Reducing abortions

[Ken]

Trying to address moral issues through the criminal justice system is almost always a failure and results in egregiously discriminatory applications of the law.

According to the current poll results, 73% of us agree that the criminal justice system is not the best way to reduce abortions. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Because that is what it means when you repeal Roe v. Wade in order to outlaw abortion rather than leaving it legal and attempting to reduce the rate of abortions through other means. At least half the states in this country have laws that absolutely do criminalize abortion with severe penalties like jail time. They are all suspended as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect but the moment that it is ever repealed, abortion is criminalized in at least half the country.

Are you saying that 73% of Mennonet participants support Roe v. Wade? I seriously doubt that.

[Josh]

Black people used to be considered somehow not human lives in America in the past, with all kinds of “scientific” explanations why. It is exactly the same kind of erroneous reasoning as arguing that tiny babies are not “human life”.

Ken, what if I said that there is valid debate and many perspectives showing that black humans aren’t actually human, quoted the SBC on the topic, and then complained when you call me “pro-slavery”?

What about a statement like this? “The criminal justice system is the wrong thing to use against slave owners. The topics of personhood for slaves is very complex and there are valid views on both sides.” Would you agree that this got “weaponised” by “abolitionist activists”?

Or maybe we should just agree that all human life is sacred, and valid human life, and should be protected against being murdered?

I think I explained where I am coming from.

When the right-to-life movement advocates for the same penalties for the IVF industry as it does for abortion then I will actually agree that they do believe that all life is equally sacred and valuable. Would you support, for example, an extension of the current Texas law to IVF such that anyone in the country can sue anyone for $10,000 who participates in an IVF procedure in Texas that results in “surplus” embryos that are either abandoned to the prison of a deep freeze or discarded? Should I be able to go around and sue any family that used IVF on the grounds that they killed a human life? Or alternatively, sue anyone who has a miscarriage due to their own negligence? If not, then you are not treating all life as equally sacred. The only difference is that I admit it upfront that in real life, the lines are ambiguous and difficult and not conducive to fair and just enforcement through the criminal justice system. While you do not.

As I have said earlier on this forum I think IVF that leaves dozens of babies sitting in a freezer is wrong and immoral, and eventually leads to murder. It is gruesome and disgusting to create dozens of frozen, unwanted embryos. And yes I’d support criminal penalties for creating an embryo with IVF with any other plans than immediate implantation in the mother who wanted it. I realise edge cases happen so let’s not talk about edge cases.

There is no moral or legal principle of “miscarriages due to negligence”. That isn’t murder. Murder is intentionally trying to end a human life, and that’s what I’m saying is wrong.

[Ken]

Black people used to be considered somehow not human lives in America in the past, with all kinds of “scientific” explanations why. It is exactly the same kind of erroneous reasoning as arguing that tiny babies are not “human life”.

Ken, what if I said that there is valid debate and many perspectives showing that black humans aren’t actually human, quoted the SBC on the topic, and then complained when you call me “pro-slavery”?

What about a statement like this? “The criminal justice system is the wrong thing to use against slave owners. The topics of personhood for slaves is very complex and there are valid views on both sides.” Would you agree that this got “weaponised” by “abolitionist activists”?

Or maybe we should just agree that all human life is sacred, and valid human life, and should be protected against being murdered?

I think I explained where I am coming from.

When the right-to-life movement advocates for the same penalties for the IVF industry as it does for abortion then I will actually agree that they do believe that all life is equally sacred and valuable. Would you support, for example, an extension of the current Texas law to IVF such that anyone in the country can sue anyone for $10,000 who participates in an IVF procedure in Texas that results in “surplus” embryos that are either abandoned to the prison of a deep freeze or discarded? Should I be able to go around and sue any family that used IVF on the grounds that they killed a human life? Or alternatively, sue anyone who has a miscarriage due to their own negligence? If not, then you are not treating all life as equally sacred. The only difference is that I admit it upfront that in real life, the lines are ambiguous and difficult and not conducive to fair and just enforcement through the criminal justice system. While you do not.

As I have said earlier on this forum I think IVF that leaves dozens of babies sitting in a freezer is wrong and immoral, and eventually leads to murder. It is gruesome and disgusting to create dozens of frozen, unwanted embryos. And yes I’d support criminal penalties for creating an embryo with IVF with any other plans than immediate implantation in the mother who wanted it. I realise edge cases happen so let’s not talk about edge cases.

There is no moral or legal principle of “miscarriages due to negligence”. That isn’t murder. Murder is intentionally trying to end a human life, and that’s what I’m saying is wrong.

If all life is equally sacred then there isn’t any line or “edge” and there aren’t any “edge cases” as you put it. The fact that you want to just hand-wave away what you call “edge cases” and not talk about them suggests to me that you do indeed have lines and are willing to use the criminal justice system to enforce one side of the line but not the other.

