Can You Be Pro-life But Not Want Abortions Illegal?

[rkwright]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1694678' date='Nov 5 2008, 05:31 PM']I said yes. Don't hate.

The way I look at it is like this: if abortion is outlawed, women are still going to find ways to abort their children--starvation, coathanger abortions, etc. These can lead to the death of the mother as well as the child.

Abortion is never going to go away. If it's made illegal, I think things will get worse, not better.[/quote]

I heard someone say this the other day.

Lets compare here.

If murder is outlawed, people are still going to find ways to murder others - guns, knives, whatever. These can lead to the death of the murderer as well as the victim.

Murder is never going to go away. If it's made illegal, I think things will get worse, not better.

^ Those are your words with one term substituted.

We could set up clinics we're you can pay to murder the other person. That way its safe and regulated for you. We don't want bad things to happen to you while you murder someone else.

It just seems strange to me?

[philothea]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1695143' date='Nov 5 2008, 10:34 PM']Interesting question because a couple months ago I was talking to a religious sister and I was shocked when she made the comment that she was pro-life but she doesn't think Roe should be overturned until "there is a viable alternative for women". I never heard such a rationale in my life.[/quote]
What the heck? What kind of "viable alternative" is there? All uteruses are removed and humanity uses mechanical incubators instead?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1695244' date='Nov 5 2008, 10:05 PM']I heard someone say this the other day.

Lets compare here.

If murder is outlawed, people are still going to find ways to murder others - guns, knives, whatever. These can lead to the death of the murderer as well as the victim.

Murder is never going to go away. If it's made illegal, I think things will get worse, not better.

^ Those are your words with one term substituted.

We could set up clinics we're you can pay to murder the other person. That way its safe and regulated for you. We don't want bad things to happen to you while you murder someone else.

It just seems strange to me?[/quote]
However, murder is a special case. People don't kill one another because it's "immoral" or whatever, to them. They feel bad. I don't think people are deterred by the law in that case.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1694557' date='Nov 5 2008, 12:54 PM']I have no moral imperative to drive 30 rather than 34 miles an hour in my neighborhood, save perhaps that it is the law.[/quote]

We didn't say every person's decision is based on a moral imperative, but that every law is based on a moral imperative. Which should be edited to every just law is based on a moral imperative. A law banning the playing of violins between the hours of 1pm and 5pm is not just, nor does it have a moral imperative.

Speed limits have a moral imperative of protection, safety, and well being of people. Whether the speed limits are proper or appropriate doesn't make a difference, the point is that they are there to promote a morally good thing. In this case, the safety of people.

[rkwright]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1695389' date='Nov 6 2008, 12:10 AM']However, murder is a special case. People don't kill one another because it's "immoral" or whatever, to them. They feel bad. I don't think people are deterred by the law in that case.[/quote]

What? Your post doesn't make sense to me.

Its not about deterrence. Its the fact that killing an innocent person is immoral.

My post was saying that just because people are still going to murder others doesn't mean we shouldn't make it illegal. Its illegal because its wrong (a wrong we deem worthy enough of punishment). Regardless of how many people still do it.

[Deeds]

I think it would be possible to be pro-life but not want abortions to be illegal if there was good evidence that banning abortion would lead to more lives being lost through unsafe illegal abortion than would be saved by the ban. I do not believe that this is the case anywhere in the developed world at present. However, if someone identifies as pro-life using this logic, who am I to tell them they're not? We need everyone we can get.

[Aloysius]

by definition, if you support the law allowing a choice of abortion, you are pro-choice. period, end of story, it's very simple. pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice... most pro-choice people say they don't support abortion personally but they support the right of individuals to choose if they wish to do so.

if you're pro-choice, you're not pro-life (politically speaking, I'm sure if we were talking morally/philosophically, most people in the country would call themselves "pro-life" ie in favor of the right to life of every human individual... but if you support the government not illegalizing the choice of abortion, you are in abortion politics a "pro-choice" person)

fd, I would support anyone running for a federal office who supported the right of the individual states to decide exactly how to regulate/ban abortion (ie, the overturning of Roe v Wade which, in fact, restricts the states' rights on how they want to legislate the abortion issue, even though the Tenth Ammendment to the Constitution guarantees the states the right to legislate on any matter not dealt with by the Constitution)

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='philothea' post='1695267' date='Nov 6 2008, 12:16 AM']What the heck? What kind of "viable alternative" is there? All uteruses are removed and humanity uses mechanical incubators instead?[/quote]

Exactly. Plus, she clearly isn't truly pro-life because her statement effectively means she's fine with abortions until some better idea comes along. It's just nuts. Anyway, she voted for Barack Obama, so there's no way she truly cares about the unborn.

[Brother Adam]

Can you be anti-rape but want rape to be legal?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1695533' date='Nov 6 2008, 01:21 AM']What? Your post doesn't make sense to me.

Its not about deterrence. Its the fact that killing an innocent person is immoral.

My post was saying that just because people are still going to murder others doesn't mean we shouldn't make it illegal. Its illegal because its wrong (a wrong we deem worthy enough of punishment). Regardless of how many people still do it.[/quote]
I realize that, but I'm just pointing out that it's not a good comparison to abortion because the reason why people don't kill one another is not because it's illegal. However, you won't have everyone on the same page about abortion, and people would still seek them regardless of the law.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1694674' date='Nov 5 2008, 06:26 PM']WHICH MEANS that the tenth ammendment applies... fancy how that little ammendment applies to absolutely anything and everything that the Constitution "makes no judments about"... if the Constitution makes no judgements, then every state in the union has the absolute right to either legalize or illegalize it according to the Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land demands that this issue be left to the states or, if the states do not wish to do anything about it, to the individuals.[/quote]


that is not actually what the 10th ammendment says. It says

[i]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/i]

it does not say what the constitution "makes no judgement about" is a state power.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1694740' date='Nov 5 2008, 07:42 PM']That's like saying it's ok to use condoms to help prevent AIDS. People use that argument all the time. 'Oh, they're gonna have sex anyway...'

I voted 'no' (obviously) for reasons already stated on the previous page. If you are of the opinion that something is a sin, why on earth would you want it to be legal?[/quote]


No, you are confusing the issues.

"I beleive x is protected for the individual by the constitution"

"I think x is moral/I would like it to be legal"

are two distinct judgements.

I think bigotry is wicked and evil. That is one judgement. I beleive the first ammendment gives individuals the right to promote bigotry and ignorance. That is another judgement. Simply because I do or do not LIKE something the constitution allows does not mean the constitution conforms to my wishes.

I can judge that abortion is wicked and evil. I can also judge that the justices correctly extracted an implied right in the constitution. The second judgement has nothing to do with my views of the morality of the derived right, it is simply an objective judgement about the text and history of the constitution.