No More Bin Laden

[eppie]

Hi,

In context, yeah. But as presented, it could be {one man, multiple women}, {one woman, multiple men}, {multiple men}, {multiple women}, {multiple men, multiple women} in a circle, line, or other arrangement, with or without rules about alternating the order of accepting new partners or about the number permitted at one time.

Basically, why should anyone care what relationships adults form with each other? As long as they either have no children or provide for those children, it is nobody else's business (and this includes the tax collector, who should neither penalize nor reward a group for its size).

--Pete

Well the way you present it here I could agree with. Not the way kandrathe mentioned it first.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The arguments on marriage often end up being that families that aren't a single mother and single father can endanger the "healthy" development of a child and since a child is in danger we need a source of authority to step in and fix it. Those arguments are very counterable in my opinion but I'm not going to get into that here.

I'll just point out one thing here. The "unit" family (mother, father, 2.3 kids, and a dog) is a very modern invention as far as child rearing is concerned. While by convention it might have been that each man and woman could only have one sexual partner, and hence the children of that union were their children, the extended family contributed much to the security, education, discipline, and security of those children.

Much of the blather on the "family" and "marriage" issue is often semantic, and usually wrong.

So, yeah. Those arguments are very counterable. Not that those who put those arguments forward are likely to listen to the counter.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Our problem in the west is not with Islam it is with too old fashioned and traditional cultures.

Why do you assume that newer is better? The same rush to progress that wiped out indigenous people, and clear cut virgin forests, is still at play today only its in perhaps in poorly thought through changes in gene manipulation, chemical additives in food, or in production or use of materials.

OK, no I don't generally assume newer is better. But I assume liberal societies better than societies that consider women 2nd grade citizens for example.

I am for gender equality. Although, I recognize that different cultures value equality differently. They are "wrong" according to the way you and I think about it, but they are living as they have lived for hundreds, or thousands of years. We need to set some boundaries within our nations, but our opinions carry little weight beyond our borders. For example, I'm not sure we should fight a 10 year, trillion dollar war against Afghanistan, and the Taliban for the sake of woman's rights. I'm willing to work at changing their minds, but not at the point of a gun.

I'm probably one of those people you'd lump in with the "bad" Islam. I've grown more conservative as I get aged, but it's more a conservatism in realizing what we're destroying and what we've lost. And, I'm thinking about culture, art, language, and peoples experiences. I value the process of life, and the possibilities that a life can accumulate and inform the present and future.

So not the normal accepted kind of American conservative, but more conservative in certain topics.......so that is exactly as I am.

Yeah, I'd be hanged by both camps.

Religion becomes a way to justify forcing people to comply with one particular world view, and this application of force is just as flawed as is the one in your more humanist, more atheistic culture.

Well no. If I am for euthanasia it doesn't mean I want to euthanize people, it means I want to give them the chance to choose this path if THEY want to.

Ok, well you would choose the thorniest of issues. There is a vast difference in how this gets defined, from withholding treatments to actively causing death. At one end of the spectrum you have Dr. Jack Kevorkian who's "patients" turned out to be not so terminally ill after all, but only miserable. If misery is the only prerequisite, then I think we've solved the over population problem on the planet.

So, what if... Allowing babies to be killed in the womb really is a murder? And, I'm not talking a religious dogma here, be it Islam, or Christianity. Our societies all prohibit the killing of innocents, and some even prohibit the killing of the extremely malevolent. Obviously, the baby is not much different a week before delivery, than a week after delivery. So, placement within the womb is not an indication of the legality to terminate. Then typically the debate devolves into which body functions must be operational, which is problematic because the two most usual integral parts, the beating heart, and the brain are formed very early. Often by the time a women realizes she is pregnant (5 - 6 weeks), the fetus has already formed into a human child. At this point, disposing of it merely due to the inconvenience seems to me a bit morally callous. The same argument (inconvenient or a waste of resources) could be made for many adults, whether they be mentally challenged, elderly, or just slackers.

If you seriously want to discuss this with me you should not use sentence like '1 week before birth' and ' disposing merely due to inconvenience'. Your poisoning the discussion with fake arguments.

You don't like the argument, but it's not fake. What makes it a fake argument? With medical help, the fetus can survive outside the womb as early as 4 or 5 months. If anything, I'm framing the argument. We can agree that killing a baby in the womb one week before it's natural birth would be murder. Right? Now we just need to focus on why it's legal to kill a baby in the womb at some earlier stage of development. As for "inconvenience", I'm citing the statistics. From statistics, the overwhelming reason that women get abortions is that they don't feel able to raise a child. Less than 5% are due to rape, incest, or health concerns of the mother or fetus.

The US is pretty split on many of these types of issues, but the "science" of the issue has very little to do to inform the debates. For the "traditionalists" the issue has more to do with giving one person the right to terminate the life of another person, or even in allowing a person to self terminate.

Yes because this person (the mother) really has fun 'terminating the life of another person (her unborn child). Again if you seriously want to discuss this point you should not write down these scandalous and insulting phrases. The only thing you show when writing these things is not being capable of empathy. I 'know' you and know this is not the fact so please stop writing these things.

Hmmm, scandalous? But, you are correct, I do have empathy for the women who finds themselves in a situation they don't want to be in. It's not a fun thing at all. However, I'm going to be cautious about resolving their predicament with what might be a murder. I mean, you might inconveniently find a parcel of puppies left at your doorstep. It would be expedient to drown the unwanted rascals. Although, if I had to carry the puppies (now dogs) around with me for 1/2 a year, before I could give them away, I might very well consider murdering them too.

They'd listen to the science of how the embryo develops, but at a larger level it is irrelevant to these issues. This is not merely a Christianity, or Islam thing. Taboo's exist in almost every culture on the planet regarding the taking of lives. Generally, in all these cultures, the moral side involves preserving life, and the dark side involves terminating life. Infanticide, and euthanasia are issues for a society to resolve, barring all religious dogma, since "living" is fundamental to participation. These are also groups within the society who have the least capability of protecting themselves from the tyranny of the majority. It's not much of a step from this, to relieving the inconvenient mentally infirm from their suffering existence (and saving us lots of wasted time and money).

Again, your opinion is troubled by the propaganda of fox news. Just like earlier written in this thread (meat or gnollguy I believe) people really think euthanasia is forced upon people which is so not true. And also the mother (parents) should have the right to choose what's right for her child. Everyone can see that the injustice done when aborting does not come close to the injustice of being an unwanted abused child.

Ouch! Low blow! I don't listen to faux news. Please don't accuse me of having not thought this through. An issue in our modern society with its more casual sexual adventures is the unwanted pregnancy, and due to our paternalistic social past the burden of this falls directly upon the young woman, who is embarrassed, fearful, and finding her frivolity is coming at a terrible life changing price. So imagine if our government were better at holding the male equally accountable for producing a child, or if our societies were more embracing of single mothers. I think rather the abortion industry preys upon the fears of people who find themselves in a tough spot, and they offer them what seems to be a pretty easy solution. I guess it's the same with Dr. Kevorkian. You are afraid of a painful death, and so your fear becomes a marketing tool.

Extending the issue of rights further, I ask, what gives you (whether it be a person or government) the right to tell me what to do?

Indeed nothing. And that is why I am for the right to euthanasia and abortion. And against religious nut jobs telling other people what to do.

It's not that simple. You have determined that it is "moral" for a person to have the right to make life or death decisions regarding their own lives, or their offspring. What about honor killing? In some cultures, if a child dishonors their parents, the parents kill them. Now see, you and I would agree that honor killing is wrong. Many people, myself included, have questions about the legality of abortion/infanticide. Not because we are "nut jobs" or that we are mindless zombies being brain washed by Fox News, but that like honor killing, it just might be that we've become too liberal in allowing certain members of our society to be murdered. We do need to draw a line as to what we "let people do", and that line usually is when one person harms another. Some euthanasia, and abortions are in that area where one person is harming (killing) another person and they deserve careful scrutiny. Being that I'm extremely "liberal" in the classical notion, I too would want to extend a maximal amount of freedom to individuals. But, that freedom ends when it begins to extinguish the freedom of another individual. Should we have the freedom to end our own lives? Maybe, if we are competent to make that decision. Should we be allowed to end the lives of other people? Probably not. And, it becomes doubly troubling to me when we give the government the power to kill us.

Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?

Because this is inequality. You agree with the fact that men have a god given power over women.

No, not generally. I know I do.

the yoke of government, whether it be exercised by Washington, Amsterdam, or Tehran.

The dutch government resides in the Hague.

