LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
How does legislation on abortion encourage or discourage sexual behaviour - do you have a research paper supporting your hypothesis?Originally Posted by Locke9-05
How does legislation on abortion encourage or discourage sexual behaviour - do you have a research paper supporting your hypothesis?
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not adding it to a fruit salad
Commentator
I consider this to be a good sign as well, because while ban on pre-viability abortion is not realistic at all in US political climate, stronger pro-life movement could lead to more bans on late-term abortions. Thats something I support.
Last edited by Blasphemer; Feb 29 2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason: grammar
"Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results."
Charles Murray
Guru
I never made the absolute claim as fact that it did, I simply said "we should not promote..." etc. But anyway, in case you didn't read the post of mine in which I said this, this current topic has become what all abortion debates eventually boil down to, and that's 100 percent subjective opinion from both sides. So I'm not going to continue, at least not in this particular thread.
"Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"
Most people do including most pre-choice people but late term abortions are a tiny fraction of all abortions and are most usually done for disorders incompatible with life
Would you force a woman carrying an Anencephalic baby to continue the pregnancy knowing the baby either will not survive the birth or will die soon after - will you force a decision she cannot cope with on her? Can you imagine being in that situation and having to tell everyone you know that your baby is deformed and will die at birth?
Some women can do that some can't
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not adding it to a fruit salad
Good because I for one would like to get back on track if at all possible
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not adding it to a fruit salad
Guru
You'd like to get back on track to debating the initial fallacious nature of the opening argument?" That fine, but need I remind you of just exactly how fallacious that line of so-called "logic" is? Insert any other activity in place of the word "abortion" and you have a sentence which makes just as much sense in terms of practical application (which is to say not much).
"Legislation stops drug abuse - the myth"
"Legislation stops vehicle moving violations - the myth"
"Legislation stops rape - the myth"
"Legislation stops murder - the myth"
What your initial argument for this thread does is to state the obvious, but it's the same kind of obvious statement that can be made for any other activity--legal or not. I said I wasn't going to continue in this thread, because it had turned into a tangent about "personhood," which similarly to all abortion debates, it is at the root of differing abortion perspectives and is one hundred percent subjective. There is no way to objectively debate "personhood" as of yet and it becomes an issue of criticizing personal opinion. However, I am more than willing to continue debating what your argument seems to imply--that "the law won't stop it, therefore the law shouldn't even try to stop it." That's just nonsense.
Last edited by Locke9-05; Mar 02 2012 at 10:01 AM.
"Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"
Legislation does not stop drug abuse - education and other societal intervention does
Legislation may prevent some misdemeanour crimes such as littering but even that is more affected by the Mores of the society. Take Singapore the legislation on littering set the framework for change but it needed to a) be followed through - that means catching and fining people b) a level of acceptance by the population in the majority C) alternatives to littering i.e. more rubbish bins
My contention at the beginning of the thread was to show that just reversing RVW was not ever going to stop abortion - yet that (and personhood) seem to become the centre of many of these debates
What is not discussed and should be is the alternatives to legislation
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not adding it to a fruit salad
Guru
Legislation doesn't stop anything. We've been over this. I'll get into that more down below.
Lol, prevention of littering? Are you joking? I don't even live in what would be considered a really large-scale city, and there's garbage flying all over. People constantly throw their cigarettes and empty cans out the windows of their cars. It's not technically legal for them to do it, but they still do. Just like people will continue to commit other misdemeanor and even heftier violations.
Your argument was that it may "prevent" it. So I take it you have solid evidence that there is no more littering in Singapore whatsoever? If this is the case, then by all means, I'll concede the point that legislation is indeed this mystical preventative force or that the Singapore police station has somehow tapped into powers like that shown in the short story and movie called Minority Report.
Your contention is a truth, but it's an obvious one which applies to literally any activity or crime--any and all. It's not really a valid premise on which to argue for the continued legalization of abortion. Laws are not "preventative" in nature. They are designed generally to have some sort of deterring effect, but in all practicality who really honestly expects them to have the effect of "preventing" the crime? No reasonable person. A piece of paper signed by some government officials has as much power as the methods of enforcing it, the [hopefully benevolent] reason for its signing and that's about it. Criminals aren't going to give up a life of crime simply because of that piece of paper.
That's because that is one of the many things that IS at the center of these debates. The fact that legislation may or may not be 100 percent effective in "stopping" a crime or criminal behavior is not one of the many things at the center of this debate. Because it's just another observation which can be applied to literally any activity, market or substance--good, bad, illegal or otherwise.
Then perhaps you should make a topic for "alternatives to legislation." But I wouldn't expect too many pro-life advocates to jump in there and contribute, because that would not fit their ultimate view that abortion should not be legal and that there should in fact be legislation against it--regardless of whether that will actually stop a lot of women from doing it or not. You and your pro-choice friends can certainly discuss viable options to be used as alternatives for legislation, but I doubt anyone who is completely pro-life will see any kind of benefit in discussing anything in place of legislation. They might be willing to discuss things to be added in addition to legislation (ie reform the adoption system and foster care, sex education--especially for young people, etc.), but not things to be used instead of it.
"Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"
Ah! But discussing the usefulness of legislation is a doorway into discussing how one would apply such legislation
And THAT is a much more complex topic
The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not adding it to a fruit salad
Guru
Legislation isn't useful, it's the methods of enforcing it which prove to be either useful or not. If they bring even a percentage of offenders to justice and deter one percent or even less would-be offenders from actually committing offenses, then the methods are "useful." They have a use and are providing society with a service. That much is undeniable. You can argue whether or not that's "useful enough" until the cows come home, but whether or not it's "useful enough" is another issue made up entirely of subjective opinion.
It really isn't that complex, as I just demonstrated.
Last edited by Locke9-05; Mar 04 2012 at 09:17 AM.
"Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks