Posted on 04/18/2017 6:23:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
My wife and I have an argument related to this. She thinks it is counterproductive and even wrong headed for people to protest abortion at abortion centers, even though she is personally against it.
She thinks the decision is so emotionally wrought for the woman that we shouldn’t add to her anguish. But isn’t “shame” a good thing, I counter? She might be right that invoking “shame” won’t work. She is against the graphic pictures as well. To which I counter, “shouldn’t women actually know what is really happening”?
I agree. The doctors in this case are essentially contract killers.
No, but I think the doctors need to burn in hell for it.
In the real world, your policies have the best chance of success.
Which is the most ‘moral’ approach: one that’s more likely to curtail abortion, although it does not punish some of the parties to it; or one which is entrenched in the ‘moral high ground’, insisting on punishment of all offenders — even though that position perpetuates the problem?
It’s about time that conservatives learned to play the long-game, and use incremental steps to achieve goals (as the other side has done so successfully).
Thanks. That’s exactly how I see it.
Why are we assuming that the policy that only punishes some of the parties is the one that will curtail abortion the most?
If you go after all the physicians (sparing the “mother”), will the shortage of practicing abortion-doctors not lead to the same “back alley” scenario that the Left likes to crow about?
Ultimately, it is the woman who seeks to terminate her own offspring; that is the root of the problem. An abortion-doctor only makes it easier.
In the freedom-loving “me” culture of the U.S., how will your policy incrementally bring about the virtual elimination of abortion without punitive action towards the primary culprit? And why are physicians MORE guilty than the “mother”?
If the goal to punish the guilty, or is it to end (most) abortions?
Let’s deal with the reality of politics: Passing legislation is hard.
If you do it badly, the legislation fails to pass and then you’ve made no progress.
Finding a palatable way to pass some type of legislation can help you get nearer your goal. Over time, an incremental approach can get you where you want to be. Alternatively (as noted above) if you botch the politics of the matter, you will fail and make absolutely no progress.
Going after vulnerable women, who are without hope, who have suffered a terrible psychological blow, and who are (most likely) easily cast as “victims of society” may make YOU feel good — let’s get those murdering women! — but I guarantee you that you will botch the politics of this, your legislation WILL fail, and you will make absolutely no progress.
I’ll say it bluntly: focusing on jailing the women seems like a tactic a Progressive would adopt, in hopes that the whole thing will crash and burn. It’s a good way to make sure Roe v Wade is around for a long, long time.
I, on the other hand, prefer an incremental approach, because I really believe that SOME lives can be saved with legislation that is politically viable. Something is better than nothing, and over time, we might get to where I really want to be. And, sure, eventually society might be ready to jail women who aborted their children — but that’s not a wise first step. Unless you hope to fail.
In God’s eyes anyone who does not object and knows is an accomplice like the watchman on the wall in Ezekial 33: 1-20
You speak as if they are mutually exclusive.
Fair enough.
“”How about punishing the fathers??””
Who yo daddie?
Whea yo daddie?
In many cases, you don’t even know which of the multiple partners fathered the child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.