If bank robbery were illegal...?

Question

would people continue to rob banks? Of course they would. Is that a good enough reason to legalize bank robbery?

This particular line of reasoning from the pro-choice crowd is specious at best. You guys have some arguments which are valid and cogent. This is not one of them.

For those who either refuse to understand, or are simply too thick to do so, Im referring to the pro-choice argument that we shouldn't ban abortion because women will continue to have them in any case.

coragryph: as I said, your side has some valid arguments...yours chief among them. That being said, if you're being intellectually honest, you have to admit the "women are going to have them anyways, so they should remain legal" argument is paper-thin at best.

opinionated blonde: And bank robbers will continue to rob banks. The fact remains that if abortion were illegal, only criminals would procure abortions.

elmjunburke: I AM involved. I was once an unborn baby, and without boring you with the details, a prime candidate for the abortion clinic. Fortunately, my birth mother was not so callous as to see her personal convenience as more important than the life of her unborn child. It's too bad more women can't say the same thing.

Centurion: Its not my fault your comprehension level rivals that of a fern.

Answer 1

Excellent comparison...in the last question I used Murder and drug use...but bank robbery works too....

These people that use the BUT PEOPLE WILL STILL DO IT...sound like my kids when they were 6...BUT Jimmy does why cant I?

The ones that can't understand the analogy that you made are obviously unable to understand simple logic and comparison...

To put it simply for those that seem to be unable to grasp this argument...and ONLY THIS ARGUMENT...as WE ARE NOT DEBATING THE ABORTION ISSUE ...JUST THIS ARGUMENT

Just because people do something that is illegal regularly...is no reason to make it legal...that is the argument that was proposed in the first place here..not the issue of abortion...

Answer 2

After staring at your statement for a while, I think that I see what you are trying to say, and possibly a question to answer.

Actually, bank robbery is illegal, and for the most part, people don't tend to rob banks any more. It has been a long time since I have heard of anyone trying to rob a bank, because it is illegal, and the enforcement is sufficient that people don't often get away with robbing banks.

Regardless of whether I am for or against an action or activity, if enough resources are applied to enforce a law consistently and effectively, then people are much less likely to violate that law. Harsh dictatorships have proven this to be true.

Answer 3

Bank robbery is nowhere close to a valid analogy.

Pro-choice is about whether one person can be forced, by government order, to provide life support for another against their will.

It's not about what is being done to the unborn. The issue is what the government is can force the mother to do against her will.

The closest analogy is forcing someone to donate blood or bone marrow against their will. Can the government do that? No. Because of the right to choose.

For the same reason, the government cannot force someone to provide other necessities of life out of their own body against their will.

By the way -- you do realize that the right to choose is the only thing stopping the government from being able to mandate abortions, or require forced sterlization. If individuals do not have the right to choose, then it's only up to the government.

And if the government can make the choice to force someone to remain pregnant, the government can force someone to terminate a pregnancy just as easily. Because it's either up to the individual, or it's up to the government.

Once you lose the constitutional protections regarding the right to choose, the government can to anything it wants.

EDIT: OK, focusing just on the "going to have them anyway" argument....

The purpose of an anti-abortion ban is to protect the life of the unborn, correct? If so, then it's purpose is different than the criminal penalties for bank robbery, which are primarily deterrence based. Same as the penalties for speeding.

But if the goal is safety of the unborn, and hopefully at least somewhat the safety of the mother, statistics and history have shown that unregulated back-alley abortions cause more harm to the mother, and cause more general destruction in the woman's ability to have children in the future.

So, if the goal is to cherish life, then that is best achieved by making the medical procedure as safe as possible.

Granted, it is a weak argument, but not completely invalid.
And my apologies for assuming you didn't grasp the other arguments.

Answer 4

With the name Rick, I have to believe that you're a male. If so, why don't you let this abortion thing up to the people involved ? You've never been pregnant. You've never had to face the possibility of being tied down with a child that would make your future doubtful. while the other half of the pregnancy goes about his business as usual.
I'm not thinking of late pregnancies, but very early is a different thing. The arguement that human life beging the minute the sperm and ova connect is bull. A second before there is no human life - - - bingo, now it's a human.
If destroying a newly connected sperm and ova is illegal, then the destroying of living sperm should be illegal. Try that.

Answer 5

I am not quite sure how you can compare the two or even eh at the analogy means however here is what he do know. Prior to Roe vs Wade although abortion was not legal many women still had them, many performed by unlicensed professionals in back alley clinics. After the supreme court decision, which did not legalize abortion rather stated that the courts had no jurisdiction over medical procedures, women continued to have abortions. Safely.

Answer 6

Lets make bank robbery legal for all people and not just the rich . Who take money out in loans and then refuse to pay it back . Thats robbery without the gun is all . When will we go after people who rob banks by filling out loan applications .

Answer 7

I understand what you mean and I agree with what you are trying to get across. I do not understand how there could be any argument on the issue because from my point of view it is murder and nothing less. As for the guy who speaks of government mandated life support for someone against your will well I have a son that is a 20 year old mooch should I be allowed to kill him for being dependent on others?

Coryagraph are you serious? By your logic the gov should not outlaw murder because then they can mandate murder. In my opinion it means no such thing.

Answer 8

In response to Coragryph:

Yes, state legislatures MAY require blood donation or bone marrow donation and they may ban any kind of medical procedures -- assuming that the legislation is plausibly authorized by the state constitution.

The U.S. Constitution does not address these issues. The U.S. Constitution does not impose on state governments the requirement that they may not do what they shouldn't do.

Answer 9

But those people who otherwise would have had the money now don't have it - if you're not going to let them violate someone else's rights, then you're obligated to support them.

This would be the "if you're not going to allow abortion then you have to support the resulting children" argument.

Answer 10

If abortion was illegal then only the well off would be able to get them safely. They get D& C's. The poor get abortions.