Jump to content

Terryl Givens Weighs in on Ethics of Abortion


Recommended Posts

On 10/22/2020 at 4:55 PM, Meadowchik said:

Did you know that it is not uncommon for doctors to refuse permanent sterilisation like tubal ligations to some women? Did you know that women are more likely to be murdered when pregnant? Did you know that abortion is statistically safer than giving birth?

These are real-life obstacles which stand in the way of reducing abortions. Help women be safer and you will help reduce abortions.

Are you seriously advocating that doctors be required or expected to perform elective medical procedures (such as tubal ligation) against their will? That attitude bothers me a great deal. 
 

What about breast augmentations or circumcisions or gender reassignment? Would you want physicians required or pressured to perform those as well?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 4
Link to post

Notes on Property, Self-Ownership, and Abortion

Simplified, functional definitions:

"Property" is any resource monopolized by force or threats.  The property "owner" is the "entity" (group or individual) most credibly capable of applying enough force towards all other potential monopolists of a resource to prevent their monopolization of the resource and is making such a threat.  Making such a threat is what it means to "claim" a resource as property.  It is to be noted that the property need not be controlled or even directly affected by the owner; the owner is instead controlling others' behavior by force or threats.

A "right" is defined as an agreement between the property owner and an entity that the entity may undertake an action with respect to the property; the owner may also agree to threaten and apply force to assist the entity in accomplishing its action.  ("Natural" rights do not exist in this schema because nature is not an entity and enters into no agreements.)  "Trespass" is defined as entering property without a right to do so.  Property is "abandoned" if the owner ceases to assert, or is no longer able to credibly enforce, their claim.

=====

Let us assume those definitions for the sake of argument.

Let us assume a human is the owner of her body.

Let us assume that human gives a male the right to enter her body for the purpose of a sexual encounter and gives no other rights thereto.

Let us assume that pursuant to the sexual encounter the male deposits spermatozoa in the female's birth canal.

We note:

  1. The female owns her eggs because they are part of her body.
  2. The female owns the spermatozoa because they are abandoned in her body.
  3. The female owns the potential combination of the spermatozoa and the eggs because that is nothing more than a physical arrangement of her property.
  4. The female owns that property whether inside or outside of her body.
  5. If that combination is considered an entity, it is a trespasser.
  6. Trespass may be remedied by whatever means the owner of the property sees fit.

Thus if it is agreed that humans own their bodies, and bodies are thus property, unlimited abortion and slavery follow.

We suggest that if there are tensions between the implications of this schema and observed practices, they may be resolved by identifying the owners of the resources in question by applying the definitions proffered above rigorously.  We note in passing that Rothbardian libertarianism is rendered incoherent, and that while it may be claimed that "war is the health of the state," property is the state, and economics is war by other means.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Jared Livesey said:

Notes on Property, Self-Ownership, and Abortion

Simplified, functional definitions:

"Property" is any resource monopolized by force or threats.  The property "owner" is the "entity" (group or individual) most credibly capable of applying enough force towards all other potential monopolists of a resource to prevent their monopolization of the resource and is making such a threat.  Making such a threat is what it means to "claim" a resource as property.  It is to be noted that the property need not be controlled or even directly affected by the owner; the owner is instead controlling others' behavior by force or threats.

A "right" is defined as an agreement between the property owner and an entity that the entity may undertake an action with respect to the property; the owner may also agree to threaten and apply force to assist the entity in accomplishing its action.  ("Natural" rights do not exist in this schema because nature is not an entity and enters into no agreements.)  "Trespass" is defined as entering property without a right to do so.  Property is "abandoned" if the owner ceases to assert, or is no longer able to credibly enforce, their claim.

=====

Let us assume those definitions for the sake of argument.

Let us assume a human is the owner of her body.

Let us assume that human gives a male the right to enter her body for the purpose of a sexual encounter and gives no other rights thereto.

Let us assume that pursuant to the sexual encounter the male deposits spermatozoa in the female's birth canal.

We note:

  1. The female owns her eggs because they are part of her body.
  2. The female owns the spermatozoa because they are abandoned in her body.
  3. The female owns the potential combination of the spermatozoa and the eggs because that is nothing more than a physical arrangement of her property.
  4. The female owns that property whether inside or outside of her body.
  5. If that combination is considered an entity, it is a trespasser.
  6. Trespass may be remedied by whatever means the owner of the property sees fit.

Thus if it is agreed that humans own their bodies, and bodies are thus property, unlimited abortion and slavery follow.

We suggest that if there are tensions between the implications of this schema and observed practices, they may be resolved by identifying the owners of the resources in question by applying the definitions proffered above rigorously.  We note in passing that Rothbardian libertarianism is rendered incoherent, and that while it may be claimed that "war is the health of the state," property is the state, and economics is war by other means.

Where did you copy this from?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 2:53 PM, stemelbow said:

I mean that's fine but believers extend far outside of Mormonism. 

And I think they are entitled to some measure of inspiration and revelation.

On 10/23/2020 at 2:53 PM, stemelbow said:

If a non_mormon Christian prays to God and is impressed that God has said an abortion for her is a good thing, and does it, then you can disagree that it was God if you want, but that doesn't do much but suggest you think you know God more than she.

I think it does suggest more than that, since I'm not weighing what I know versus what she knows, but what the Scriptures say versus what they thinks God is telling her.

On 10/23/2020 at 2:53 PM, stemelbow said:

The "god is unreliable unless someone else agrees with Smac" doesn't seem to get us very far.  

I've never postulated that "god is unreliable unless someone else agrees with Smac."  I'm not even sure what that means.

I think it is pretty difficult to credibly and sincerely invoke the Bible as justification for elective abortion.

On 10/23/2020 at 2:53 PM, stemelbow said:
Quote

If one leg of this "stool" is wobbly, if it is at odds with the other legs, then some serious introspection is in order.

So the voluminous and consistent counsel from God's prophets and apostles on this issue is . . . wrong?

Very possibly.  It's been so in the past and will likely be so again, even if your a believer that's likely and possible.  

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
23 hours ago, Jared Livesey said:

... Let us assume those definitions for the sake of argument. ...

Well, I certainly appreciate your very kind invitation, but I'm reminded of the old saying about what @$$-u-me-ing does.  No, thanks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I think they are entitled to some measure of inspiration and revelation.

What if some non-Mormon gets far more inspiration and revelation than anyone in the Church ever has?  That'd be interesting in light of you deciding they are entitled to some measure...

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it does suggest more than that, since I'm not weighing what I know versus what she knows, but what the Scriptures say versus what they thinks God is telling her.

What does scripture say about modern day abortion rights?  

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never postulated that "god is unreliable unless someone else agrees with Smac."  I'm not even sure what that means.

I"m just pointing out that you are suggesting what is legitimate and what is not, in terms of revelation, it seems to me.  

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is pretty difficult to credibly and sincerely invoke the Bible as justification for elective abortion.

Elective abortion is not brought up.  So why do you think anyone would invoke scripture on this topic?  Someone opposing abortion has no biblical basis, it seems to me.  

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What if some non-Mormon gets far more inspiration and revelation than anyone in the Church ever has? 

Objectively or subjectively?

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That'd be interesting in light of you deciding they are entitled to some measure...

Impossible to test/prove, though.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

I think it does suggest more than that, since I'm not weighing what I know versus what she knows, but what the Scriptures say versus what they thinks God is telling her.

What does scripture say about modern day abortion rights?  

The scriptures say quite a bit about the sanctity of life, the value of little children, prohibitions against murder (and "anything like unto it"), and so on.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

I've never postulated that "god is unreliable unless someone else agrees with Smac."  I'm not even sure what that means.

I"m just pointing out that you are suggesting what is legitimate and what is not, in terms of revelation, it seems to me.  

But I'm not suggesting that I am the arbiter of such things ("agrees with Smac").

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

I think it is pretty difficult to credibly and sincerely invoke the Bible as justification for elective abortion.

Elective abortion is not brought up. 

And meth is not specifically "brought up" in the Word of Wisdom.  

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought and study.

The law is replete with analogies.  With judges using a case or series of cases to develop a legal principle, which principle can then be deployed in ways that are quite factually distinct from the original applications.

For example, consider Pierson v. Post, one of the most famous property law cases in American history.  Here are the facts:

Quote

Lodowick Post, a fox hunter, was chasing a fox through a vacant lot on December 10, 1802, when Pierson came across the fox and, knowing it was being chased by another, killed the fox and took it away. Post sued Pierson on an action for trespass on the case for damages against his possession of the fox. Post argued that he had ownership of the fox as giving chase to an animal in the course of hunting it was sufficient to establish possession. The trial court found in favor of Post.

On appeal after the trial, the issue put to the Supreme Court of Judicature of New York was whether one could obtain property rights to a wild animal (Ferae naturae), in this case the fox, by pursuit. The Supreme Court case was heard by Chief Justice James Kent, then one of the nation's preeminent jurists, and associate justices Daniel Tompkins (who would later become Vice President of the United States) and Henry Brockholst Livingston (who would go on to serve as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).

Here's the majority opinion:

Quote

If we have recourse to the ancient writers upon general principles of law, the judgment below is obviously erroneous. Justinian's Institutes, and Fleta, adopt the principle, that pursuit alone vests no property or right in the huntsman; and that even pursuit, accompanied with wounding, is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal be actually taken. The same principle is recognized by Bracton.

Puffendorf defines occupancy of beasts feræ naturæ, to be the actual corporeal possession of them, and Bynkershoeck is cited as coinciding in this definition. It is indeed with hesitation that Puffendorf affirms that a wild beast mortally wounded, or greatly maimed, cannot be fairly intercepted by another, whilst the pursuit of the person inflicting the wound continues. The foregoing authorities are decisive to show that mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him.[Citations omitted]

Pierson ended up creating or introducing "a coherent principle on how property can be first possessed by a human being."  "Determining the rightful ownership of the fox involved the essence of the human notion of 'property' itself and how it is created, and for this reason Pierson v. Post is included in nearly all Anglo-American property casebooks."

Pierson is used to establish basic principles of property ownership for all sorts of things, including oil and natural gas (which, like the fox, is ferae naturae, and hence subject to the "Rule of Capture," which is that the person who captures the wild thing is entitled to ownership of it).

So if Pierson v. Post, an 1805 case from New York about two hunters chasing a fox, can be used by oil and gas attorneys in Houston in 2018 to make a legal point about an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, then perhaps it is possible that analogies based on precepts from the Bible can and ought to be applied to the issue of elective abortions.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So why do you think anyone would invoke scripture on this topic? 

Because opponents of elective abortion often invoke the Bible in support of their position.  And also because some pro-abortion folks have, in fact, attempted to use the Bible to support their position on abortion (see, e.g., here).

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Someone opposing abortion has no biblical basis, it seems to me.  

I think there is an amble biblical basis.  I am also grateful that we have further counsel on this elsewhere in scripture, and ongoing counsel from living prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/25/2020 at 10:45 AM, Jared Livesey said:

 

  1. The female owns the potential combination of the spermatozoa and the eggs because that is nothing more than a physical arrangement of her property.
  2. The female owns that property whether inside or outside of her body.

aka, her child. 

Seems strange to think that my parents (actually just my mother, according to this assumption) own me, as I am the "potential combination of the sperm and egg".  I am her "property", apparently. 

On 10/25/2020 at 10:45 AM, Jared Livesey said:

 

  1. If that combination is considered an entity, it is a trespasser.

So, the woman's property is trespassing on her property?  Ok?

Do not parents have legal obligations to provide for and protect their children?  Can a baby trespass on her own mother's property?

On 10/25/2020 at 10:45 AM, Jared Livesey said:

 

  1. Trespass may be remedied by whatever means the owner of the property sees fit.

Cool, so I can now torture and kill anyone who trespasses on my property (for any reason) even by pulling them apart one limb at a time while still alive - and even if it is just a child, just a baby.  "Whatever means the owner sees fit", right?

Got it!

Those are some deluded assumption.  Quite messed up. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
47 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, that is not your position?

No.

Edit: I have to take that "no" back.  

It is my position that if it is agreed that humans own their bodies as defined in my post, then unlimited abortion and slavery follow ineluctably.

 

Edited by Jared Livesey
clarifying what my position actually is.
Link to post
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Objectively or subjectively?

Impossible to test/prove, though.

The scriptures say quite a bit about the sanctity of life, the value of little children, prohibitions against murder (and "anything like unto it"), and so on.

But I'm not suggesting that I am the arbiter of such things ("agrees with Smac").

And meth is not specifically "brought up" in the Word of Wisdom.  

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought and study.

The law is replete with analogies.  With judges using a case or series of cases to develop a legal principle, which principle can then be deployed in ways that are quite factually distinct from the original applications.

For example, consider Pierson v. Post, one of the most famous property law cases in American history.  Here are the facts:

Here's the majority opinion:

Pierson ended up creating or introducing "a coherent principle on how property can be first possessed by a human being."  "Determining the rightful ownership of the fox involved the essence of the human notion of 'property' itself and how it is created, and for this reason Pierson v. Post is included in nearly all Anglo-American property casebooks."

Pierson is used to establish basic principles of property ownership for all sorts of things, including oil and natural gas (which, like the fox, is ferae naturae, and hence subject to the "Rule of Capture," which is that the person who captures the wild thing is entitled to ownership of it).

So if Pierson v. Post, an 1805 case from New York about two hunters chasing a fox, can be used by oil and gas attorneys in Houston in 2018 to make a legal point about an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, then perhaps it is possible that analogies based on precepts from the Bible can and ought to be applied to the issue of elective abortions.

Because opponents of elective abortion often invoke the Bible in support of their position.  And also because some pro-abortion folks have, in fact, attempted to use the Bible to support their position on abortion (see, e.g., here).

Yes, Joseph's point about nothing being settled by an appeal to the Bible works here.  Scripture doesn't address the matter.  It's true anyone can think principles found in scripture support their take on the matter, and argue either way.  But that is not a God settled the issue, approach.  It can be argued either way, apparently.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is an amble biblical basis.  I am also grateful that we have further counsel on this elsewhere in scripture, and ongoing counsel from living prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure, but if you are prone to think the issue is settled, then you have a few issues to work through...which any one person can, I grant.  It could be possible that the Leaders of the Church are wrong.  They can be wrong, after all.  It could be possible, as well, that all members in their feelings of confirmation could be wrong, being halfway misled in the first place.  It could be true that God does not find abortion to be the problem that many think He might.  It may be that he has personally endorsed abortion for many elective abortion cases.  There is no way to know.  If so, then, we simply can't be sure a position of anti-abortion is a good or morally good one.  

Link to post
27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, Joseph's point about nothing being settled by an appeal to the Bible works here. 

That depends upon the paradigm in which the issue is addressed.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Scripture doesn't address the matter. 

It does.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's true anyone can think principles found in scripture support their take on the matter, and argue either way.  But that is not a God settled the issue, approach.  It can be argued either way, apparently.  

Hence the value of living prophets and apostles.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

I think there is an amble biblical basis.  I am also grateful that we have further counsel on this elsewhere in scripture, and ongoing counsel from living prophets and apostles.

Sure, but if you are prone to think the issue is settled, then you have a few issues to work through...which any one person can, I grant.  It could be possible that the Leaders of the Church are wrong. 

Hence the four legs of the stool.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They can be wrong, after all.  It could be possible, as well, that all members in their feelings of confirmation could be wrong, being halfway misled in the first place. 

"Could be possible..."

"Can be wrong..."

"Could be possible..."

"Could be wrong..."

