Abortion

[SuburbanFarmer]

When a woman takes RU486, she's killing the baby, not a doctor: she can no longer transfer the responsibility to someone else.

How is that different? The doctor procedure requires the consent of the physician. The pill requires the consent of whoever sells it to her. Same difference.

The mother is responsible regardless, by initiating the transaction. She wasn’t forced.

That is very pedantic but the reality is very emotional.

You invoked legality and personal responsibility. I’m just providing the counter argument.

Of course it’s emotional. It’s the deepest, most important thing that humans do. That’s exactly why I don’t believe that the state has any role in it.

[Haumana]

The best info I’ve heard on this is the crime wave of the 80s sharply cutting off at 20 years after Roe v Wade.
Anything else is probably anecdotal.

WTF, That isn't anecdotal? Roe v Wade happened in '73. But it sharply happened 7+ years later? Nothing else contributed to it?

[Martin Hash]

How is that different? The doctor procedure requires the consent of the physician. The pill requires the consent of whoever sells it to her. Same difference.

The mother is responsible regardless, by initiating the transaction. She wasn’t forced.

That is very pedantic but the reality is very emotional.

You invoked legality and personal responsibility. I’m just providing the counter argument.

Of course it’s emotional. It’s the deepest, most important thing that humans do. That’s exactly why I don’t believe that the state has any role in it.

The State's only legitimate goal is to facilitate liberty: the baby's as much as the mother's. The mother, either by herself or through a proxy doctor, can't take the lives of her children.

[Haumana]

You invoked legality and personal responsibility. I’m just providing the counter argument.

Of course it’s emotional. It’s the deepest, most important thing that humans do. That’s exactly why I don’t believe that the state has any role in it.

Then there should be no forced child care payments from men because of the State. Free choice for all!

[Martin Hash]

It's an undisputed fact that a baby can be delivered months early, so there's no question it's a person: the only issue is whether the mother's inconvenience is more important than the baby's life.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You invoked legality and personal responsibility. I’m just providing the counter argument.

Of course it’s emotional. It’s the deepest, most important thing that humans do. That’s exactly why I don’t believe that the state has any role in it.

Then there should be no forced child care payments from men because of the State. Free choice for all!

Could not agree more.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The best info I’ve heard on this is the crime wave of the 80s sharply cutting off at 20 years after Roe v Wade.
Anything else is probably anecdotal.

WTF, That isn't anecdotal? Roe v Wade happened in '73. But it sharply happened 7+ years later? Nothing else contributed to it?

Not my idea. Malcolm Gladwell put it forward. It makes as much sense as anything else I’ve seen, and yes it’s all anecdotal. There’s no control group.

[Haumana]

oe v Wade.
Anything else is probably anecdotal.

Typo?

If Malcolm said it then it is definitely anecdotal, imo.

[Martin Hash]

As I said, the State can stay out of it except to change the definition of “fetus” then Free Enterprise will take over: wrongful death suits here we come.

[Haumana]

As I said, the State can stay out of it except to change the definition of “fetus” then Free Enterprise will take over: wrongful death suits here we come.

Now there is a scenario. Paternal wrongful death suits. Sounds like apocalypse.