Anti-Abortion Abolitionists[W:460]

[calamity]

So many of the abortion arguments end up bringing slavery into the equation. It's almost like the anti-abortionists see themselves as modern day abolitionists. It's probably worthwhile to have to have a debate on that issue alone.

As many of you know the argument goes like this. "Slavery was legal once too, therefore x,y & z radical response to stop abortions is justified."

Is abortion in anyway akin to slavery? I say no.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

So many of the abortion arguments end up bringing slavery into the equation. It's almost like the anti-abortionists see themselves as modern day abolitionists. It's probably worthwhile to have to have a debate on that issue alone.

As many of you know the argument goes like this. "Slavery was legal once too, therefore x,y & z radical response to stop abortions is justified."

Is abortion in anyway akin to slavery? I say no.

What do you think when pro-choice people bring slavery into the discussion?

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

What do you think when pro-choice people bring slavery into the discussion?

I think they're grandstanding and have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

You could be right, calamity.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

So many of the abortion arguments end up bringing slavery into the equation. It's almost like the anti-abortionists see themselves as modern day abolitionists. It's probably worthwhile to have to have a debate on that issue alone.

As many of you know the argument goes like this. "Slavery was legal once too, therefore x,y & z radical response to stop abortions is justified."

Is abortion in anyway akin to slavery? I say no.

A couple of their go-to arguments:

--Slavery was the law once...did that make it right? (refers to abortion being legal)

--Blacks (slaves) were dehumanized so that we could deny them rights too. (refers to the accusation that pro-choice people dehumanize the unborn in order to deny them rights. Of course *if* that were true, then pro-life people are guilty of dehumanizing women in order to deny them rights.)

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

You could be right, calamity.

They would be. I don't care what side of the argument they are on, bringing slavery into the abortion debate is uncalled for and a logical fallacy.

 

[soot]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

So many of the abortion arguments end up bringing slavery into the equation. It's almost like the anti-abortionists see themselves as modern day abolitionists. It's probably worthwhile to have to have a debate on that issue alone.

As many of you know the argument goes like this. "Slavery was legal once too, therefore x,y & z radical response to stop abortions is justified."

Is abortion in anyway akin to slavery? I say no.

I bolded the functional part of that argument for you.

You'd have to have the cognitive capacity of an amoeba to even suggest that there's anything more to it.

That isn't an argument comparing the actual practice of slavery to the actual practice of abortion.

It simply compares the legality of two unethical acts.

Slavery was unethical but it was once legal.

Abortion is unethical and it is currently legal.

Two unethical acts that were or are, at various points in American history, legal.

 

[soot]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

They would be. I don't care what side of the argument they are on, bringing slavery into the abortion debate is uncalled for and a logical fallacy.

How is it fallacious?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

I think they're grandstanding and have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

I personally think that slavery arguments by pro-life is a huge, gigantic red herring.

HOWEVER...if there is a logic that can be applied to an argument by pro-choice regarding slavery. It is the following:

Anti-abortion laws are intended to force women into "Involuntary Servitude". That's clearly a no-no according the 13th Amendment. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery according to the Constitution.

So... don't see any grandstanding in this argument. :shrug:

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

How is it fallacious?

In the same way that comparing apples to golf balls would be.

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

I personally think that slavery arguments by pro-life is a huge, gigantic red herring.

HOWEVER...if there is a logic that can be applied to an argument by pro-choice regarding slavery. It is the following:

Anti-abortion laws are intended to force women into "Involuntary Servitude". That's clearly a no-no according the 13th Amendment. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery according to the Constitution.

So... don't see any grandstanding in this argument. :shrug:

If an employer impregnates a maid and forces her to carry the child without compensation or child support, then perhaps I'll buy that argument.

If Jimmy impregnates Sally after hot sex in the back of the Prius, it's not slavery even if laws were in place which prevented Sally from seeking a legal abortion. After all, the law only bans a doctor from performing the abortion; it does not ban Sally from getting one. In theory, she could carve the little bugger out on her own without risk of criminal prosecution. She could take an herb to kill it. She could go to another country and seek abortion...all without risk of prosecution.

If anything, abortion laws deny a woman healthcare. So, they are inhumane.

 

[soot]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

In the same way that comparing apples to golf balls would be.

