Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Why?

Once you've "had the child" (given birth) the question seems moot.

If you don't want it, then there are plenty of means by which to transfer custody.

There are also plenty of means for transferring custody of a child before it is born, it simply requires a short waiting period.

If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

dogma wrote:So, the belief that women should have the capacity to abort a pregnancy, that is, kill a fetus, entails the belief that women should have the right to kill a child after giving birth to said child?

Yes.

dogma wrote:Are you really of the opinion that there is no meaningful distinction between a fetus and a child?

Yes.*

dogma wrote:Does that, further, mean that there is no meaningful distinction between a 3 year old, and 50 year old?

Yes.*

* There's no meaningful distinction between the right of a 3-year-old to life and the right of a 50-year-old to life

This thread makes my brain hurt from the stupid flying around from both sides.

Phanatik wrote:
The Elephant Man aside, a human fetus grows into a human baby that grows into a human adult. Americans are protected by the Constitution from the government and the tyranny of the masses.

So, you don't have an argument beyond "Constitution!".

Phanatik wrote:
R v. W supposedly created a woman's constitutional right to an abortion (I defy anyone to show me the paragraph where it says so) which if true, would create a conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights, which would have to be resolved (great, more lawyers). This leaves abortion advocates trying to argue that a baby isn't a baby to remove the conflict.

There is no right to life. If there were, capital punishment would be Unconstitutional.

There is also no right to abortion, at least considering the text of the Constitution itself.

But, as regards whether or not a baby isn't a baby, you seem awfully like an infant. You cannot argue that there is a line between a fetus and a baby if you're further going to maintain that there is no line between an infant and an adult. And I suspect you won't make the latter claim.

dogma wrote:There is no right to life. If there were, capital punishment would be Unconstitutional.

There's a right to liberty, but imprisonment isn't Unconstitutional.

biccat wrote:
If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

9 months of pregnancy.

Or, in your language, a violation of her freedom, possibly religious.

biccat wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction between the right of a 3-year-old to life and the right of a 50-year-old to life

What about a -8 months "child"?

Or, more interestingly, a -12 months "child"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:There is no right to life. If there were, capital punishment would be Unconstitutional.

There's a right to liberty, but imprisonment isn't Unconstitutional.

So you're saying that rights are fungible?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

9 months of pregnancy.

Or, in your language, a violation of her freedom, possibly religious.

There is no constitutional right against someone violating your "freedom," religious or otherwise, if they are not a government actor.

Here it is the child that is restricting the woman's "freedom against pregnancy," not some government actor.

What you're asking for is remedial action by the government to free her from a perceived violation of her liberty interest.

If someone else violates my liberty interest - say by kidnapping me or holding me hostage - I cannot hire a squad of armed gunmen to kill the kidnappers.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:There's no meaningful distinction between the right of a 3-year-old to life and the right of a 50-year-old to life

What about a -8 months "child"?

Or, more interestingly, a -12 months "child"?

No meaningful distinction there either. Assuming you can find a potential human at -12 months.

dogma wrote:So you're saying that rights are fungible?

What? No. That comment doesn't even make sense.

biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?

If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.

Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.

Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?

I'm trying to address the issue in a more compromising* manner, using the word "requiring" is to placate the opposition and not get dragged down debating whether this is a "life" issue or a "liberty" issue.

If you would prefer, I can say "what's the harm in preventing the mother from murdering her child."

* and by "compromising" I mean accepting, for the purpose of this discussion, the other side's arguments. "Compromise" to many on the left means accepting their ideas. Posters here would clearly be the exception.

biccat wrote:
There is no constitutional right against someone violating your "freedom," religious or otherwise, if they are not a government actor.

There is no Constitutional right against the state violating your freedom.

biccat wrote:
What you're asking for is remedial action by the government to free her from a perceived violation of her liberty interest.

No, that's not consistent with your initial question.

You asked where the harm lies in requiring a mother to carry her child to term. I pointed out that 9 months of pregnancy are widely considered to suck, and further that it harms her freedom to abort the child.