"Halfwa misled..."

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It could be true that God does not find abortion to be the problem that many think He might. 

Seems quite unlikely, given the great weight of the evidence.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It may be that he has personally endorsed abortion for many elective abortion cases. 

Seems like unlikely, for the same reason as above.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is no way to know.  If so, then, we simply can't be sure a position of anti-abortion is a good or morally good one.  

By your reckoning, slavery, rape, torture, and every other wrongful act are up in the air.  "We simply can't be sure rape is wrong..." Right?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, smac97 said:

That depends upon the paradigm in which the issue is addressed.

How so?  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

It does.

Where?

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hence the value of living prophets and apostles.

Hence the four legs of the stool.

But even then they could simply be wrong.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Could be possible..."

"Can be wrong..."

"Could be possible..."

"Could be wrong..."

"Halfwa misled..."

True, I'm less settled on this matter and others, so I try to honestly convey that.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seems quite unlikely, given the great weight of the evidence.

"Seems quite..."

There is no evidence that carries any weight that I've seen.  So I"m not sure what you are talking about.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seems like unlikely, for the same reason as above.

I don't think so, and am not sure why you do.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

By your reckoning, slavery, rape, torture, and every other wrongful act are up in the air.  "We simply can't be sure rape is wrong..." Right?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not at all.  

Link to post
On 10/26/2020 at 9:33 AM, smac97 said:

... what they thinks God is telling her.

An indication one is halting between whether or not to use the singular they. 

Link to post
On 10/22/2020 at 4:55 PM, Meadowchik said:

Did you know that it is not uncommon for doctors to refuse permanent sterilisation like tubal ligations to some women? Did you know that women are more likely to be murdered when pregnant? Did you know that abortion is statistically safer than giving birth?

These are real-life obstacles which stand in the way of reducing abortions. Help women be safer and you will help reduce abortions.

I completely disagree with your assertions here. You must be very careful in your assessment of what passes for "research" these days that is nothing but cover for abortion apologists. The much touted "study" by Raymond and Grimes (an abortion practitioner and propagandist), 2012 in regards to the safety of abortion vs pregnancy and delivery was taken apart and debunked by Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University.

See here: http://www.wecareexperts.org/content/serious-misrepresentation-relative-safety-induced-abortion-compared-childbirth-published-l-0

In most states, Medicaid covers tubal ligation, IUD's and oral contraceptives. Most community clinics offers free oral contraceptives on demand. And disposable contraceptive barriers are free in every High School in this country in the Nurse's station. Every major pharmaceutical company offers free or low cost medication vouchers based on income. The notion that abortion is necessary because of lack of access to safe contraceptives is simply a lie promoted by the abortion proponents. 

The abortion industry is invested in the political debate not because they care so much about women's right but rather because they depend of the government's money for the survival of their gruesome and nearly criminal enterprise. For now it is the law of the land which in no way mitigates that ghastly immoral practice. Sadly, several decades of indoctrination have led some women to believe that killing their unborn for convenience is a "right". 

Those that want to compromise for political reasons will have to answer to a higher authority one day. Until then, they should ponder on the fact that such compromise has corrupted their integrity.

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

I am hinting at someone else.   One is failing to consider all individuals involved when they say abortion is safer than live birth.   That is why I asked "for whom?"  It is not safer for everyone.  It is a death sentence, in fact, for at least one.  When you consider all involved, abortion is not safer compared to a live birth.

The same is true for theft.  Help hungry and struggling families/individuals and you will help reduce theft.  Of course we should help the less fortunate and serve in every way possible to uplift the burdens of another so they don't feel compelled to steal to feed a drug habit or feed their family.  But in no way should we make theft legal simply because helping those struggling is a more effective measure.  We can do both, and should do both.  

 

Sure, looking at it from the perspective of the unborn, what reduces abortions more? 

Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 4:39 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I’m well aware of what women who choose abortion go through. In some instances it may be the result of an awful situation. In others it may be mostly a matter of convenience.  I am also aware of what the person being aborted goes through. 