I'd agree if anyone were trying to compare every facet and characteristic of slavery to abortion.

But I don't think I've ever heard anyone doing that, or anything even close to that.

The comparison between abortion and slavery is on a single plane - the legality of immorality.

To use your rather pedestrian example, it's like saying, "You know how a golf ball is round? Well, for the purposes of this discussion note that a Fiji apple is quasi-spherical".

The problem here isn't that the comparison is irrelevant, it's simply that you don't have the intellectual aptitude to understand the comparison.

And there's nothing wrong with that by the way.

The world needs ditch diggers too, so Mother Nature didn't give everyone the intellectual tools necessary for abstract thought.

I'm sure you've got your gifts too; can probably cook some great french fries or maybe you're really good at holding a placard.

There's got to be something you're good at.

My advice would be to find that something and stick to it.

Because this "debating politics" thing clearly goes way over your head.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

If an employer impregnates a maid and forces her to carry the child without compensation or child support, then perhaps I'll buy that argument.

If Jimmy impregnates Sally after hot sex in the back of the Prius, it's not slavery even if laws were in place which prevented Sally from seeking a legal abortion.

What if Jimmy rapes Sally?

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

I bolded the functional part of that argument for you.

You'd have to have the cognitive capacity of an amoeba to even suggest that there's anything more to it.

That isn't an argument comparing the actual practice of slavery to the actual practice of abortion.

It simply compares the legality of two unethical acts.

Slavery was unethical but it was once legal.

Abortion is unethical and it is currently legal.

Two unethical acts that were or are, at various points in American history, legal.

In my opinion it is more unethical to deny a woman the right to a doctor than it is for her to abort a fetus she does not want.

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

What if Jimmy rapes Sally?

She should not be denied access to a doctor who can remove the unwanted product of rape. Again, it's not slavery issue, it's a healthcare issue. Banning abortion denies the rape victim healthcare. No one can or is trying to force her to carry the child. They are denying her the doctor who can rid her of the unwanted pregnancy.

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

I'd agree if anyone were trying to compare every facet and characteristic of slavery to abortion.

But I don't think I've ever heard anyone doing that, or anything even close to that.

The comparison between abortion and slavery is on a single plane - the legality of immorality.

To use your rather pedestrian example, it's like saying, "You know how a golf ball is round? Well, for the purposes of this discussion note that a Fiji apple is quasi-spherical".

The problem here isn't that the comparison is irrelevant, it's simply that you don't have the intellectual aptitude to understand the comparison.

And there's nothing wrong with that by the way.

The world needs ditch diggers too, so Mother Nature didn't give everyone the intellectual tools necessary for abstract thought.

I'm sure you've got your gifts too; can probably cook some great french fries or maybe you're really good at holding a placard.

There's got to be something you're good at.

My advice would be to find that something and stick to it.

Because this "debating politics" thing clearly goes way over your head.

I believe it to be more immoral to deny someone who wishes to terminate a pregnancy a doctor than it is to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[soot]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

I believe it to be more immoral to deny someone who wishes to terminate a pregnancy a doctor than it is to terminate the pregnancy.

Right.

So killing a living human as a matter of convenience is less immoral than requiring an adult to live with the consequences of his or her actions.

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me but at least I know where you stand.

Anyhow, I've answered your question and given my opinion and don't much feel like having the same old abortion debate I've had around here at least 20 times now so I'm gonna go ahead and bow out of this discussion.

Feel free to have the last word.

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

Right.

So killing a living human as a matter of convenience is less immoral than requiring an adult to live with the consequences of his or her actions.

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me but at least I know where you stand.

Anyhow, I've answered your question and given my opinion and don't much feel like having the same old abortion debate I've had around here at least 20 times now so I'm gonna go ahead and bow out of this discussion.

Feel free to have the last word.

Oh Christ. Here we go again with this killing a living human being nonsense again.

If you really feel that way, why do you not seek laws which punish the mother for seeking an abortion? If she's an accomplice to murder, it should be a slam dunk conspiracy rap. But...you know what--not even the most fervent anti-abortionist goes down that road. Why?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

If an employer impregnates a maid forces her to carry the child without compensation or child support, then perhaps. But, I really don't see that argument adding up to slavery when Jimmy impregnates Sally after hot sex in the back of the Prius even if laws were in place which prevented Sally from seeking a legal abortion. After all, the law only banns a doctor from performing the abortion; it does not ban Sally from getting one. In theory, she could carve the little bugger out on her own without risk of criminal prosecution. She could take an herb to kill it. She could go to another country and seek abortion...all without risk of prosecution.