I don’t think miscarriages should be criminalized either. But not all killing involves intentionally trying to end a human life. If someone drives drunk with their kids in the car and the resulting car crash kills the their children we would most certainly prosecute them. If someone is warned that they are at a high risk of miscarriage due to age or other physical conditions and they go ahead and risk pregnancy and it ends in miscarriage, is that really any different? Not really if you believe the child killed in the car wreck is equal to the fetus killed in an early miscarriage. And you believe that both deaths were caused by the negligence of the parent.

[temporal1]

Lots of posts. ^^^ My 2 cents:

When a person gains a soul however isn't really the debate we're having.

The real question still and always has been:
Given that "obviously at the point of fertilization ... a genetically unique individual human form[s]"
“What does a just society owe the indisputably human life that indisputably begins at conception?"
"Whose Justice, Which Rationality" gets to decide?

George Weigel addresses this very well. Thank you for sharing his essay.
If i’m reading correctly, GW emphasizes reliance on SCIENCE to address the USSC.

i agree, and, why not? without exception, all the science since RvW supports life begins at conception.
the science readily available to ALL of us in our living rooms is astounding, i’ve been amazed by it all these decades.

2 living human cells merge to begin a new, 100% unique, primary stage, living human. human, in every possible way. nothing else.
science graphically reveals the EXPLOSION of growth, the speed and complexity of which is beyond human imagination.
some humans somehow IMAGINE this does not represent human life. (this, in itself, reflects how fallible human thinking can be.)

the EXPLOSION of human growth upon conception is NOT isolated to the newly conceived.
the mother’s body simultaneously explodes on the molecular level to accomodate, nurture, protect the newly conceived.
science now reflects, the mother’s body benefits from each and every pregnancy, even when full term living infants do not result.

so much of life, God’s design, is HIDDEN from human understanding, even high science. humans have managed to thrive without high science. for the purposes of the USSC, contemporary meager science is more than adequate.

in the U.S., faith is valued.
in this instance, science simply supports faith, so, no need to ask the USSC consider that factor.
pro abortion folks constantly bring CHRISTIANITY up in the context of desire to BATTER opponents - resorting to false+emotional claims that the world is doomed if murder is criminalized.

murder IS criminal. it’s broadly understood, the way to avoid prosecution is to NOT murder. most “get it.”
to suggest humans are not capable of choosing PREVENTION, is a deep insult to everyone’s human intelligence.

we think we’re so smart. now, to act like it.

i don’t know: is it possible for pro life science students to receive passing grades in gov schools today?
if they eventually graduate, are they employable?

every student knows how to get passing grades: answer as taught.

[temporal1]

Trying to address moral issues through the criminal justice system is almost always a failure and results in egregiously discriminatory applications of the law.

According to the current poll results, 73% of us agree that the criminal justice system is not the best way to reduce abortions.
Why do you keep bringing that up?

It’s a COMMON rant in mainstream media. Memorized talking points devoid of, detached from, reality.
i’m sure you know.

btw.
only 1 chose prosecution of mothers. “statistically zero.”

[Josh]

I think I explained where I am coming from.

When the right-to-life movement advocates for the same penalties for the IVF industry as it does for abortion then I will actually agree that they do believe that all life is equally sacred and valuable. Would you support, for example, an extension of the current Texas law to IVF such that anyone in the country can sue anyone for $10,000 who participates in an IVF procedure in Texas that results in “surplus” embryos that are either abandoned to the prison of a deep freeze or discarded? Should I be able to go around and sue any family that used IVF on the grounds that they killed a human life? Or alternatively, sue anyone who has a miscarriage due to their own negligence? If not, then you are not treating all life as equally sacred. The only difference is that I admit it upfront that in real life, the lines are ambiguous and difficult and not conducive to fair and just enforcement through the criminal justice system. While you do not.

As I have said earlier on this forum I think IVF that leaves dozens of babies sitting in a freezer is wrong and immoral, and eventually leads to murder. It is gruesome and disgusting to create dozens of frozen, unwanted embryos. And yes I’d support criminal penalties for creating an embryo with IVF with any other plans than immediate implantation in the mother who wanted it. I realise edge cases happen so let’s not talk about edge cases.

There is no moral or legal principle of “miscarriages due to negligence”. That isn’t murder. Murder is intentionally trying to end a human life, and that’s what I’m saying is wrong.

If all life is equally sacred then there isn’t any line or “edge” and there aren’t any “edge cases” as you put it. The fact that you want to just hand-wave away what you call “edge cases” and not talk about them suggests to me that you do indeed have lines and are willing to use the criminal justice system to enforce one side of the line but not the other.