Well, there's your problem. I forgot that Queen Beatrix is toothless like other European royals.

More directly on the topic; I have no issue with Islam, or any religious groups as long as politically and as expressed in their laws they respect the rights of people who are not like them to have freedoms within the society (which may or may not be dominated by them).

I agree. Sadly there are very little examples of this being really true. Not even in Holland, Denmark or Sweden. Maybe in France.

There are places and times throughout history when pluralism has worked, and often it's mucked up by the "nut jobs".

[eppie]

Well, there's your problem. I forgot that Queen Beatrix is toothless like other European royals.

Queen Beatrix also lives in the Hague.
Amsterdam is just the capital of the Netherlands.

[kandrathe]

Well, there's your problem. I forgot that Queen Beatrix is toothless like other European royals.

Queen Beatrix also lives in the Hague. Amsterdam is just the capital of the Netherlands.

Doesn't she have a place in Amsterdam too?

[eppie]

There are places and times throughout history when pluralism has worked, and often it's mucked up by the "nut jobs".

There are rules (in every country where abortion is legal) about the number of weeks after which abortion isn't allowed anymore. The later it takes place the more stressful, emotionally scarring and physically damaging it is to the mother.

The inconvenience you mention is far greater than what you make us believe it is. I think that in most cases the child would have a very bad life if it would be born with these parents (or single mother) that can't give it the right care. The decision of having an abortion is terrible and is taken because the alternative would be worse. Even if theoretically you might have a point, practically it is common knowledge that forced abortion (by the mother, or by others) has been common practise in all kinds of societies over the ages. Where of course it is clear that this type of abortion is usually much more dangerous to the mother.



About euthanasia. That I am pro euthenasia doesn't mean I like to kill people. Again, if the reason you are against it is because people will be killed againts their will it is a wrong reason. Killing against ones will is illegal, period.

[kandrathe]

There are places and times throughout history when pluralism has worked, and often it's mucked up by the "nut jobs".

There are rules (in every country where abortion is legal) about the number of weeks after which abortion isn't allowed anymore. The later it takes place the more stressful, emotionally scarring and physically damaging it is to the mother.

Sure. But the rules are based upon what? It seems imprecise, at best. Does every baby grow at the same speed? There have been numerous attempts to pass legislation like -- "The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act states that any baby that has been born alive is to be legally considered a person. As such, she or he would automatically be granted full protection under the U.S. Constitution." Because, sometimes the aborted fetus is born alive, and would survive if incubated and cared for, but instead they are left to die of neglect and suffocation. If this is happening, then we are probably erring on the side of killing babies.

The inconvenience you mention is far greater than what you make us believe it is. I think that in most cases the child would have a very bad life if it would be born with these parents (or single mother) that can't give it the right care. The decision of having an abortion is terrible and is taken because the alternative would be worse. Even if theoretically you might have a point, practically it is common knowledge that forced abortion (by the mother, or by others) has been common practice in all kinds of societies over the ages. Where of course it is clear that this type of abortion is usually much more dangerous to the mother.

There is that argument that without a legal mechanism, people will resort to poorly done illegal methods. And... some people think its ok to kill their kids. It doesn't mean we need to sanction it as a part of our laws. In fact, we should be clear that as a society we value everyone, and will work to ensure that everyone has a reasonable chance to succeed and thrive.

I know, and work with quite a few single mothers who've lives have been drastically altered by their choice to raise the inconvenient baby. I have a niece who ended up dropping out of college for awhile due to an unplanned pregnancy. But, your hypothesis, that these aborted children would have had a horrible life is unprovable. And, by comparison, while many single mothers struggle, they often manage to raise pretty well adjusted and happy children. As social policy, we wouldn't choose to terminate the pregnancies of women who have a lower chance to raise a productive child. Or, do we....

The other factor that makes me suspicious of abortion policy in the US is that it has been disproportionately targeting the black population. Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions and black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. I'd say we just need to work harder to make life more of a choice.

About euthanasia. That I am pro euthanasia doesn't mean I like to kill people. Again, if the reason you are against it is because people will be killed against their will it is a wrong reason. Killing against ones will is illegal, period.

I'm not for it, nor against it at this point. I see a danger in that weak willed people would be swayed into this decision that they might not otherwise take. I would be against it if it became a way to eliminate inconvenient people, and it's bad enough we warehouse many of these people in poorly run institutions that hasten their deaths due to neglect.