Calamity - I don't know that I've ever totally disagreed with you on any of your post - as far as I can remember. But on this point I have to disagree. And it may be that I didn't make my point clear enough.

Now realize I'm talking about what anti-abortion laws are created for.

Anti-abortion laws are created with the INTENTION TO PREVENT a woman from having an abortion and "forcing a woman to carry to term a fetus for 9 months. If such a law was successfully enforced, then that would constitute "Involuntary Servitude" (forced to serve a fetus).

If an anti-abortion law was successfully enforced and a pregnancy was brought to full term then...

Once a child is born, which was against a given woman's wishes of wanting a child in the first place - she is "forced to raise a child". Every effort she makes to ensure that the child has all of its needs met...require a woman to engage in substantial labor to meet the needs of a child until it reaches adulthood. That would constitute "Involuntary Servitude" (forced to serve a child).

Both a forced pregnancy (forced to serve a fetus) and forced to raise a child (also a forced service) constitutes "Involuntary servitude", which is against the 13 Amendment.

Back to reality...

What makes these laws difficult to enforce is that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy can seeks out an illegal abortion. But non-the-less, anti-abortion laws do in fact INTEND to FORCE women into "Involuntary Servitude".

Thanks...

 

[Lursa]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

Right.

So killing a living human as a matter of convenience is less immoral than requiring an adult to live with the consequences of his or her actions.

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me but at least I know where you stand.

What doesnt make a lick of sense to me is that any person believes they should make that judgement for another person in America. America, where only the born (according to the Constitution) have rights.

That any person should decide that another person's life is only comprised of 'conveniences' and that they should suffer the consequences of a child....talk about dehumanizing. The child is a 'consequence' to be suffered.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

What doesnt make a lick of sense to me is that any person believes they should make that judgement for another person in America. America, where only the born (according to the Constitution) have rights.

When the Constitution was written, no unborn fetus could possibly survive before its term came up. The more medical science improves, the more the possibility of unborn rights could be considered.

That any person should decide that another person's life is only comprised of 'conveniences' and that they should suffer the consequences of a child....talk about dehumanizing. The child is a 'consequence' to be suffered.

People who are old enough to breed should be well aware of where babies come from. And if a man and woman aren't prepared to accept the possibility of a pregnancy, they shouldn't be having sex. Pregnancy being a consequence of sex, and all.

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

Calamity - I don't know that I've ever totally disagreed with you on any of your post - as far as I can remember. But on this point I have to disagree. And it may be that I didn't make my point clear enough.

Now realize I'm talking about what anti-abortion laws are created for.

Anti-abortion laws are created with the INTENTION TO PREVENT a woman from having an abortion and "forcing a woman to carry to term a fetus for 9 months. If such a law was successfully enforced, then that would constitute "Involuntary Servitude" (forced to serve a fetus).

If an anti-abortion law was successfully enforced and a pregnancy was brought to full term then...

Once a child is born, which was against a given woman's wishes of wanting a child in the first place - she is "forced to raise a child". Every effort she makes to ensure that the child has all of its needs met...require a woman to engage in substantial labor to meet the needs of a child until it reaches adulthood. That would constitute "Involuntary Servitude" (forced to serve a child).

True, but only if laws were made which punished or prevented the woman from seeking an abortion by means other than a doctor. The law only bans the doctor from serving the woman. It's wrong to do that, but it is not a slavery issue because the woman is free to terminate the pregnancy in any way she sees fit other than a legal medical procedure by licensed professional...and, even then, the law only puts the restriction on the doctor. The woman is not banned from seeking an abortion.

Both a forced pregnancy (forced to serve a fetus) and forced to raise a child (also a forced service) constitutes "Involuntary servitude", which is against the 13 Amendment.

It's not a forced pregnancy. It's denying medical treatment to terminate the pregnancy. Hmm...let's try this.

In theory, the woman can legally self-terminate the pregnancy and seek immediate medical care for herself without risk of criminal prosecution. Correct?

Back to reality...

