, but it gets it's oxygen through it's mother's blood. So the fetus has half the criteria for me to classify it as a human.*

Until recently (with the creation of baby formula), a baby had to get nourishment from it's mother's or a wetnurse's breasts for several months. Should we classify it as a fetus still, until it is able to get nourishment from someone other than the mother? In that case, maybe the baby really isn't human until it can gather it's own food and eat it by itself. The point is, a baby must rely on nourishment from another at the early stages of life, whether it is breast milk, or oxygen from the mother while in the womb.





*Damn I keep falling into these arguments. The point of this thread is not to discuss the morality of abortion. Arguing the morality of abortion is just like arguing about if God exists or not, there is no right or wrong answer.

The point of this thread is to compare what it would be like if abortion was legal and if it was illegal.

If it was illegal, obviously foster homes would be flooded with unwanted children, who would be in danger of abuse and rape and would probably go into a life of crime and die somewhere on the streets. You pro-life people are all for a baby living, well what do you suggest we do when it is born? Throw it into a foster home and forget all about it? Do you even know how horrible foster home conditions are? Do you even know anyone who grew up in a foster home? Have they told you how horrible it was? If you are so pro-life then how about you donate vast amounts of money to foster homes so those kids can actually live the life you forced them into.*


Why do you continue to discuss the morality of abortion after you just said it's not the point of this thread?

And as for foster homes, do you happen to know all foster home conditions are bad? Sure, there are bad ones, but there are also bad natural homes. I've been in a foster home for a time, and the experience of the home was not bad. I met other kids in foster homes, and most were better off in the foster home that their real home. You make no sense, based on your life argument, when you say "donate money so kids can live the life they were forced into." Or do you mean you are admitting that these fetuses actually are a life now?

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Until recently (with the creation of baby formula), a baby had to get nourishment from it's mother's or a wetnurse's breasts for several months. Should we classify it as a fetus still, until it is able to get nourishment from someone other than the mother? In that case, maybe the baby really isn't human until it can gather it's own food and eat it by itself. The point is, a baby must rely on nourishment from another at the early stages of life, whether it is breast milk, or oxygen from the mother while in the womb.

Nope, humans are able to ingest nourishment through it's mouth, unlike a fetus that ingests it through the umbilical chord. I can't believe you are still trying to convince me of this. Trust me, I have been debating this topic for years, and there is no end to it, I went through all of these arguments you are throwing at me at least twice.

Why do you continue to discuss the morality of abortion after you just said it's not the point of this thread?

Because people thought I had a weak argument and started bringing up morality. So I had to show them that the morality of abortion is based entirely on opinion, which is why I didn't bring it up in my original post. I can argue on this topic forever though, I already know what I am going to say because I've said it before.

And as for foster homes, do you happen to know all foster home conditions are bad? Sure, there are bad ones, but there are also bad natural homes. I've been in a foster home for a time, and the experience of the home was not bad. I met other kids in foster homes, and most were better off in the foster home that their real home.

Unlike you I've done my research:

Children who stay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. Those who:

Were arrested at least once:
• Stayed with family: 14%
• Went to foster care: 44%

Became teen mothers:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 56%

Held a job at least 3 months:
• Stayed with family: 33%
• Went to foster care: 20%

Source: Study by Joseph Doyle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm

You make no sense, based on your life argument, when you say "donate money so kids can live the life they were forced into." Or do you mean you are admitting that these fetuses actually are a life now?

I'm saying if you want to make abortion illegal, and you care so much about not killing the babies, then donate money to build more foster care homes so they would actually have a place to live when they are born. I don't get what's so hard to understand...

 

[dam prayer noobs]

So you're saying, because people use it, it should be legalized?

Why not? Why should I care if some people feel like ruining their lives with these drugs?

Broken link is broken.
Thus, unwarrented argument is both non-argumentative and unwarranted.

Here: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/190.pdf
Whoa relax boy... I'm not going to post a fake study just to prove myself right lol...

Again, that's a terrible argument. That equates to saying that, because people are still going to commit murder, it should be legalized.

Murder is different, because the murderer is almost always found and brought to justice. You can't punish a mother for "murdering" her fetus because the government will never know. All it takes is for the mother to go in her bathroom, stick a coat hanger in there, plop it out, and say it was a miscarriage. So if you make something illegal, and you have the same number of people doing it, and no one is getting punished for it, then what is the point of making it a law?

So governmental recognition is what classifies us as humans. Jews under the Nazi regime were inhuman?

I never said that. I was talking about how the government would enforce it's abortion laws if the "thing" getting "murdered" has no identification or documentation under the government. The government would never know that "it" disappeared so it wouldn't be able to punish the "murderer."

 

[MMO KING]

I think if it's illegal teen girls will bust their fallopian tube trying to abort themselves a very bad way.

 

[´×V鮃¡ñé×´]

Wow this was hard to read,but yeh.

 

[JunseiKei]

This doesn't happen... women don't get pregnant by just having sex with any random people - anything could have happened, condoms don't work 100%, she could have been raped - these are when you can't stop it so i think you can make it illegal.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

This doesn't happen... women don't get pregnant by just having sex with any random people - anything could have happened, condoms don't work 100%, she could have been raped - these are when you can't stop it so i think you can make it illegal.

What? You just pointed out all the reasons for why it should be legal...

 

[DropKick Murphys]

I think he meant can't, dam prayer noobs.

 

[tintrade]

First i think men should have no right to have an opinion on abortion unless its their child, therefore I do not think most people here have a right to judge others.

 

[Range Me]

Well, a women has the right to do whatever she wants. Even though I feel abortion should only be used in certain cases [ rape, to young, etc.] I don't feel anyone but that women has a say in what she does in her life.