On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 10:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2019 10:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:06:28 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 10:49:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Wow, now you're condoning murder of abortion providers? Even therapeutic abortion to save the mother? Incest? Abortion of non-viable fetuses?

FWIW, I'm not condoning murder of anyone. But the "therapeutic abortion
to save the mother" thing, and the incest and rape excuses, apply to
only a tiny proportion of abortions. Generally speaking, they're a red
herring.

The vast majority of abortions are for simple birth control. In other
words, those having sex aren't responsible enough to think ahead, or
competently use birth control. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt
their pleasure for a moment.

When their gamble goes wrong, they kill the baby before it's born. It's
simple - and a bit barbaric.

While I'm not disagreeing with you, but the cases where I knew the
details, actually not that many, a "birth control" abortion was
conducted in the first three months of pregnancy. Back in the day, bar
girls often got them and went right back to work the next day.

Unless they were mangled by some back-alley abortionist or killed themselves with one of the do-it-yourself remedies. That's barbaric.

And to Frank's point, it is complicated, but moralizing out people's sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless.

Hmm. So no sexual practice is immoral? We should teach nothing about
sexual behavior? Everyone should just do whatever they want in the
immediate moment? Really?

Wow, you're going of a cliff. People cannot do whatever they want because there are laws against incest, rape and lesser laws against public indecency. However, non-criminal sexual behavior is varied, and if you want to judge particular acts as immoral that's fine -- but they're going to happen.

Please recognize what you said above: "... moralizing out people's
sexual practices is like teaching abstinence -- useless." And yet we DO
have laws against many sexual practices like ones you named: incest,
rape, public indecency, etc. You argue against yourself.

What is complicated is deciding at what point the state's interest in preserving the life of a fetus outweighs the interest of the mother in not having a child. Different civilized and non-barbaric nations make different choices. https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws In US (and in many European nations), women are allowed to make the choice on their own, without any state involvement, based on their own religious and moral beliefs during the first trimester or thereabouts. That may offend some religious beliefs, but this is a nation of laws and not a papal state or caliphate.

So, according to that site, the U.S. allows easier access to abortion
for _any_ reason than about 128 other countries. IOW, the vast majority
of countries don't treat the act of abortion so cavalierly.

Why is that cavalier? Why isn't it consistent with "land of the free and home of the brave" and American concepts of personal autonomy? Moreover, keep reading, laws absolutely prohibiting abortion affect 5% of all women and represent laws in countries like Angola. Most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion. If this were a MHL, you'd be going nuts.

First, please understand my views. I've never said we should outlaw the
use of helmets (which would be the true opposite of a MHL), and I've
never said we should outlaw all abortions.

But "most of the nations with values similar to ours allow abortion"
only up to about 12 weeks into the pregnancy, although the laws vary
based on reasons for the request and other factors. The U.S. is in a
very tiny minority saying, in effect, "any time, for any reason." That
is cavalier by the definition.

Obviously, this is an astoundingly complicated issue. But we live in a
society where sex is an unabashed marketing tool, personal
responsibility is heavily downplayed, and hundreds of thousands of times
per year the birth control technique is "just kill the thing." No
"health of mother" excuses, no rape, no incest - just "I didn't use the
pill or a condom, so kill it."

We've always lived in that society. There has always been abortion, legal and illegal.

Yes, and there have always been murder, and rape, and theft, and
assault, and blackmail, etc. Yet we do have laws that attempt to prevent
them. Those laws almost certainly do reduce them.

You can pontificate and moralize, but that doesn't help much. Your morals and faith-based approach is no different than the people who promote helmets. You complain about having to wear a helmet (which you don't, but theoretically). Imaging being told that you have to carry a fetus to term simply because
Billy's condom broke or you got carried away in the back of the Chevy.

Jay, condoms don't break often enough to generate hundreds of thousands
of abortion requests per year. If they did, the manufacturers would have
long ago been sued out of business. The vast majority of those requests
come because birth control was deliberately not used. They are far more
often the result of "Oh, what the hell, let's do it." It's the opposite
of personal responsibility.

So what? The pregnancy happened. What's next? Forced motherhood? Unwanted children? Public stoning?

You have no end-game except to moralize about lack of self-control and personal responsibility. And if the mother is some god-forsaken harlot who lacks any self-control, what does that tell you about her ability to bear or raise a child?

Like it or not, most nations don't believe in America's cavalier attitude..

Most industrialized nations do. Pick one and look at the law and practice. Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20.../#.XUhtFFVKiUk

England, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...United_Kingdom

Risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman - In R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance, Lord Justice Laws said: "There is some evidence that many doctors maintain that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion, a state of affairs which is said to allow a situation of de facto abortion on demand to prevail."

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

Pick any place you might actually want to live. France is nice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Netherlands?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...he_Netherlands

And what is cavalier about recognizing a woman's right to control her body during the first trimester? Must the state be involved in every decision about reproduction?

-- Jay Beattie.