Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

[Warp12]

So no, you don't "strongly encourage responsible behavior", and there's no way for you to square that circle to make anyone believe that "responsible behavior" is your primary concern here.

Incorrect. As I have made clear, I believe that the primary focus on choice is the downfall of both examples in the comparison you provided. I have also stated that I don't support the Texas legislation as it is not likely to achieve the intended goal, and it is too restrictive. I am not an advocate for banning abortion.

But, yes, I do encourage responsible behavior as the default. I don't endorse intentionally ending human life as a simple matter of convenience, in any case.

 

[bruto]

That is something that could be avoided by a relatively minor change in the legislation.

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

Unfortunately, I doubt either is the case. Such notions are frowned upon by those who are focused on the singular aspect of choice. Hence the message will always be clouded, and there will always be encouragement for the most irresponsible of behaviors.

Of course bad legislation can be changed, but it isn't, is it?

And of course people ought to behave more responsibly, but that is cold comfort to the victims of irresponsible behavior. What you consider an acceptable tradeoff is not acceptable to all, clearly. I think you are just plain mistaken if you think that eliminating draconian laws constitutes "encouragement for the most irresponsible of behaviors." If this were so, then rape and incest would be visibly diminished in such states. There should be reliable statistical evidence not only that states with such laws have fewer instances of rape, incest, and otherwise unwanted pregnancy than states without, but that these things have diminished after their enactment. Is such evidence in evidence?

 

[Warp12]

If this were so, then rape and incest would be visibly diminished in such states. There should be reliable statistical evidence not only that states with such laws have fewer instances of rape, incest, and otherwise unwanted pregnancy than states without, but that these things have diminished after their enactment. Is such evidence in evidence?

Odd argument. I don't see why one would expect abortion law to affect rape and incest stats? Or maybe I don't understand your point clearly.

Maybe you need to clarify your point. And maybe that includes where you come up with your personal definition of "Draconian" laws. Since you endorse Vermont abortion law, I am guessing we are pretty far from in agreement.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Odd argument. I don't see why one would expect abortion law to affect rape and incest stats? Or maybe I don't understand your point clearly.

It was your freaking point. But you are correct now, it was wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

Incorrect. As I have made clear, I believe that the primary focus on choice is the downfall of both examples in the comparison you provided. I have also stated that I don't support the Texas legislation as it is not likely to achieve the intended goal, and it is too restrictive. I am not an advocate for banning abortion.

This is what you said:

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

You quite clearly used the word "acceptable" in describing the effects of this law. Again, it's right there. We can all see it.

But, yes, I do encourage responsible behavior as the default. I don't endorse intentionally ending human life as a simple matter of convenience, in any case.

Once again, a conservative claiming to value the sanctity of human life as we close in on one million COVID deaths - a large number of which were easily preventable - rings a bit hollow.

If you were truly "pro-life" and comfortable "forcing people to behave responsibly" through legislation, you'd be pro-vaccine mandate. But you're not.

 

[Warp12]

It was your freaking point. But you are correct now, it was wrong.

It wasn't my point, at all. My focus was on abortion law. I don't expect abortion law to impact rape and incest stats.

 

[Warp12]

This is what you said:


You quite clearly used the word "acceptable" in describing the effects of this law. Again, it's right there. We can all see it.

I said it would be acceptable, although tragic...IF the law was accomplishing the intended goals. Which I made clear that I doubt is the case. I have also clearly stated that I don't endorse this law and that I don't endorse banning abortion.

You seem to be looking pretty hard for a boogeyman, here.

 

[johnny karate]

I said it would be acceptable, although tragic...IF the law was accomplishing the intended goals. Which I made clear that I doubt is the case. I have also clearly stated that I don't endorse this law and that I don't endorse banning abortion.

You seem to be looking pretty hard for a boogeyman, here.

"Acceptable, although tragic" is still "acceptable", and still an endorsement.

You advocated for this legislation. Again, we can all quite clearly read where you stated that. It's not ambiguous. Here, I'll quote it again:

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

No need to look for the boogeyman under the bed or in the closet when he's standing right in front of me declaring "I am the boogeyman".

 

[Warp12]

"Acceptable, although tragic" is still "acceptable", and still an endorsement.

You advocated for this legislation. Again, we can all quite clearly read where you stated that. It's not ambiguous. Here, I'll quote it again:



No need to look for the boogeyman under the bed or in the closet when he's standing right in front of me declaring "I am the boogeyman".

Lord have mercy. You are skipping over the entire context of what I was responding to. You are completely ignoring that I am against this legislation. You are misrepresenting my overall position, by a country mile. And you keep doing so.

I guess we are done here.

 

[johnny karate]

Lord have mercy. You are skipping over the entire context of what I was responding to. You are completely ignoring that I am against this legislation. You are misrepresenting my overall position, by a country mile. And you keep doing so.

I guess we are done here.

Fine with me. People can read your posts and come to their own conclusions.

I don't blame you from backpedaling and now running away.

But you still said what you said, and it's right there in black and white.

