Abortionists Are Such Wonderfu People

[MSimon]

The North didn't BUY the slaves.

Is it so hard to comprehend that human life should not be held ransom to other people's money?

So you think war is cheap? That we didn't pay a ransom and a half to fight that war? Not to mention the piles of bodies?

I dunno D. You seem to have a lot of trouble THINKING about this. Emotion seems to cloud your reason. The same thing you claim the left does.

[Diogenes]

I'll reply to your points tomorrow. I've suddenly became somewhat busy.

[cuddihy]

I think it should be tolerated only as a necessary medical procedure. Not for convenience.

And for people who don't agree with that there will be a black market.

Thus everyone's needs will be served.

The moralists can pretend they have stopped the practice and those who want it bad enough will be served. Kind of like with illegal drugs.

My solution is to change people's minds. i.e. convince the women that abortion is a bad idea.

By this logic msimon slavery should never have been illegal since there is black market for it.

yes, by the way there is a black market for chattel slavery even today. They call it the much more refined name of "human trafficking" instead, but it still exists. By your logic, it should remain legal.

[MSimon]

Tom,

The question is: how hard is it to hide. Abortion is a lot easier to hide than slavery.

You have RU-486, the morning after pill. And who knows what all else.

The Supreme court with its trimester system got it about right. Not only that, it is in accord with Jewish law. i.e. abortion in the first 40 days is considered the minorest of infractions and not punishable.

BTW if the Jewish laws on slavery were in effect at the founding we might never have had a war over it. The laws are rather humane. The slave was never considered a beast or of lesser humanity. And then there was the Jubilee year. Every 49 years all the slaves had to be released. There were rules about children. It was quite evolved.

Pity the Southerners were more Christian than Judeo.

The steam engine and the electric motor would have ended slavery in time. Saving a rent to the nation that is still not fully healed.

====

What worries me given the drug war precedent is pregnancy testing and vagina police. It will turn women to anyone who will protect them from government intrusion.

Do you really want to give the government an opening to poke into your sex life?

You imagine how it will be if government is run by moral people.

How would it work if government was run by immoral people? As is usually the case. What could possibly go wrong?

====

In 1920 no one could imagine how Alcohol Prohibition could go bad. "Hell will be forever rent." - Billy Sunday - minister.

Thirteen years of gang warfare and police corruption and children coming to school drunk and the people had more than enough.

====

Think of police pressuring women for sex to keep quiet about some infraction. It will happen.

====

Which is why I'm willing to help anyone who wants to do something about abortion without getting government involved. So far among all the antis I have discussed it with I have never had one enlist me (except for some friends I met at a TEA Party - a little too Christian for my taste - but I do give them publicity).

Rockford Pro Life

It would be really nice if there was a secular anti-abortion group. I haven't seen any yet. Why?

====

Government can keep the streets somewhat safe.

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x934175167/A ... -to-expand

ROCKFORD — The Rockford Police Department put the open-air illegal drug market in its cross hairs three years ago with a unique and controversial program.

The result of its Alternative Drug Program, which some dub “Hug a Thug,” has been a steady decrease in crime in two Rockford neighborhoods.

“It was basically organized crime,” said Larry Mills of his neighborhood before Rockford initiated its west-side ADP. “But we have chased a lot of the drug dealers from this neighborhood.”

Mills is the new president of the Coronado-Haskell Neighborhood Association, which is surrounded by the west-side ADP. His family has owned rental properties in the area since the 1950s.

“It has been a big turnaround for us,” Mills said. “A lot of it has to do with being vigilant and working with the Police Department. It is not a high-income neighborhood, but people are not afraid to walk the streets anymore.”

Launched in 2007, ADP has been proved successful with sweeps to remove drug dealers from the streets and sidewalks of two neighborhoods: the east ADP site is bounded by Walnut Street, Kishwaukee Street, 15th Avenue and the Rock River, while the west ADP site is bounded by Whitman Street, the Rock River, Jefferson Street and Kilburn Avenue.

As you can see - for the most part police in my city have given up on the drug war. All they try to do now (for the most part) is make the streets safe.

There are limits to what police can do in a free society.

[Diogenes]

Is it so hard to comprehend that human life should not be held ransom to other people's money?

My dear D,

You are talking about how people ought to behave. I'm talking about how they actually behave.

That is the disconnect between us. You imagine that you can get your utopia by the force of government guns. I'm telling you that even if you have the guns you can't get what you want.

I am saying no such things. I am saying we can have civilization if we have a reasonable and agreed upon set of rules which people are expected to follow.

By your own admission you are dealing with "ought". As an engineer through and through I prefer to deal with "is". And that includes human factors.

The majority of abortions revolve around economics (you can look it up). Deal with it.

