Abortion questions...?

Hi CS, That simply makes no sense though.We don't have laws for their own sake, we have laws so that they have an effect. Murder is outlawed because we want to discourage people from killing each other, not just because it seemed like a nice little law. We legislate for which side of the road people can drive on, not because we just love legislating, but because of the chaos that would result from not having such laws.You can't separate a law from its motivations. If people didn't have a problem with particular abortions, they would not picket abortion clinics and verbally assault patients. They would not care either way about the law. It's only because people do care that abortions are taking place that they are concerned with the law at all.It's easy to see how absurd this idea is. If people were only concerned with the law and not the abortions, then it would follow that anti-abortionists would be completely okay with abortions taking place, so long as those abortions were illegal. Do you really think that the anti-abortion lobby would be content to see the same number of abortions taking place if only they were illegal?You sound as though you are trying to portray this issue as being no more than an interesting legal quandary. If that were the case, anti-abortion loon Scott Roeder would have murdered a legislator rather than an abortion doctor. Roeder claimed he acted "preborn children's lives were in imminent danger.", not because he felt there was some legal issue.Anti-abortionists care about abortion law because they care about abortions. Nothing else makes the slightest sense.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

I think you've misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that they don't care about abortions at all. I was using the word "care" like I felt that Oni was... they don't care about the girl, they don't care about her family, then when she gets pregnant they care about the zygote. I think its being used in the sense of "paying attention to". I didn't mean to.I meant that people don't really pay attention to what other people are doing until they start seeing legislation about it, and then they do start paying attention.The whole pro-life / pro-choice dichotomy didn't come about until abortion became a legal debate with Roe v. Wade.Now, I don't doubt that there are people adequately characterized by Oni's post, who do actually care about particular abortions when they couldn't care less about the actual people, but my point was that he wasn't fully characterizing the pro-life crowd. Some of them still don't care about the zygote, but only joined the pro-life crowd as a response to the "legalization" of abortion.Well, that's what I think, I could be wrong.

Implied meaning is not relative. Implied meaning is the meaning that the speaker is meaning to say. If you mistranslate it it is YOUR fault. As we have shown you multiple times, no one is pro-abortion. The pro-choice movement is not about encouraging women to have abortions. This is why your label is incorrect, and I can't understand why you don't see this difference.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Okay, I follow what you're saying, but; If they don't care about the zygote either, one has to wonder why they give a shit about the law concerning zygotes. Of course, the answer to this is that it's just a religious problem. These people are more offended by the idea that their religious doctrine is being ignored than about any dead zygote. That isn't much of a defence.Mutate and Survive

Then in that case you are in fault, since I am the one who used the word in this discussion, with the implied meaning of the official definition of the word. I see the difference, but it is a non-sequitur. I used the word implying it's normal definition, and you misenterpreted it by thinking I was using it meaning something else.

I think in the best of worlds, abortion should be illegal since I think it is killing a human being. But, I do realize that in practice, this wouldn't be a smart move, because socially we do not see it as a morally wrong thing.The culture change is much more important then the law change. Only when the culture has changed can we then change the law.

If you changed the culture would there be any reason to change the law?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Because if it is a human being, then it is fundamentally wrong and the law should reflect that.

Why? Is it immoral to kill someone in self defense?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Depends on the situation, if the intention was self-defense (therefore, a genuine accident), then no. But if the intention was to kill, then yes.I certainly don't hope your trying to make it seem like I'm painting all this in black and white. What I'm saying is that if a foetus is a human being, then it is wrong to kill it.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

So anything prior to 11th week gestational age is not human and ok to abort?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Except you have presented no evidence that a foetus is a human being.BUT that still does not answer my question.Is it okay to kill in self defense? If the purpose is to save your live or save you from extreme danger, is it okay to protect yourself?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Are you saying that because I used the word ''foetus'', which only applies from the 11th week ?If so, then I'll say that this is very poor logic. It doesn't follow that I am saying anything prior to the 11th week isn't also a human being.It's the classic fallacy, if A implies B, then if not A, then not B.

But I did answer, I said if the intention is to protect yourself, then yes. If the intention was to kill the other, then no.It's the difference between, while being attacked, between accidentally pushing someone in front of a speedign car or purposefully doing so.

I think Granny and you ironed out where I would have taken my argument so I haven't much to add.But I'll comment to this: Then they are missing the point of legalizing abortions - it's just a medical benefit to do it legally under the care of experienced doctors.Worse would be to make it illegal and have these things taking place in someone's basement.- Oni