Here, I'll quote it again:

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

 

[Aridas]

That being said, I think that unfortunate situation would still be an acceptable, though tragic, tradeoff...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly, while at the same time encouraging healthy pregnancies to be carried to term.

To highlight this caveat - that's quite an if. Empirically speaking, such measures seem to have, at best, a trivial effect on reducing unwanted pregnancies, regardless of where they're implemented, and sometimes actually seem to increase such.

Unfortunately, I doubt either is the case. Such notions are frowned upon by those who are focused on the singular aspect of choice. Hence the message will always be clouded, and there will always be encouragement for the most irresponsible of behaviors.

Also, I think that you attempting to sneak blame onto the side of those who are willing to accept reality and human nature as they actually are and seek to mitigate such with humane measures that actually work, rather than even being willing to acknowledge those who are ideologically driven (or driven by cynical politics) to push harmful and ineffective measures that have significantly worse actual effect, is telling.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Idiot "pro-life" people don't understand that without choice, there is no responsibility.

 

[bruto]

Odd argument. I don't see why one would expect abortion law to affect rape and incest stats? Or maybe I don't understand your point clearly.

Maybe you need to clarify your point. And maybe that includes where you come up with your personal definition of "Draconian" laws. Since you endorse Vermont abortion law, I am guessing we are pretty far from in agreement.

You suggested that an abortion law should deter "unwanted pregnancies." You certainly cannot except from that category those which are the result of unwanted insemination, can you?

I certainly agree that we are far from agreement on any of a number of points. But on the question of "draconian" laws, you might consider the honesty of bringing up your horror of third-trimester abortions when some of the laws referenced here refer to first trimester abortions, with no exception for any circumstance of conception.

While I am certainly on the pro-choice side of the argument anyway, I believe that even a person who is not might honestly consider whether it is not "draconian" to have a law that prevents even a raped child from obtaining an abortion in the latter part of the first trimester, without any regard for her own well being, based on the detectable electrical impulse of an absent heart being called a heartbeat.

 

[Stacyhs]

"...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly."

This may be correct. Every single woman I ever knew who got pregnant when they didn't intend to thought "Oh, what the hell? I can always get an abortion if I don't 'act responsibly" and get knocked up! It's no worse than getting a root canal without novocaine! And I'm sure my parents will be really understanding and not upset with me at all. I can take some time off work, too. It'll be a little vacation."

 

[Warp12]

"...if the law were reducing unwanted pregnancies in general by forcing people to behave more responsibly."

This may be correct. Every single woman I ever knew who got pregnant when they didn't intend to thought "Oh, what the hell? I can always get an abortion if I don't 'act responsibly" and get knocked up! It's no worse than getting a root canal without novocaine! And I'm sure my parents will be really understanding and not upset with me at all. I can take some time off work, too. It'll be a little vacation."

So, the implication is that most women who have unwanted pregnancies achieve this milestone while behaving responsibly? This is known false. Most unwanted pregnancies occur due to lack of use, or improper use of, birth control.

Obviously nobody sets out to have an abortion. But, when society does everything it can to promote that choice and normalize it, even through legislation, you can't tell me that doesn't affect behaviors (of men and women) on some level.

 

[Aridas]

But, when society does everything it can to promote that choice and normalize it, even through legislation, you can't tell me that doesn't affect behaviors (of men and women) on some level.

Of course it affects behaviors. It does so in a whole bunch of ways. To sum up the effects of such in very brief form... Net change in unwanted pregnancies in the short run because of promoting actual choice? Not particularly significant. Net change in the longer run when it's universally accepted? Fairly certainly a decrease. Meanwhile, society as a whole ends up much happier and healthier overall as a result of pro-choice policy. Forced birther policy has almost exclusively negative effects on society, on the other hand.

 

[mgidm86]

So-called pro-lifers are just Karens with a cause.

 

[smartcooky]

So, the implication is that most women who have unwanted pregnancies achieve this milestone while behaving responsibly? This is known false. Most unwanted pregnancies occur due to lack of use, or improper use of, birth control.

And I wonder which demographic is most likely to fall into this category

Yeah, that's right, young people and poor people. This law impacts only them, no others.

MAKE NO MISTAKE! Even with this draconian law in place, rich people such as the mistresses of politicians, company directors, CEOs CFOs, etc have no trouble whatsoever getting an abortion any time they need one, and they will be able to keep it quiet too.

 

[bruto]

Of course because the people involved here are the people they are, don't forget also that many of those arch conservatives are also at the same time trying to legislate against birth control. The lunatics in Michigan are right now attempting a law that is in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court reversal of Connecticut's anti-birth control law back in the 1960's. In many states, birth control is not readily available without examination and prescription.

So to the irresponsibility issue I say ******** unless one comes out in favor of universal, over the counter birth control for all - a great unlikelihood in an area where repressive, paternalistic religious ideas are aimed, not at the welfare and health of citizens, nor, really, at life itself, but at the sin of unsanctioned sex.

 

[EaglePuncher]

But, when society does everything it can to promote that choice and normalize it, even through legislation, you can't tell me that doesn't affect behaviors (of men and women) on some level.

Can you explain in more detail how behavior will change or has changed?