As did slavery. Both issues have quite a lot in common. In any case, the economics of abortion are not quite what you are suggesting. Obviously the Abortion industry makes a lot of money manufacturing dead people. People don't have abortions because they are poor, they have them because they use poor judgment.

The reason you have so much trouble with me on some subjects is that I like my meat raw (metaphorically speaking) and my lunch naked.

As I have stated so many times: my preference on this question is to change people's minds. It is difficult (heh). It is the only solution that doesn't require vast expense for little result. Or vaster expense for some result.

No one changed peoples mind to make abortion legal. The Liberal stuffed supreme court decreed it based on no recognizable or legitimate legal principle. They can't even defend their exercise of raw judicial power after the fact! The last ruling on Abortion was Stare Decisis! (It means Shut the F*ck up! )

Here is where you are coming from (IMO): you hate the social engineering of the left. I hate the social engineering of the left and the right. Which position is more consistent?

This is another example of a fallacy of false equivalency. The Right is not doing social engineering. The Right is simply defending the accepted rules of society in an attempt to preserve civilization.

I know you persistently assert that keeping people away from incredibly lethal and dangerous substances is "social engineering" but it is not. That is just the nuts and bolts of maintaining a civilization.

Let me tell you a little secret I learned long ago: social engineering with government guns doesn't work. Two prime examples: Alcohol Prohibition, Drug Prohibition.

You keep saying it doesn't work. It worked in China. I think Alcohol Prohibition would have worked as well had it been adopted gradually. Because the frog was dropped in hot water, it jumped out.

In my town the police have given up on stopping the drug trade. They have scaled back to what they can actually accomplish. Getting the street dealers off the streets. Now it could be done for far less expense by legalizing. But that will come.

This bit on the drug trade might prove instructive:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... sible.html

You might also wish to read the longer article linked (and weep).

Now we could get together on a lot of things (say preventing abortion) if you took government guns off the table. IMO the resort to government guns to solve social problems (barring genocide) is the first resort of the weak minded.

A friend of mine told me recently that I would have better results if I was more diplomatic. Well that is not my style. Like an umpire I calls 'em as I see 'em.

If you take the government guns off the table for abortion, then you have to take them off the table for adult murders as well. That is true equivalency, not the false kind where you say this is murder, but that is not. This is a person, but that is not. I am not choosing to simply redefine murder by adding legal technicalities to it's definition about who is and who is not a person, and when they are and when they are not .





You have previously mentioned punishing women for getting an abortion. This notion is of course, out of context. Let us put it back into context.

During the roman empire, a slave could be killed on the whim of it's master. To punish the master for exercising a right that he believed to be his would be wrong. Only after the legal system declares that the slave is a human and must not be killed under penalty of law, would it be right to punish a master for killing his slave.

While women have been led to believe that Abortion is not a crime, it would be wrong to punish them for committing that sort of murder.
The legal system "justified" it.

[Diogenes]

And for people who don't agree with that there will be a black market.

Thus everyone's needs will be served.

The moralists can pretend they have stopped the practice and those who want it bad enough will be served. Kind of like with illegal drugs.

My solution is to change people's minds. i.e. convince the women that abortion is a bad idea. But something will need to be done about the economics since most abortions are done for economic reasons.

I propose raising welfare payments. So does the Catholic Church.

I'm pretty sure we could end abortion (mostly) by paying pregnant women $50K a year for 23 years (long enough to get the kid through college). For some reason I'm not entirely clear on Conservatives hate the idea. I mean what is a life worth?

MSimon, I often find it futile to argue with you (on certain issues) because your arguments are always so full of false equivalences.

The North didn't BUY the slaves.

Is it so hard to comprehend that human life should not be held ransom to other people's money?

So what social problems are you willing to go to war over?

Murder and Slavery. How about you?

[Diogenes]

OK,

You want to do social engineering? Fine. Shouldn't you start gathering information on how humans actually behave?

The target population demographics. Culture. Economics. Motivations. etc.

And what if abortion is Darwin in action? i.e. people not fit for the current environment are not reproducing. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

As it is currently constituted, Abortion is indeed Darwin in action. People who are evolutionarily unfit to be parents (Those who could kill their offspring) are weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

That is no argument for allowing it to continue. If Darwinism is allowed to be the basis of society, we would be bringing back slavery and other ancient barbarity.

[Diogenes]

The North didn't BUY the slaves.

Is it so hard to comprehend that human life should not be held ransom to other people's money?

So you think war is cheap? That we didn't pay a ransom and a half to fight that war? Not to mention the piles of bodies?

I dunno D. You seem to have a lot of trouble THINKING about this. Emotion seems to cloud your reason. The same thing you claim the left does.

The money was spent and the bodies lost because it couldn't have been done in any other way. In any case, nobody bargained with the slavers for money. Appeasement is not the correct answer when dealing with evil.

