Maybe banning abortions only affects poor women. It doesn't affect all women. But if it reduces abortion rates with at least some women (which you admit), than that's better than not reducing abortion rates at all. And from my POV, making abortion illegal doesn't make women "suffer". It all depends on your perspective on this issue.
It's true that it depends upon your perspective, and your perspective is one of NO experience whatsoever with pregnancy or childbirth or childrearing. So it's easy to see why your POV is that criminalizing abortion doesn't make women suffer. Your POV was formed from LIMITED understanding. Banning abortions doesn't reduce the rate at all, that's been discussed ad infinitum.
So you are happy and content to support a law that discriminates against women based on their wealth, and please show me where I have ever admitted that banning abortions will decrease their rate, if anything I have consistently stated the opposite. The evidence is out there for any who care to remove the blinkers and look that banning abortions has literally no effect on their rate. Your right from your POV it doesn't make the woman suffer, that is because you treat pregnancy as a walk in the park and abortion as a mere "convenience", all this shows to me is a lack of understanding and knowledge of the subject matter.
You said that banning abortion discriminates against poor women, which implies that an abortion ban would prevent a poor woman from getting an abortion. You did imply that banning abortion reduces abortion rates among poor women, which is a part of the population of all women.
No it simply makes getting a SAFE abortion more difficult - this is why Gosnell (may he rot in hell) managed to keep going all those years (well that and either some big bribes or utter incompetence by the health department in that area) Gosnell filled that opening of providing cheap abortions - but that was at a horrific cost, a cost we may never know the full extent of
How do my ideas discriminate against women based on wealth? I never said that rich women should be legally allowed to have abortions, but poor women shouldn't. However, rich women tend to find loopholes around the laws that poor women couldn't otherwise find.
Wow some stretch to get to the above, I didn't imply that at all .. it discriminates against the poor because they would not have access to safe legal abortions, which would lead them to undertaking unsafe abortions, this would not apply to the rich as they could just go to a place where abortion is legal. It is discrimination based on wealth, so again the question remains are you happy and content to advocate legislation that discriminates against a set number of the population based on their wealth? Also in future I would expect you to not state that I agree or said something when in fact it is merely your interpretation of what you think I am implying. You should ask the question along the lines of "are you implying that ...", not just assume that is what I am saying .. Extremely bad debating and manners is what that is.
Main reason for abortion: not to have offspring. Good concept as it will prevent unwanted children and not add to the expansion of the welfare rolls.
WOW if they were so concerned with having an unsafe medical procedure, they should have just obeyed the law and not have had an abortion in the first place. "discrimination" implies rights being taken away. From my perspective, abortion isn't a right; it's a sick and twisted thing. You have a different worldview than I have. Your argument simply begs the question.
When a law is seen as unjust by the majority then the majority will ignore it, proof of that comes from the prohibition and before abortion was legal, the idea of laws is to act as a deterrent .. banning abortions achieves nothing except to make a few small minded people feel good about themselves, while they ignore the elephant in the room. we have had the debate on discrimination before, you were wrong then and you are still wrong now. Discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: Please do tell what question it begs?
And so we come around the circle again, please detail how you are going to stop a rich woman from getting an abortion, how is your anti-abortion law going to act as a deterrent to a person who can just go to a place where abortion is legal, while you are at it please detail how you are going to stop ANY woman from ordering items from the internet in order to procure an abortion, how are you going to stop illegal, blackmarket abortion clinics from operating .. in fact how the hell are you even going to know if a woman is pregnant in the first place. Laws are meant to apply to ALL people, yet you want to enforce a law the only affects a certain part of the population .. now there is equality pro-life style.
I don't have double standards. It shouldn't be legal for poor women OR rich women to have abortions. The only reason that abortion laws don't affect rich women is because rich women take advantage of certain loopholes to break the law. Your argument does beg a question. I am not trying to argue against abortion. I'm simply pointing out your fallacy. http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life004.html
Yet again you miss the point and fail to answer the question asked. Would a law banning abortion have an effect on the rich or not? and again your link is to a Christian based article, why are their moral judgements superior to anyone else's, please be specific, they are forming an answer based on their moral viewpoint, laws are not based on a specific moral viewpoint . .you do realise that don't you. You do understand why prohibition laws failed don't you, the same would be true for anti-abortion laws, they would achieve nothing. I still want you to detail how you are going to enforce an abortion ban for anybody, let alone the rich.
I couldn't care less if that article was written by Christians, atheists, pagans, hindus, witches, jews, buddhists, etc. What matters is their message. Care to address their arguments? I am willing to listen to your non-Christian arguments. Actually, that article wasn't even arguing against abortion, it was simply pointing out the fallacies of a certain pro-choice arguement. Even if I was pro-choice, I would still be against using fallacious arguments.
I have discussed this with you before I LIVE in a state where abortion is "banned" under law. Our abortion rates are much the same as yours. Why? Because of that "health of the mother" clause.
Ok, so find a non Christian article that gives the same response as the one linked to, shouldn't be to hard if, as you suggest, the argument is a fallacy. That site argues from the point of abortion being immoral, that is based on their viewpoint, for someone who considers abortion to be perfectly moral their argument against the reason is irrelevant in effect it does not deter from the intent of the reason. They have no argument to debate as far as I am concerned, you can accept that or not I really couldn't care less either way. So now will you stop hiding and answer the question?