Then there's the fact that I've explicitly stated that there is a difference between abortion, and kill in a new born.

biccat wrote:
If someone else violates my liberty interest - say by kidnapping me or holding me hostage - I cannot hire a squad of armed gunmen to kill the kidnappers.

You can't call the police?

biccat wrote:
No meaningful distinction there either. Assuming you can find a potential human at -12 months.

Pretty easily. That cute girl who brings me coffee manifests such thoughts.

biccat wrote:
What? No. That comment doesn't even make sense.

I see you've spent very little time thinking about rights.

Fungibility entails the easy substitution between commodities. Rights can be conceived of as commodities. One can have equal rights without having rights that are identical to those of others. This is required by any right to liberty.

In order to have a right to liberty that includes law, and order, one must have "rights" that are fungible. In essence, the violations of right X cover the violations of right Y.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

So we're against the government forcing institutions to do some things, but you're okay with the government forcing a woman to do something?

I doubt anyone here is advocating total anarchy.

We the People totally insist that the government force a person(s) not to rob a bank.
We The People utilize the government all the time to enforce laws, AND can resist the government trying to go beyond what we allow them.

Note that the people that want government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries, advocate abortion but abhor capital punishment, love trees and snail darters to the detriment of humans, burn up SUVs but hate backyard grilling, Occupy other people's property while whining for a job, insist we have a national i.d. card but think showing i.d. to vote is disenfranchisement (etc etc) ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.

Really, why is that?

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:
We the People totally insist that the government force a person(s) not to rob a bank.
We The People utilize the government all the time to enforce laws, AND can resist the government trying to go beyond what we allow them.

Note that the people that want government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries, advocate abortion but abhor capital punishment, love trees and snail darters to the detriment of humans, burn up SUVs but hate backyard grilling, Occupy other people's property while whining for a job, insist we have a national i.d. card but think showing i.d. to vote is disenfranchisement (etc etc) ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.

Really, why is that?

Regards,

So, "The People" do things that you like, but "the people" do not?

dogma wrote:There is no Constitutional right against the state violating your freedom.

Sure there is.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Those are just the explicit mentions.

dogma wrote:No, that's not consistent with your initial question.

You asked where the harm lies in requiring a mother to carry her child to term. I pointed out that 9 months of pregnancy are widely considered to suck, and further that it harms her freedom to abort the child.

There's a right against having your life "suck" for 9 months? Where to I sign up?

dogma wrote:Then there's the fact that I've explicitly stated that there is a difference between abortion, and kill in a new born.

Ah, well dogma has spoken. I suppose that's the end of the discussion then.

Should I just forward this to the Supreme Court, or do you want to do it yourself?

dogma wrote:You can't call the police?

We're not talking about state action, we're discussing the legality of private action.

dogma wrote:I see you've spent very little time thinking about rights.

Yeah, dogma, I don't have the same ideas as you so quite obviously I haven't spent the same amount of time studying it. I suggest you try being less condescending. I accept the legimacy of your views that are different from mine, I would like, but do not expect, the same

dogma wrote:Fungibility entails the easy substitution between commodities. Rights can be conceived of as commodities. One can have equal rights without having rights that are identical to those of others. This is required by any right to liberty.

Only if you conceive of rights as commodities is fungibility required. Fungibility of rights stems requires a conception of rights as stemming from government, rather than naturally existing limitations on government.

You quite clearly apply the former, which I agree is a practical conception. However, it doesn't afford any distinction between a free society and a sufficiently tyrannical society, which is a problem. With a "states as grantors of rights" position, you cannot say that the United States is more or less free than North Korea.

dogma wrote:In order to have a right to liberty that includes law, and order, one must have "rights" that are fungible. In essence, the violations of right X cover the violations of right Y.

If rights are fungible, then they aren't "rights." They're concessions, and particularly fragile ones at that.

MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.

So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?

As shown before, around 10% of children in foster care actually end up getting adopted. Around 50,000 per year of 400,000 - 500,000 in foster care. Now, obviously that's not saying that a child can't get adopted; one of my friends and his 3 sisters were all adopted. I'm simply pointing out that "adoption is the answer", well, isn't.