[eppie]

The other factor that makes me suspicious of abortion policy in the US is that it has been disproportionately targeting the black population. Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions and black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. I'd say we just need to work harder to make life more of a choice.

Yes I totally agree. And I see this as the way to go. The thing that requires our efforts. Untill then give women the respect they deserve when making the hardest decission they likelt will make in their life.

[Ashock]

but it is a start.

--Pete

Yes, a start.

[DeeBye]

The other factor that makes me suspicious of abortion policy in the US is that it has been disproportionately targeting the black population.

I love how you worded that. Abortion policy targets blacks.

[kandrathe]

The other factor that makes me suspicious of abortion policy in the US is that it has been disproportionately targeting the black population.

I love how you worded that. Abortion policy targets blacks.

Well, I didn't try to say that. I said (or meant to say) I was suspicious of abortion policy in the US, because of the results tend to disproportionately target young black women. It might be that it's been with the best of intentions, where due to socioeconomic factors they are the recipients of this "aid". But, I would also say that police and criminal justice policy disproportionately targets the black population. Overall in the US, 1 in 100 adults is imprisoned, but for black adults, that is 1 in 15.

I'm careful not to draw causality from correlations. If you look at the demographic statistics, you'd think that one group were being targeted. Maybe they target themselves, but I tend to look at things systemically. Somewhere, the system is broken, and maintaining the status-quo will only result in more of the same.

[Taem]

I'm careful not to draw causality from correlations. If you look at the demographic statistics, you'd think that one group were being targeted. Maybe they target themselves, but I tend to look at things systemically. Somewhere, the system is broken, and maintaining the status-quo will only result in more of the same.

No offense, but that statement is moronic! They are fulfilling their self-fulfilling prophecy most of the time. I have no issues with anybody of any race, and I shouldn't considering I'm a Heinz 57 myself, but I have never met a person of color in the United State who didn't feel like people were watching/judging them in some way, shape or form, and inevitably, the race card will come up where they are the instigators feeling segregated when in fact, there is nothing there! I've seen it happen personally too many times to recount. Ever season of my favorite show Survivor where there is a person of color on, the race card comes out eventually - or a very similar type attitude of, "none of you all likes me so you can all go to hell". I don't understand this attitude, but its in the entire culture of blacks here in the states and I am not make a racial statement, but something I would consider fact. Granted, there are plenty of black families whom do not prescribe to this effect, but I'd say the vast majority do. Now its the attitude that lands them in jail, not because they are being singled out! Get real. Maybe in the mid-East, I don't know, but not where I live. And not in a majority of places I've visited, and yet that, "you can all go to hell" attitude prevails. The real issue there needs to be addressed of feeling ostracized in the culture your currently part of before the crime factor will change in my opinion. And this issue is totally unique to America from what I've seen. Damn, having second thoughts about posting this for being called a bigot or something, which is couldn't be further from the truth about me. Oh well, screw it. I think your looking at the wrong factors when looking at those numbers so I'm going to post this in spite of my gut telling me not too. I can't be afraid to stay silent because I might offend some people here.

[DeeBye]

Well, I didn't try to say that. I said (or meant to say) I was suspicious of abortion policy in the US, because of the results tend to disproportionately target young black women. It might be that it's been with the best of intentions, where due to socioeconomic factors they are the recipients of this "aid".

Altering the US policy on abortion (making it illegal) means that those same pregnant, young, poor, under-educated girls are going to seek out alternatives. I think you and I both know where that leads.

I'm careful not to draw causality from correlations. If you look at the demographic statistics, you'd think that one group were being targeted. Maybe they target themselves, but I tend to look at things systemically. Somewhere, the system is broken, and maintaining the status-quo will only result in more of the same.

I do NOT agree with your usage of the term "targeted". That makes it seem that the "abortion policy" (I dislike this term, but I am using it because you used it first) has a bull's-eye planted directly on the uteruses of blacks.

The system is broken not because of the US "abortion policy". The system is broken because an overwhelming number of young black females in the US are poor and under-educated. Throw in the conservative party mindset of "we don't talk about sex, and any form of birth control is immoral" leads to what you have now.

Teens with raging hormones will have sex, which without proper knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies will lead to a whole lot of young, poor, scared girls being pregnant.

*edit: I might as well go farther on this.