What makes these laws difficult to enforce is that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy can seeks out an illegal abortion. But non-the-less, anti-abortion laws do in fact INTEND to FORCE women into "Involuntary Servitude".

Thanks...

Yes, anti-abortion laws want to stop abortions and force women to carry to term. However, I notice that they never make it illegal for the woman to seek an abortion or terminate the pregnancy herself. For instance, if the abortion pill is illegal but she can obtain it anyway and uses it. Will the state prosecute? I suspect not.

If they did prosecute, then you would be correct. If they do not, then it's not slavery.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

When the Constitution was written, no unborn fetus could possibly survive before its term came up. The more medical science improves, the more the possibility of unborn rights could be considered.


People who are old enough to breed should be well aware of where babies come from. And if a man and woman aren't prepared to accept the possibility of a pregnancy, they shouldn't be having sex. Pregnancy being a consequence of sex, and all.

That doesnt really address why the unborn should have rights. As it is now, 98.5% of all abortions occur before there's any chance of viability anyway. In Canada there is no limit on when abortions can occur and that number is still practically non-existent.

And people do know where babies come from. THey also know their safe, legal options if unplanned pregnancy occurs. Abortion is one of those options. People are no longer 'condemned' to unwanted parenthood if they dont want to be. Sad that some people choose to use unwanted children as clubs, calling them 'consequences' but that's why it's perfectly logical that some people would want to opt out of it.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

True, but only if laws were made which punished or prevented the woman from seeking an abortion by means other than a doctor. The law only bans the doctor from serving the woman. It's wrong to do that, but it is not a slavery issue because the woman is free to terminate the pregnancy in any way she sees fit other than a legal medical procedure by licensed professional...and, even then, the law only puts the restriction on the doctor. The woman is not banned from seeking an abortion.


It's not a forced pregnancy. It's denying medical treatment to terminate the pregnancy. Hmm...let's try this.

In theory, the woman can legally self-terminate the pregnancy and seek immediate medical care for herself without risk of criminal prosecution. Correct?


Yes, anti-abortion laws want to stop abortions and force women to carry to term. However, I notice that they never make it illegal for the woman to seek an abortion or terminate the pregnancy herself. For instance, if the abortion pill is illegal but she can obtain it anyway and uses it. Will the state prosecute? I suspect not.

If they did prosecute, then you would be correct. If they do not, then it's not slavery.

Calamity! :doh You know I love you...and you got a portion of what my point is. But you are still missing my primary point - and that is - forcing a person to serve another - regardless of the circumstance - is still "involuntary servitude". That is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

Yes, a woman would violate the law to avoid "forced service to another". I'm right there with you and pointed that out in my post.

And...

The Legal World knows this. They also know anti-abortion laws can be negated by applying this legal theory. They know that anti-abortion laws, which are a public annoyance, costly, distracting, disturbing, etc..technically isn't enforceable. It would wind up being a failure like the War on Drugs.

Anti-abortion laws were a failure prior to Roe v Wade for different reasons, but mostly because they weren't effective laws.

SO MY HARDCORE POINT IS: That "slavery" could, in theory, apply to a pro-choice argument regarding anti-abortion laws.

But it's really okay if we wind up agreeing to disagree. It was just something I wanted to throw into the discussion for consideration.

 

[calamity]

Re: Anti-Abortion Abolitionists

Calamity! :doh You know I love you...and you got a portion of what my point is. But you are still missing my primary point - and that is - forcing a person to serve another - regardless of the circumstance - is still "involuntary servitude". That is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

Yes, a woman would violate the law to avoid "forced service to another". I'm right there with you and pointed that out in my post.

And...

The Legal World knows this. They also know anti-abortion laws can be negated by applying this legal theory. They know that anti-abortion laws, which are a public annoyance, costly, distracting, disturbing, etc..technically isn't enforceable. It would wind up being a failure like the War on Drugs.

Anti-abortion laws were a failure prior to Roe v Wade for different reasons, but mostly because they weren't effective laws.

SO MY HARDCORE POINT IS: That "slavery" could, in theory, apply to a pro-choice argument regarding anti-abortion laws.

But it's really okay if we wind up agreeing to disagree. It was just something I wanted to throw into the discussion for consideration.

I agree in that the 13th is why we never see an abortion law which goes after the mother, only the doctor.