North Dakota challenges Roe v Wade?

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

No, you really do make laws because they are effective, and the legality of abortion most certainly does have a bearing on back alley abortions as they are considerably fewer in countries with legalized abortion.

In this case you are advocating for a legal change in which you will achieve near zero reduction in the behavior you are attempting to curtail, but will indirectly contribute to the deaths of thousands of additional people. How does that make any sense?

So when the first laws were made outlawing murder, or theft, or rape, how did they know it would be effective?

No. You make laws in the interest of doing what is good for society. If rape or murder were legal, the murder-rate would skyrocket, and rape would certainly do the same.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective. You don't kill humans in the interest of reducing mortality to other humans.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

The point is simple. If your goal is to reduce killing babies then understand that making abortion illegal does nothing to help you achieve that goal. In fact, it has proven to just make things worse. Why would you strive for something that just makes what you want worse?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective. You don't kill humans in the interest of reducing mortality to other humans.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

The point is simple. If your goal is to reduce killing babies then understand that making abortion illegal does nothing to help you achieve that goal. In fact, it has proven to just make things worse. Why would you strive for something that just makes what you want worse?

My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

You know, it's ironic that the pro-life side always gets labeled as wanting to treat women like machines. It seems to me that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around the notion that women all respond to certain conditions in mechanically identical ways.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

No, you really do make laws because they are effective, and the legality of abortion most certainly does have a bearing on back alley abortions as they are considerably fewer in countries with legalized abortion.

In this case you are advocating for a legal change in which you will achieve near zero reduction in the behavior you are attempting to curtail, but will indirectly contribute to the deaths of thousands of additional people. How does that make any sense?

So when the first laws were made outlawing murder, or theft, or rape, how did they know it would be effective?

They obviously didn't, likely they had a reasonable belief that they would be effective. I'm guessing back in the code of Hammurabi days they didn't have scientific studies that examined the effectiveness of laws the next ziggurat over though, and if they had information showing that their laws wouldn't be effective, if they were smart they would have saved the guy carving the stone some time.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

You know, it's ironic that the pro-life side always gets labeled as wanting to treat women like machines. It seems to me that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around the notion that women all respond to certain conditions in mechanically identical ways.

What it means is that there are more powerful considerations for people than if something is legal or not.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Damnit eskimo, you're making me sick -- I agree with you again. Argh!

This is basically religious views and ideology over practical and logical considerations.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective. You don't kill humans in the interest of reducing mortality to other humans.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

The point is simple. If your goal is to reduce killing babies then understand that making abortion illegal does nothing to help you achieve that goal. In fact, it has proven to just make things worse. Why would you strive for something that just makes what you want worse?

My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

You know, it's ironic that the pro-life side always gets labeled as wanting to treat women like machines. It seems to me that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around the notion that women all respond to certain conditions in mechanically identical ways
.

Oh don't let things like statistics and empirical evidence get you off your high horse...

Outlawing abortion will have very little impact on what's happening at a high cost; all of public policy revolves about weighing benefits and costs and it this case it shows the legislature is pointless

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

This sounds very familiar to the animosity against abstinence-based sex education. Looking at an undesirable outcome and pointing in blame at the law that outlaws such an outcome, is very strange psychology.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

You know, it's ironic that the pro-life side always gets labeled as wanting to treat women like machines. It seems to me that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around the notion that women all respond to certain conditions in mechanically identical ways.

How does the pro choice argument revolve around the idea that all women will respond to certain conditions in identical ways? The whole pro choice argument is explicitly that everyone won't respond in the same ways, so women should get to make that choice.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

This sounds very familiar to the animosity against abstinence-based sex education. Looking at an undesirable outcome and pointing in blame at the law that outlaws such an outcome, is very strange psychology.

I think the animosity again comes from the thing you like to dismiss - empirical evidence. It's amusing that people still try to push moires and dogma, despite the mountain of evidence that shows how ineffective that approach is.

I would venture a guess that the ineffectiveness stems from the fact the goal of the abstinence pushers is no sex before marriage (to satisfy dogma) where as the flip side's goals are to reduce teen pregnancy and std transmissions.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

This sounds very familiar to the animosity against abstinence-based sex education. Looking at an undesirable outcome and pointing in blame at the law that outlaws such an outcome, is very strange psychology.

You are making this far more complicated that it needs to be. The bottom line is so simple. If we know it doesn't work and makes things worse instead, then it isn't worth doing. That's it.

I am all for trying something new that we have strong objective reason to believe "might" work as long as it is subject to change. However, in this case, we already know it doesn't work through trial and error and it wasn't even all that long ago. We would be foolish to repeat the same mistakes when nothing has changed that reasonably suggests that trying again would produce a more favorable result.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

Why should people return to back alley abortions? Studies have shown that making abortion illegal has no effect on a country's abortion rate, it simply raises the mortality rate for the mothers. What possible benefit is there to that?

It seems here that ideology is trumping common sense.

Studies may also show that outlawing murder has no effect on the murder rate. I could care less. You don't make laws because they're effective. You don't kill humans in the interest of reducing mortality to other humans.

There was a mother here last week who threw her newborn baby, complete with the umbilical cord, into Lake Pontchartrain. Apparently the legality of abortion has little bearing on back-alley abortions.

The point is simple. If your goal is to reduce killing babies then understand that making abortion illegal does nothing to help you achieve that goal. In fact, it has proven to just make things worse. Why would you strive for something that just makes what you want worse?

My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

You know, it's ironic that the pro-life side always gets labeled as wanting to treat women like machines. It seems to me that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around the notion that women all respond to certain conditions in mechanically identical ways
.