If you want to change the current US policy on abortions (making them illegal because they take a life), are you also ready to prosecute anyone participating in an abortion for 1st degree murder?

[--Pete]

Hi,

... I have never met a person of color in the United State who didn't feel like people were watching/judging them in some way, ...

Come visit me, and I'll introduce you to 2 of my three black neighbors.

--Pete

[eppie]

Well, I didn't try to say that. I said (or meant to say) I was suspicious of abortion policy in the US, because of the results tend to disproportionately target young black women. It might be that it's been with the best of intentions, where due to socioeconomic factors they are the recipients of this "aid".

Altering the US policy on abortion (making it illegal) means that those same pregnant, young, poor, under-educated girls are going to seek out alternatives. I think you and I both know where that leads.

I'm careful not to draw causality from correlations. If you look at the demographic statistics, you'd think that one group were being targeted. Maybe they target themselves, but I tend to look at things systemically. Somewhere, the system is broken, and maintaining the status-quo will only result in more of the same.

I do NOT agree with your usage of the term "targeted". That makes it seem that the "abortion policy" (I dislike this term, but I am using it because you used it first) has a bull's-eye planted directly on the uteruses of blacks.

The system is broken not because of the US "abortion policy". The system is broken because an overwhelming number of young black females in the US are poor and under-educated. Throw in the conservative party mindset of "we don't talk about sex, and any form of birth control is immoral" leads to what you have now.

Teens with raging hormones will have sex, which without proper knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies will lead to a whole lot of young, poor, scared girls being pregnant.

*edit: I might as well go farther on this.

If you want to change the current US policy on abortions (making them illegal because they take a life), are you also ready to prosecute anyone participating in an abortion for 1st degree murder?

I agree with everything you just wrote.

And MEAT; I think you are wrong. This is not a race issue it is a socioeconomic issue. Minorities happen to be mainly in the lowest brackets here. If you check kandrathe's statistics for rich black people you will find they don't apply anymore. The same if you separate rich and poor white people. That is how it is in the US and that is how it is in the rest of the world.

[Taem]

I think you are wrong. This is not a race issue it is a socioeconomic issue. Minorities happen to be mainly in the lowest brackets here. If you check kandrathe's statistics for rich black people you will find they don't apply anymore. The same if you separate rich and poor white people. That is how it is in the US and that is how it is in the rest of the world.

So what you are essentially saying is that the majority of black people living in the US are below the poverty level, since 1 in 15 goes to prision, correct? I don't actually know if this is true or not, just trying to see if I understand you correctly.

[eppie]

I think you are wrong. This is not a race issue it is a socioeconomic issue. Minorities happen to be mainly in the lowest brackets here. If you check kandrathe's statistics for rich black people you will find they don't apply anymore. The same if you separate rich and poor white people. That is how it is in the US and that is how it is in the rest of the world.

So what you are essentially saying is that the majority of black people living in the US are below the poverty level, since 1 in 15 goes to prision, correct? I don't actually know if this is true or not, just trying to see if I understand you correctly.

I am saying that the majority of the people below the poverty level are black or minorities, which is not exactly the same.

To make an example; Holland 100 years ago consisted mainly of white people. And there was a lot of crime then. Now we have a much more mixed society, and there still is crime....maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less I don't know....but now many people blame the *fill in your minority of choice* of being inherently criminal.

Being able to blame a visibly different group of people (visibly because of e.g. their skin colour) for crimes always is a very comforting thing to do for many people, that's why this is so common.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So what you are essentially saying is that the majority of black people living in the US are below the poverty level, since 1 in 15 goes to prision, correct? I don't actually know if this is true or not, just trying to see if I understand you correctly.

No. Think it through. Even if you assume that 100% of the people in prison come from those below the poverty level, that still leaves 14/15 of the black people about whom you know nothing. They could be below the poverty level, they could be in the top 1% income bracket, or any other distribution. The information presented just isn't enough to draw any conclusion.

It is a fact that blacks in the USA are above average in per capita incarceration and below average in per capita income. They are also below average in per capita education, and thus underrepresented in (almost?) all the professions requiring advanced degrees.

Those are facts. How one wants to interpret those facts is a tad more complicated. At one extreme are those who place all the blame on the blacks, at the other are those who place none of it on them.

I am saying that the majority of the people below the poverty level are black or minorities, which is not exactly the same.