[MSimon]

I am saying no such things. I am saying we can have civilization if we have a reasonable and agreed upon set of rules which people are expected to follow.

And the point of making rules you know will be flouted significantly is? I learned the answer to that in grade school when we studied Alcohol Prohibition. To reduce the respect for the law.

They teach in the military: never give an order you KNOW will not be followed. You lose command authority when you do that.

So if you can't do it by laws, would you consider doing it another way? I'll help.

The Left fears the government policies the Right prefers. The Right fears the government policies the Left prefers. I fear them both.

I have no need to fear the folly of men. I assume it.

M. Simon

About all government can do is to assure a modicum of public order. i.e. no abortions in the streets. Once you get away from the perpetrator-victim model of crime and go for willing seller - willing buyer type crime you need secret police to enforce it. And snitches. You start breaking down the bonds of trust between people. And you need a LOT of trust to make a $14 trillion economy work.

[MSimon]

Appeasement is not the correct answer when dealing with evil.

How about just holding it at bay until it fails? The abortion rate has been declining without laws.

[MSimon]

As it is currently constituted, Abortion is indeed Darwin in action. People who are evolutionarily unfit to be parents (Those who could kill their offspring) are weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

That is no argument for allowing it to continue. If Darwinism is allowed to be the basis of society, we would be bringing back slavery and other ancient barbarity.

The choice is willing rather than imposed. Essential difference.

Now suppose we let government rule reproduction. And suppose we get some idiots in (Holdren) who decide we have too many people and policy (not the authority) needs to be changed. What leg will you have to stand on?

What happens when we have criminals running government? It can't happen here.

Can you really stop stupid with laws? Never been done before. The experience doesn't seem to keep people from trying. The triumph of hope over experience. Say Hope and Change. Wasn't that popular a while back? What ever happened to it?

You understand the futility of gun prohibition...... Oh. I forgot. "This time it is different."

[vernes]

OK,

You want to do social engineering? Fine. Shouldn't you start gathering information on how humans actually behave?

The target population demographics. Culture. Economics. Motivations. etc.

And what if abortion is Darwin in action? i.e. people not fit for the current environment are not reproducing. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

As it is currently constituted, Abortion is indeed Darwin in action. People who are evolutionarily unfit to be parents (Those who could kill their offspring) are weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

That is no argument for allowing it to continue. If Darwinism is allowed to be the basis of society, we would be bringing back slavery and other ancient barbarity.

In the meantime, rats still eat their young when living conditions are too bad to raise young successfully. And they're still around.
Not allowing the embryo to mature during a period in your life where you would not be able to support it properly, increases your chance to maintain or even increase the success-rate when raising your child a next time.

[MSimon]

D,

Please tell me what is the ONE essential condition for civilization.

[MSimon]

Why there is a city vs country split on abortion:

A thermodynamic explanation of politics

[Diogenes]

Tom,

The question is: how hard is it to hide. Abortion is a lot easier to hide than slavery.

You have RU-486, the morning after pill. And who knows what all else.

The Supreme court with its trimester system got it about right. Not only that, it is in accord with Jewish law. i.e. abortion in the first 40 days is considered the minorest of infractions and not punishable.

I have read differently. What do the orthodox say? I trust their pronouncements on Jewish law far more than I do what the Reform or Conservative branches say.

What worries me given the drug war precedent is pregnancy testing and vagina police. It will turn women to anyone who will protect them from government intrusion.

Such are the manners in which false propaganda is spread. An apt analogy would be to claim a need for "Finger Police" for people misusing guns. We wouldn't want any "Finger Police" would we? Just a straw man tactic.

Do you really want to give the government an opening to poke into your sex life?

It's not the sex life that is the problem, it's the murdering to cover up the consequences of engaging in it recklessly. If having sex is like drinking, unprotected sex is like driving under the influence, and Abortion is like driving under the influence and killing someone.

You imagine how it will be if government is run by moral people.

How would it work if government was run by immoral people? As is usually the case. What could possibly go wrong?

I would say that the trend has been in the direction away from Morality. Government sponsorship and enabling of immoral ideas has increased over the last hundred years, not decreased.

In 1920 no one could imagine how Alcohol Prohibition could go bad. "Hell will be forever rent." - Billy Sunday - minister.

Thirteen years of gang warfare and police corruption and children coming to school drunk and the people had more than enough.

Yes, D@mn those people who gave women the right to vote!

Think of police pressuring women for sex to keep quiet about some infraction. It will happen.

Yeah, unlike now where that sort of thing NEVER happens!

Which is why I'm willing to help anyone who wants to do something about abortion without getting government involved. So far among all the antis I have discussed it with I have never had one enlist me (except for some friends I met at a TEA Party - a little too Christian for my taste - but I do give them publicity).

The government MUST be involved in prosecuting crime. It is dangerous to society and civilization to let people other than the government punish people for breaking laws.