Okaaaay Let us start by examining your link and see how many straw men, world view biases and outright blatant lies we can find http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life004.html Straw man 1 - set up a claim about the argument which is fallacious then attack that assumption. I do not think you will find a pro-choicer who thinks abortion is a "moral good" we often do believe it might be a moral necessity though. Even the framers of the Queensland Criminal Code - that bunch of amoral atavistic twonks had a clause allowing for abortion on medical grounds, Hence my term "moral necessity" as opposed to "moral good" World view bias - focusing on their beliefs about abortion instead of "under what circumstances is abortion a requirement" Do you really want me to continue?
1-Can it come from a pro-life non-Christian site? That article which I posted did not use any Christian arguments, so the religion of that site is totally irrelevant to the merits of that article's arguments. Not once did that article (at least the part which I quoted and posted on the forum) mention Jesus or the Bible. It's not like that article argued from a religious perspective. 2-If I posted from a non-Christian pro-life site, it would still argue from the POV of abortion being immoral. What do you expect me to do-quote pro-choice sites who make arguments against abortion? That's sort of an oxymoron. Answer those two above questions first.
It can come form any site that doesn't have a vested interest in the conclusion. Sam I f I post an article from a fascist site that doesn't mention anything fascist, does that mean the article is correct or is it much more likely to be based on the fascist ideals of the authors? The article you posted basis it's arguments on the morality of abortion, the authors, being Christians, base their morality on the teachings of the Christian church ergo it is a religious viewpoint, and as very well represented by Bowerbird the article starts with a strawman then attempts to discredit the strawman they created. If you can find a non-christian pro-life site that argues the point from a non christian moral point then fine -- good luck with that. You keep saying there are plenty of non-religious pro-life people and sites so it shouldn't be to hard to do should it. Though I would argue the the whole basis of the pro-life stance has it's roots in religious dogma.
Despite coming from a pro-life site, that argument which I had quoted DID NOT USE ANY RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS! I honestly should have just plagiarized that site (or lied and said that it came from an atheist site) to avoid your annoying nitpicking. Tell me where this argument explicity mentions Jesus or God or the Bible. You couldn't tell this came from a christian website if I didn't cite my sources. I could have even plagiarized that article and lied and said that I'm an atheist, and you still couldn't tell that it came from a christian site, you NITPICKER! I honestly wouldn't be surprised if an atheist pro-life wrote that article.
You could have done that and been dishonest with it .. however it would have made no difference, the language used in the article, even without knowing where it came from, alludes to it being based on religious views and my first questions back to you would have been .. on whose morals are you basing this, from where do you get your moral viewpoint, I suspect that if you were to offer a truthful answer to those questions we would see that your moral basis is religious in nature. An argument does not have to specifically mention any religious aspect in order to be religiously motivated, that can be determined by previous comments made and the very nature of the wording of the item. I believe that morals are purely individual, we have free-will and can choose to follow the accepted moral views or not, you choose to follow the morals inferred by a religious viewpoint, I do not . .however that does not imply that your moral basis is any better than mine, it merely shows that we each use our free-will to decide. You may call it nitpicking if you wish, I prefer to call it honesty. If you can find any evidence to support that statement then I will be more than happy to acknowledge that the article is in fact not based on a religious moral viewpoint.
You really are a nitpicker. Actually, my morals do come from my faith, however, I was pro-life even before I was religious. What does that tell you? Anyways, the ONLY reason I quoted that article is because it was written by people who are most likely more older and experienced than I am; and because of that, they word their arguments in ways that sound better than the way that I would word my arguments. I don't know how else to put this into words-their arguments simply sound better than my arguments, because of the way that they word their arguments. And since quoting their article only results in your nitpicky arguments, I will use my own arguments. I will compare abortion with other illegal activities (assuming that abortion was illegal.) Saying that banning abortion discriminates against poor women because they aren't wealthy enough to go overseas to get safe abortions is ridiculous. That's like saying that prostitution should be legalized because banning prostitution discriminates against poor people because they aren't rich enough to go overseas to a country where that twisted practice is legal. The only way that your argument works is IF you have the belief that abortion is a woman's right. Your argument (that banning abortion discriminates against poor women) doesn't work if somebody believes that abortion is murder and should be illegal. Again. I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm simply pointing out a fallacy in your statement.
So where did you moral objection come from before you were religious? I will just point you to response #217 from Bowerbird. You are proposing a strawman that pro-choicers say abortion is a "moral good" and then attacking your self created strawman to show it is not .. now that is a fallacy. and you are also changing the context of the argument, you have moved away from whether it is moral to whether it is a right . two different things, so which are you arguing that abortion is morally wrong or abortion is not a right.
1-I don't know how to answer your question. It's inexplainable. Everybody has different beliefs. Your question is the equivalent of me asking you, "where do your morals come from"? Both me and you have morals which come from our different perspectives of viewing the world. That's the best way to answer your question. 2-Neither. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of arguement 5, which begs the question.