I don't know if this is necessarily true, but can't be bothered to track it down because it is meaningless anyway.

Consider an hypothetical case, a country that has a 90% 'purple' majority and a 10% 'mauve' minority. Let's say that 20% of the purples and 80% of the mauves are below the poverty level. Then 18% of the total population is poor purple, and 8% of the total population is poor mauve. So, there are a lot more poor purples (the majority) than there are poor mauve (the minority) in spite of the fact that a mauve is 4 times as likely to be poor as is a purple.

That little example is to make the point that the numbers aren't important, it is the ratios that are indicative of a situation.

Being able to blame a visibly different group of people (visibly because of e.g. their skin colour) for crimes always is a very comforting thing to do for many people, that's why this is so common.

And a great justification for sending them up a chimney. (Which, according to Godwin's law, should kill this rather pointless and mildly dangerous train).

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Well, I didn't try to say that. I said (or meant to say) I was suspicious of abortion policy in the US, because of the results tend to disproportionately target young black women. It might be that it's been with the best of intentions, where due to socioeconomic factors they are the recipients of this "aid".

Altering the US policy on abortion (making it illegal) means that those same pregnant, young, poor, under-educated girls are going to seek out alternatives. I think you and I both know where that leads.

That is one common argument. Drugs are still going to be used, so why not make it legal? People are going to do X, so let's make X cheap and very accessible. But, maybe, if we focused on effective contraception, or adoption, or making single parenthood less onerous/scary, and make those choices more accessible, then we wouldn't have (as many) abortions. It is a terrible form of birth control.

I'm careful not to draw causality from correlations. If you look at the demographic statistics, you'd think that one group were being targeted. Maybe they target themselves, but I tend to look at things systemically. Somewhere, the system is broken, and maintaining the status-quo will only result in more of the same.

I do NOT agree with your usage of the term "targeted". That makes it seem that the "abortion policy" (I dislike this term, but I am using it because you used it first) has a bull's-eye planted directly on the uteruses of blacks.

The system is broken not because of the US "abortion policy". The system is broken because an overwhelming number of young black females in the US are poor and under-educated. Throw in the conservative party mindset of "we don't talk about sex, and any form of birth control is immoral" leads to what you have now.

Teens with raging hormones will have sex, which without proper knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies will lead to a whole lot of young, poor, scared girls being pregnant.

I think in some cases, the "system" allows the bullseye, for example, the recent Planned Parenthood scandal where fund raising recordings were leaked of a conversation where a wealthy donor specifically wanted their donation used to prevent minority births. It allows for those with a racist or eugenics mindset to devote their economic power in a particular direction. Often those with "power" are apathetic to the plight of those disadvantaged, and so do not see or look for misuse. And, those who are most affected have little voice, power or influence at all. I'm saying the deck is stacked against minorities. There is still enough power exerted by racial bigotry in the US to tip the scales more heavily against them.

If we cared, then we'd address the problem. It continues to erode, ergo, as a society we don't really care, or our caring is ineffective. And, by problem, I mean the socio-economic gap, the achievement gap, and the disparity in access to the mechanisms of success and social mobility.

*edit: I might as well go farther on this.

If you want to change the current US policy on abortions (making them illegal because they take a life), are you also ready to prosecute anyone participating in an abortion for 1st degree murder?

You would need to begin by the government making performing it an offense, but it would be unfeasible and counter productive to switch drastically (e.g. Romania). You wouldn't(or shouldn't) just pass a law one day and make drugs legal either, you'd think about supply and distribution. We should ensure that all the other prevention measures are implemented, and then perhaps the more drastic choice of abortion would become a historical footnote, much like the recent societal changes regarding smoking habits.

[eppie]

If you want to change the current US policy on abortions (making them illegal because they take a life), are you also ready to prosecute anyone participating in an abortion for 1st degree murder?

You would need to begin by the government making performing it an offense, but it would be unfeasible and counter productive to switch drastically (e.g. Romania). You wouldn't(or shouldn't) just pass a law one day and make drugs legal either, you'd think about supply and distribution. We should ensure that all the other prevention measures are implemented, and then perhaps the more drastic choice of abortion would become a historical footnote, much like the recent societal changes regarding smoking habits.
[/quote]
The big problem with your proposal is that the people who oppose abortion are for a large part the same that oppose use of contraceptives and have much more conservative women rights ideas. So I don't see this happening.