Do-It-Yourself - Abortion.

[Rich Parsons]

I am not changing the argument (which is subversive and veiled anyway because there is more then one argument going on here). From the start of the thread, you and many others have made many implications of what would/could happen if pro-life republicans get in power in this thread. I am saying that they are unfounded. Since Roe V Wade, we have many pro-life republicans in power, and nothing has been done to change abortion rights.

And the statistics and polls indicate that abortion rights would not drastically change, even in the off chance it would be left up to the states.

So, you can be critical of the point of view of some of the pro-life canidates. But I think it is a mistake to think that these view points will matter in the large scheme of things.

Was there already not in the last 7 years a couple of Congresses that were controlled both House and Senate by the republicans as wel as a Replubican President? If this is true, and they had the votes, what was done?

I personally think the Republican Party would prefer to keep it around as a hot button then to do something about it. As this gets some people up in arms and get them emotional for their religious and personal views, and gets them to vote for a group that may not have voted for if they did an investigation. Of course, this common tactics for both parties, so no onw is innocent here.

 

[Cruentus]

Was there already not in the last 7 years a couple of Congresses that were controlled both House and Senate by the republicans as wel as a Replubican President? If this is true, and they had the votes, what was done?

I personally think the Republican Party would prefer to keep it around as a hot button then to do something about it. As this gets some people up in arms and get them emotional for their religious and personal views, and gets them to vote for a group that may not have voted for if they did an investigation. Of course, this common tactics for both parties, so no onw is innocent here.

I think that is absolutely correct. I think that the attempt is to gain the vote of the religious right rather then actually do anything about it.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

That is a great question. I tend to err on the side of legalizing drugs, though, and letting people choose what they want to put in their bodies. I don't do or like drugs or the drug culture, btw, but I have to stand by my libertarian principles. This is worthy of another topic, however.

That aside, though, I don't think it is the same argument. The reason is because it can be said that drugs do things to the society as a whole, making certain places unsafe to live. It is not that someone addicted to crack or meth will necessarily work a normal job and just do the drugs on the side, making it a 'victimless crime'; people severely addicted lose jobs, become homeless sometimes, become desperate, and ultimately can become a burden or even a danger to society due to their drug use. Drug addictions can severely decimate societies. There is historical precedence for this going as far back as the Chinese Opium culture.

So, I see your point, but I am thinking that they are two different arguments because I don't think that the right to terminate a pregnancy can have the same destructive effects on a society as drugs.

As the question was more an argument of principle, not of consequences, it very much applies. The principle is "I can do what I want with my body." If that is true in one case, shouldn't it be true in all cases?

As for the specific situation with drugs, that is better left to another thread, but I will comment in this fashion: hasn't our current "War on Drugs" decimated society, especially those in the minority communities. Look at the socio-economics of this "war." Also, if you even talk to drug dealers, the worst thing you could do to them is make them legal. One need only look at the situation before, during, and after Prohibition to get some idea of this.

With our prisons free from simple drug users and sellers, we would have more money/space for those that commit the actual crimes (such as burglary and robbery) that these drugs "make" them do.

It would lower the cost of medicine, changing our health care system.

No, the consequenses to society are not the same. But that is not to say that the negative impact to society can't be just as bad.

 

[Cruentus]

As the question was more an argument of principle, not of consequences, it very much applies. The principle is "I can do what I want with my body." If that is true in one case, shouldn't it be true in all cases?

We tread the lines of logical fallacy with this one; because if what I want to do with my body hurts others, then it makes it a different circumstance, in principle. It can be argued that drugs can individually or collectively cause harm to a society. I don't think that abortion can be argued in that same way. Or, maybe it can.... I don't know.

As for the specific situation with drugs, that is better left to another thread, but I will comment in this fashion: hasn't our current "War on Drugs" decimated society, especially those in the minority communities. Look at the socio-economics of this "war." Also, if you even talk to drug dealers, the worst thing you could do to them is make them legal. One need only look at the situation before, during, and after Prohibition to get some idea of this.

With our prisons free from simple drug users and sellers, we would have more money/space for those that commit the actual crimes (such as burglary and robbery) that these drugs "make" them do.

It would lower the cost of medicine, changing our health care system.

No, the consequenses to society are not the same. But that is not to say that the negative impact to society can't be just as bad.

I totally agree with you there. I don't like drugs or what they can cause, but in principle I am for legalization for many of the reasons you described. I think that the consequence of them being illegal is worse then legalization. Incidently, I feel the same way about abortion, which is why I really am not for abortion becoming illegal even though I hate it.

So we agree on those points; I was just pointing out that I am not so sure that "drug use" and "abortion rights" can be argued on the same tier, so to speak, because the consequences of either are so vastly different. But I do see your point...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

We tread the lines of logical fallacy with this one; because if what I want to do with my body hurts others, then it makes it a different circumstance, in principle. It can be argued that drugs can individually or collectively cause harm to a society. I don't think that abortion can be argued in that same way. Or, maybe it can.... I don't know.

Not to beat a dead horse, as we seem to have some consensus, but I want to clarify. It is not the drugs that cause the burglary. It is the person. Just as it is not the gun (or their availabilty) which causes murder, but the person's decision.

Therefore, causing drugs to be illegal only does one thing: prevents the ability of a person to do what they will with their body.

I think I will start my own thread on this. Should get some interesting debate.

 

[Cruentus]

Not to beat a dead horse, as we seem to have some consensus, but I want to clarify. It is not the drugs that cause the burglary. It is the person. Just as it is not the gun (or their availabilty) which causes murder, but the person's decision.

Therefore, causing drugs to be illegal only does one thing: prevents the ability of a person to do what they will with their body.

I think I will start my own thread on this. Should get some interesting debate.

Yup. I totally agree with you. One guy might do meth and never do any other crime, and another could rob and kill people; and it is the robbing and killing that would be penalized under a system where drugs are legal.

We are totally on the same page. I was only presenting the other argument because that element is simply what makes it a little different then the abortion argument; but I don't actually ascribe to the idea in that way. That was why I said that I err on the side of making drugs legal.