Oh don't let things like statistics and empirical evidence get you off your high horse...

Outlawing abortion will have very little impact on what's happening at a high cost; all of public policy revolves about weighing benefits and costs and it this case it shows the legislature is pointless

Statistics can be misleading, and I don't agree that study was at all empirical. Once again, I don't care about effectiveness. You don't outlaw rape out of concern with out-of-control rape rates. You outlaw it because it's wrong.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

This sounds very familiar to the animosity against abstinence-based sex education. Looking at an undesirable outcome and pointing in blame at the law that outlaws such an outcome, is very strange psychology.

I think the animosity again comes from the thing you like to dismiss - empirical evidence. It's amusing that people still try to push moires and dogma, despite the mountain of evidence that shows how ineffective that approach is.

I've not said anything at all dogmatic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

This sounds very familiar to the animosity against abstinence-based sex education. Looking at an undesirable outcome and pointing in blame at the law that outlaws such an outcome, is very strange psychology.

Only if you assume that laws have no other effects outside of the explicit letter of their writing, but why would you think that? The argument against abstinence only education was very similar to this. (and remember it's abstinence ONLY education that was the problem, as all comprehensive sex-ed is abstinence based) Basically it argued that the law itself had negligible effects on reducing unwanted behaviors, but it had a bunch of side effects that introduced other things we didn't like. That's what made it bad policy. That's also what makes this bad policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Statistics can be misleading, and I don't agree that study was at all empirical. Once again, I don't care about effectiveness. You don't outlaw rape out of concern with out-of-control rape rates. You outlaw it because it's wrong.

So wait, you create laws that have bad effects on society in order to make some sort of point? Who are we trying to impress?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My counterpoint is just as simple. A study that illustrates that law has no effect on how a populace reacts defies common sense.

It is not that the law has no effect. It does have an effect. The problem is that the effect it has is both unintentional and counterproductive towards its original purpose. Thus, it is a very poor law and we need to go back to the drawing board.

This sounds very familiar to the animosity against abstinence-based sex education. Looking at an undesirable outcome and pointing in blame at the law that outlaws such an outcome, is very strange psychology.

Only if you assume that laws have no other effects outside of the explicit letter of their writing, but why would you think that? The argument against abstinence only education was very similar to this. (and remember it's abstinence ONLY education that was the problem, as all comprehensive sex-ed is abstinence based) Basically it argued that the law itself had negligible effects on reducing unwanted behaviors, but it had a bunch of side effects that introduced other things we didn't like. That's what made it bad policy. That's also what makes this bad policy.

Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Statistics can be misleading, and I don't agree that study was at all empirical. Once again, I don't care about effectiveness. You don't outlaw rape out of concern with out-of-control rape rates. You outlaw it because it's wrong.

So wait, you create laws that have bad effects on society in order to make some sort of point? Who are we trying to impress?

I think we're trying to adhere to a common standard of decency. A nation should not allow its citizens to murder their own progeny.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Only if you assume that laws have no other effects outside of the explicit letter of their writing, but why would you think that? The argument against abstinence only education was very similar to this. (and remember it's abstinence ONLY education that was the problem, as all comprehensive sex-ed is abstinence based) Basically it argued that the law itself had negligible effects on reducing unwanted behaviors, but it had a bunch of side effects that introduced other things we didn't like. That's what made it bad policy. That's also what makes this bad policy.

Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

That depends on why the rate of murders suddenly spiked. If it is due to the side effects of a specific law or set of laws then those laws should be amended, completely removed, or completely replaced.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Atreus, you make too much sense. It can't penetrate the layers of rationalization.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Only if you assume that laws have no other effects outside of the explicit letter of their writing, but why would you think that? The argument against abstinence only education was very similar to this. (and remember it's abstinence ONLY education that was the problem, as all comprehensive sex-ed is abstinence based) Basically it argued that the law itself had negligible effects on reducing unwanted behaviors, but it had a bunch of side effects that introduced other things we didn't like. That's what made it bad policy. That's also what makes this bad policy.

Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

That depends on why the rate of murders suddenly spiked. If it is due to the side effects of a specific law or set of laws then those laws should be amended, completely removed, or completely replaced.

Alright, then let's assume with no changes in the current laws, the murder rate skyrockets tomorrow, and continues to get worse. Should murder be legalized?

 

[piasabird]

I thought the last supreme court ruling on this said it was up to each individual state and it is a state's right. So I say let it be tested.

In the mean time one supreme court justice has cancer and may be dying. Was not that the case?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

You aren't making any sense. The argument to keep abortion legal isn't that a lot of abortions happen, it's that making it illegal is ineffective at reducing abortion and has other bad effects on society.

I for one find it unfathomable that someone would want to contribute to the deaths of thousands for no gain outside of the fuzzy feeling they get from thinking their government is standing up for what is right. I'm not really worried about it, as abortion will never be illegal in the US again, but the principle is baffling.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I thought the last supreme court ruling on this said it was up to each individual state and it is a state's right. So I say let it be tested.

In the mean time one supreme court justice has cancer and may be dying. Was not that the case?

No, the supreme court said the exact opposite. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, then it would return to each state as to whether or not it were legal.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

You aren't making any sense. The argument to keep abortion legal isn't that a lot of abortions happen, it's that making it illegal is ineffective at reducing abortion and has other bad effects on society.

I for one find it unfathomable that someone would want to contribute to the deaths of thousands for no gain outside of the fuzzy feeling they get from thinking their government is standing up for what is right. I'm not really worried about it, as abortion will never be illegal in the US again, but the principle is baffling.

Then forget abortion for a minute. If the murder rate were to get way, way worse, should we legalize it?

According to the effectiveness principle, we should.