[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t see the 2 issues connected at all. A gun is just an object. On it’s own, it can do nothing, and it can be used for many other things other than homicide.
However abortion is an action, a willful action to take a human life deliberately. The comparison is a complete non-sequitur.[/quote]
Similarly, a suction hose, forceps and a scraper are just objects, which on their own are incapable of action, and can be used for other purposes than to end a pregnancy. It is the willful use of these for a specific purpose you would like to see banned, not the objects themselves. All right, fair enough, but you must concede that both arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, do take similar forms.
[quote]No you cannot get rid of it completely, evil will go to any lengths to accomplish it’s goal. But that likewise doesn’t mean it’s right or should be tolerated. There are plenty of laws on the books and those laws get broken all the time. So by the logic that laws get broken, does it mean that we should not have laws?
That’s what I think I am hearing from your post. People are going to do it anyway, so why try to stop it? Well, murder is illegal. Should murder be legal because we cannot stop people from killing each other? What lengths are we willing to go to ensure that nobody kills anybody ever? It’s impossible to think that way.
Should we allow stealing because people steal anyway? What lengths are we willing to go to ensure that no one steals from anything ever?
So because people steal, people are going to steal no matter what, shouldn’t we rather just make it legal to steal?[/quote]
If you read my post and understood from it that I was advocating a complete removal of laws, then you misunderstood my post, whereas CountingBeans seemed to understand it quite clearly. Just as you object to the comparison between the arguments for and against gun ownership and the arguments for and against abortion, I object to the comparison between abortion and murder, or theft, or rape, for the simple reason that whereas the latter is and always has been prohibited not only by law but by pre-legal societal convention, abortion is, under our present legal reality, not. Get the laws changed, and we will have an equivalency. But in any case that is not what my post was about at all.
If it were a comparison of abortion with, say, adultery or sodomy or blasphemy, serious crimes under one system of laws but not our present civil code, then we would have an equivalency. True, no human lives are lost when adultery or sodomy is committed (though some would say that blasphemy puts one’s immortal soul at risk, and that is more important than a mortal human life!) but all four are crimes that, like it or not, are not prosecuted as crimes any more in this country. And that’s really at the heart of what we’re talking about. Prevention of the act, sure, but also prosecution of the actors.
[quote]It’s very simply in that action you are taking in abortion kills another human being that can never be replicated or replaced. That human will never again exist, just like the termination of another human life outside the womb. It is a distinct, verifiable, separate human life. It is a scientific fact. If your reasoning for taking a human life is for any other reason than it’s a threat to another human life, you have no moral justification for doing so.
You cannot reduce this argument to the mechanics of the action. It’s what the in utero human is that makes taking it’s life wrong. You’re not getting a tooth pulled or getting a sex change, you killing off human life… Why? Largely because it’s inconvenient.
I challenge you to find a single solitary shred of scientific evidence that indicates that the fetal human is anything other than a human being. [/quote]
I think that you have just expended a lot of energy in challenging someone who is for all intents and purposes on your side. Yes, a fetus is human. Yes, it is alive. Okay? We agree.
Murder is by definition illegal, and unjustifiable. The killing of a baby may be unjustifiable, but unfortunately under some conditions it is not illegal.
Whether you think it should be or not does not alter the fact of the above sentence.
My question to you is, how far would you say we should go to prevent babies from being killed, and to prosecute the responsible parties if a baby is killed?
Changing federal and state law permitting legal medical pregnancy termination is an obvious first step, but of course prohibiting a thing does not guarantee that the thing will no longer exist. Assuming that the laws permitting abortion are changed, what other steps should be taken?
Well, the federal government could create a completely new agency whose purpose would be to investigate any claims of illegal abortions, prosecuting both the practitioner and the mother who used his services. They could have legions of informants infiltrating every OB/GYN ward in every hospital, and every gynecologist’s office in the country, ready to blow the whistle on any and all suspicious abortion-related activity.
Naturally, performing an illegal abortion would result in the loss of one’s medical license, but would also open one up for criminal prosecution for… perhaps manslaughter if performed in the first trimester, murder if performed thereafter. It would depend on extenuating circumstances.
Plus of course all miscarriages would need to be investigated as homicides, to ensure that the miscarriage wasn’t a self-induced abortion made to look like an accident. Any evidence of the mother doing drugs, drinking or smoking, or even ingesting a strong cup of mint tea, would be used against her to prove at least gross criminal negligence resulting in the death of her baby, and at most, malice and premeditation in a charge of murder.
We will need to build a multitude of prisons to house all of the murderesses and their accomplices, which of course would be good for the economy.
Ridiculous, you say? Not at all. Just being consistent. If abortion is murder, let’s treat it as such, and prosecute it accordingly.
How much money and energy does the government expend each year on a war against “terrorism” in this country? And how much liberty have we voluntarily given up so that the evil of terrorism may be effectively combatted?
Surely we should expect at least as much to be expended, and be willing to sacrifice as least as much, to save the lives of millions and millions of children lost to intentional or spontaneous abortion each year.
Right?