And so you should support policies that are better at reducing abortions and which are more moral for all circumstances. 

Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 8:39 PM, Derl Sanderson said:

It seems clear to me that "more agency" could also include the option of placing a baby for adoption.

This isn't theoretical musing for me. Somewhere in this world there are three women who will always be held in almost worshipful respect by me, my wife, and our three children. We don't know who these women are, but I pray God will someday let me meet them so that I might meagerly attempt to tell them what their inexpressible faith and courage means to the five of us regarding their choosing to place their babies with my wife and I to raise. I can hardly conceive such a sacrifice, but I nonetheless witnessed it and consider these three examples of agency use as being among the most powerful I have ever known in terms of blessing the lives of others.

The ability to stay pregnant safely is not the same for every woman. It's not your place or mine to decide whether a woman should continue a pregnancy, it's hers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sure, looking at it from the perspective of the unborn, what reduces abortions more? 

From the perspective of the unborn, not having an abortion would reduce abortions more.  

People need to see it as a moral wrong, first of all.  That would help.  We need to have laws in place to protect the unborn, punish violators who intentionally kill innocent life for personal gain, and we need to have systems in place to support the woman to either 1) avoid pregnancy, or 2) put her baby up for adoption.  So that parenthood (which begins at conception) is indeed planned. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

From the perspective of the unborn, not having an abortion would reduce abortions more.  

People need to see it as a moral wrong, first of all.  That would help.  We need to have laws in place to protect the unborn, punish violators who intentionally kill innocent life for personal gain, and we need to have systems in place to support the woman to either 1) avoid pregnancy, or 2) put her baby up for adoption.  So that parenthood (which begins at conception) is indeed planned. 

Criminalization is not equivalent to no more abortions. I think people are more likely to consider elective abortion (leaving medically necessary abortions for the moment) morally wrong when they feel their safety and their family's including other children's safety, is not threatened by a pregnancy.

Link to post
14 hours ago, Islander said:

I completely disagree with your assertions here. You must be very careful in your assessment of what passes for "research" these days that is nothing but cover for abortion apologists. The much touted "study" by Raymond and Grimes (an abortion practitioner and propagandist), 2012 in regards to the safety of abortion vs pregnancy and delivery was taken apart and debunked by Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D., Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University.

See here: http://www.wecareexperts.org/content/serious-misrepresentation-relative-safety-induced-abortion-compared-childbirth-published-l-0

In most states, Medicaid covers tubal ligation, IUD's and oral contraceptives. Most community clinics offers free oral contraceptives on demand. And disposable contraceptive barriers are free in every High School in this country in the Nurse's station. Every major pharmaceutical company offers free or low cost medication vouchers based on income. The notion that abortion is necessary because of lack of access to safe contraceptives is simply a lie promoted by the abortion proponents. 

The abortion industry is invested in the political debate not because they care so much about women's right but rather because they depend of the government's money for the survival of their gruesome and nearly criminal enterprise. For now it is the law of the land which in no way mitigates that ghastly immoral practice. Sadly, several decades of indoctrination have led some women to believe that killing their unborn for convenience is a "right". 

Those that want to compromise for political reasons will have to answer to a higher authority one day. Until then, they should ponder on the fact that such compromise has corrupted their integrity.

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

 

You presume too much about my sources. I think that far more people are pro-choice because they understand that abortion criminalization is simply a bad kind of law. It leaves decisions that should be in the hands of women and doctors to total strangers.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Criminalization is not equivalent to no more abortions.

I never said it was.  Neither is anything else.   You asked what would "reduce" abortions.  I suggested a multipronged approach as best.  

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think people are more likely to consider elective abortion (leaving medically necessary abortions for the moment) morally wrong when they feel their safety and their family's including other children's safety, is not threatened by a pregnancy.

What percentage of people do you think have abortions because their safety is at risk?  How many of those people do you think are truly educated about the risks?  Perhaps all they need is an education.  If they feel threatened by their spouse, then they can receive support in other ways. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...