I don’t think miscarriages should be criminalized either. But not all killing involves intentionally trying to end a human life. If someone drives drunk with their kids in the car and the resulting car crash kills the their children we would most certainly prosecute them. If someone is warned that they are at a high risk of miscarriage due to age or other physical conditions and they go ahead and risk pregnancy and it ends in miscarriage, is that really any different? Not really if you believe the child killed in the car wreck is equal to the fetus killed in an early miscarriage. And you believe that both deaths were caused by the negligence of the parent.

That is a ridiculous comparison.

[Bootstrap]

Trying to address moral issues through the criminal justice system is almost always a failure and results in egregiously discriminatory applications of the law.

According to the current poll results, 73% of us agree that the criminal justice system is not the best way to reduce abortions. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Because that is what it means when you repeal Roe v. Wade in order to outlaw abortion rather than leaving it legal and attempting to reduce the rate of abortions through other means. At least half the states in this country have laws that absolutely do criminalize abortion with severe penalties like jail time. They are all suspended as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect but the moment that it is ever repealed, abortion is criminalized in at least half the country.

Are you saying that 73% of Mennonet participants support Roe v. Wade? I seriously doubt that.

I suspect that 73% of Mennonet participants might agree that:

1. We represent the Kingdom of God, we do not represent Caesar.
2. We need to be a testimony to the world through our own actions - providing for women in this situation, evangelizing, etc.
3. Our testimony needs to be a witness of genuine love for these women and for their children.
4. Caesar should also protect life. But Caesar does not represent the Kingdom of God and may not reflect our values.
5. When the Kingdom of God gets too wrapped up in trying to get Caesar to do the right thing on our behalf, we tend to lose our way.

But we'll see. I'm sometimes surprised what people disagree with.

[Soloist]

As far as the soul goes, God clearly states a foreknowledge of Jeremiah before he was even in his mother's womb.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

A unique human is created at conception and God has shown us through Scripture that the soul is preborn in the womb. Now at what point? that is irrelevant to determining life. I would say the point of life for a new chicken is also fertilization. I don't think its wrong to eat a chicken anymore then I think its wrong to eat a chicken egg.

[temporal1]

On this forum, of those who vote in political elections, i would guess about half, or more, vote for RvW, altho they describe themselves as pro life. They say they feel other matters are more important, thus, their vote. (or, if not voting, agreement or moral support.)

In my view, this doesn’t hold water.

i see ending promotion of abortion (because promotion is what RvW led to, NOT “safe, legal, rare”) - as relatively easy and finite.
end for-profit slaughter, better educate and support those in need of it, then move on to “more important” matters.
profiteers are responsible for making this APPEAR more complex than it is. don’t fall for it.

after all, example, Ken, describes himself as pro life and he lives it. he empathizes with others who (are not as smart as he) so supports abortion. question: why aren’t they as smart as he? could this be a failure of education? and political policy?
why, i think it could be!! how can everyone be as smart as Ken? surely this is not asking too much.

there is no valid reason people can be taught to resort to gruesome abortion, but cannot be taught life-affirming alternatives.

a society in which mothers are killing their young for their convenience and others’ profit does not offer the basis of much hope for any matter. “you can’t get there from here.”

[temporal1]

By this logic, we should decriminalise all murder.

(i think) it’s possible to acknowledge unique aspects of conception/abortion, even in secular legal systems.

1. females, adults, teens, children, do not conceive on their own.
2. rarely do females abort alone.
3. the matter of for-profit, premeditated murder is viewed specially harshly in all other cases. this current situation of legal protections and funding for these otherwise deplored services should be in question. should abortion corporations continue to be the exception?

(i think) i understand your basic premise. that murder is murder.
(i suppose) like the popular (inane) phrase, “love is love,” i think there is need to understand better.
and, (i think) our feeble human minds are capable of better discerning. (ex., lust is not love.)

(imho) the numbers of females who attempt to abort on their own is small, and, they are in varying degrees of need and mental instability. i would hate to be in their place. part of this behavior could be hormones-gone-wrong. hormones play a huge role from the moment of conception. it’s fascinating, really.

(i think) recent laws that specify women should be protected from prosecution, while abortionists prosecuted, is an important specification in human law. it should be given a fair chance to be played out. then review real life results.

(i think) new human laws should be considered as EXPERIMENTS until real life results prove them effective or damaging.
it’s absurd to pass untested laws and then enforce them “forever” even after they’ve failed.

i’d like to see legal EXPERIMENTS written with parameters and end dates which would build in protection in case of failures.
the vast majority of the thousands of new laws passed every year are untested experiments.

how much better if RvW had been written as a legal EXPERIMENT, not immediately law of the land??!