Suppose I said... "I'm pro-life. I believe abortion is murder and I want abortion made illegal. BUT, I want rich women to still have the ability to have an abortion. With as little inconvenience to them as possible. I just want poor women to not be able to get them. I want abortion kept as a privilege for the wealthy." Now, EXCEPT for my rhetoric and stated goals....what POLICIES would I endorse that would different from those that the "pro-lifers" endorse?
And that would be the situation if the "pro-lifers" got their desire for an "Abortion Prohibition". You can ask them, eventually they admit....NOTHING they propose policy-wise would inconvenience a wealthy woman from obtaining an abortion. Absolutely nothing. And they even say they "don't care". So again, what's the "difference" if somebody says they are "pro-life...but want rich women to still have the option to have them"...i.e. "plutocratic pro-choice"?
An argument for the choir I am afraid. Pro-lifers are set on abortion being murder and in that framework any life saved is worth the cost. If a few people get away with it it still doesn't make it right, just because the law cannot stop them does not mean they are completely immune to it. Otherwise we have to say all the things they get away with are okay including the rich pedophiles who take sex tours in pacific rim countries. For my part I do not see abortion as murder. The underdeveloped fetus is not human life because it has no ability to have awareness of its own existence. Late term abortions should only be allowed where the birth endangers the mothers life though because I do believe that a fully developed fetus with full brain activity is a human life.
"a few"....explain how ANY wealthy woman would get arrested under an American "Abortion Prohibition"?
The same way a wealthy pedophile might get caught, by someone gathering evidence and reporting them. From my point of view there is nothing wrong with them getting the abortion even if it is against the law (unlike the pedophile), its just an instance of inequity. I am just saying that the right to lifers do not necessarily approve of the wealthy "getting away with it" just because they want the law of the land changed. phew... sorry, I guess I should have given it a pass, but I see a flaw in an argument (even one I essentially agree with) and I have a compulsion to point it out. peace.
How do you "gather evidence" that a millionaire woman was 3 weeks pregnant BEFORE she left for Sweden for the weekend on her private jet....when she returns on Monday not pregnant?
An investigator who could find the clinic and get witnesses to talk potentially. I am not saying it's likely, but people who have gone to foreign countries to act out things that are criminal here have been caught before. If it is considered murder the justification for the investigation would be the same as investigating pedophiles who go outside the borders of the US to commit their crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/u...americans-who-commit-sex-crimes-overseas.html Very little would have to be done to rewrite this law to extend to abortion seekers if abortion became a federal crime.
The witnesses are going to "rat out" a "customer"? Doesn't make for good business, does it? Isn't that like a guy selling pot telling the cops who his customers are??? The point is it's not like it would even be enforced in THIS country against the wealthy. They'd go to "private spas" for a "therapeutic D&C to control uterine bleeding after a 'miscarriage'". The doctors and nurses would have good alibis, easily-eraseable medical records on their computers, and POWERFUL lawyers, as would the women. Meanwhile poorer women would be getting busted for going to med students in back-alleys or using dangerous abortifacients. And obviously it has NO relationship to an actual murder investigation and prosecution, since the "crime" could easily be passed off as a miscarriage. The example you should cite is the 1920s Prohibition....where the wealthy could get excellent Canadian whiskey....while the poor had to rely on bathtub gin and moonshine with formeldehyde in it. And my point was....the "pro-lifers"...don't care. It's all about IMAGE to them. They don't even care if it reduces the number of abortions. They just want the country (and themselves ) to LOOK "more holy and righteous".
What would an investigator be investigating ? WHY would he be investigating a woman who flew to Sweden? That isn't against the law. Would every woman who left this country have to undergo a forced medical exam to prove she wasn't pregnant? And if she was would she have to wear an ankle bracelet so they could invade her privacy even more by having her followed to see if she visits a "clinic", "spa", "hotel" or any friends who may be doctors ???
No one shuld answer you because you never answer questions but I'll give you a big hint...the OP explains it ...DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
It's pretty self-explanatory, Sam. Suppose you said "I only want RICH women to be able to get abortions, not poor women"? That's "plutocracy" (believing the rich should rule or be more advantaged than anybody else) and it's "pro-choice"...atleast for the rich. It's also, despite what you think, YOUR position on abortion....since nothing you can come up with to restrict abortions....would effect wealthy women. Go ahead...try to come up with something.