As a nitpick, murder does not just "Prevent [someone] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", it ends that life. An attacker putting someone in a permanent vegetative state will "Prevent [them] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", but is not murder per se. Again, just a nitpick with no real bearing.

Phanatik wrote:I doubt anyone here is advocating total anarchy.

We the People totally insist that the government force a person(s) not to rob a bank.
We The People utilize the government all the time to enforce laws, AND can resist the government trying to go beyond what we allow them.

Note that the people that want government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries, advocate abortion but abhor capital punishment, love trees and snail darters to the detriment of humans, burn up SUVs but hate backyard grilling, Occupy other people's property while whining for a job, insist we have a national i.d. card but think showing i.d. to vote is disenfranchisement (etc etc) ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE.

Really, why is that?

Regards,

I have no idea what you're saying, but I find myself wondering "What is a snail darter"?

One wonders why two people would so willingly faceplant themselves into brick walls so often.

Fun to watch though.

Snail Darters are a type of fish I believe, a dams construction was delayed due to them being found in the area of construction. They were at the time an endangered species.

Relapse wrote:It would be probably cheaper and easier just to transplant the fetus into a surragate mother, a bit like what is done for livestock.

That presupposes a steady supply of surrogate mothers, doesn't it? We're having enough trouble getting women to have the babies they conceive (however accidental or unintentional) as it is... which is the whole point of this disagreement.

Vulcan wrote:We're having enough trouble getting women to have the babies they conceive

The number of births still far outweighs the number of abortions. You make it sound like almost every woman is getting an abortion and that maybe a few women are having children.

Krellnus wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Albatross wrote:Can a new-born baby survive independently, once it's exited the womb?

Not what i said 'nor what i meant.

And yet you opened that door, so his question is entirely valid.

I didn't say independently...

streamdragon wrote:So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?

When that behavior is "killing a child," yes.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Why?

Once you've "had the child" (given birth) the question seems moot.

If you don't want it, then there are plenty of means by which to transfer custody.

There are also plenty of means for transferring custody of a child before it is born, it simply requires a short waiting period.

If the pregnancy isn't a threat to the woman's life and her only objections are "I'm not ready to be a mother" and/or "I can't give it a good life," what is the harm in requiring her to carry the child to term?

Let's say she has a job that requires physical activity that is impossible in the third trimester and the month or so after giving birth. Let's further say that said job doesn't give pay to women on maternity leave. Let's further say that since she has this crappy job, she hasn't been able to save up enough money to NOT be able to work those 4-5 months without risking loosing her residence and everything she owns.

Still no harm?

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?

When that behavior is "killing a child," yes.

So I know where we're arguing from, and I promise not intended as a trap in any way though it basically is:

Define "child" in this context for me? After a certain trimester? When it's viable outside the mother? At the moment of conception?

I feel it's an important enough distinction, although I realize that the article in the OP is saying that there is no distinction.

streamdragon wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.

So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?

yep, i think forcing a women to bear a child so it may live is acceptable.

As shown before, around 10% of children in foster care actually end up getting adopted. Around 50,000 per year of 400,000 - 500,000 in foster care. Now, obviously that's not saying that a child can't get adopted; one of my friends and his 3 sisters were all adopted. I'm simply pointing out that "adoption is the answer", well, isn't.

then let foster care be the answer. Why kill a child when you could just as well give it to them?

As a nitpick, murder does not just "Prevent [someone] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", it ends that life. An attacker putting someone in a permanent vegetative state will "Prevent [them] from experiencing the rest of their [life]", but is not murder per se. Again, just a nitpick with no real bearing.

yeah, right. Still, why should we end lives just because they are not wanted/useful?

MrMerlin wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.

So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?

yep, i think forcing a women to bear a child so it may live is acceptable.

Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
They still have the right and responsibility to decide for themselves what they think is right, even if they eventually come to a decision we don't like or agree with.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:If forcing the woman allows a child to live, then yes.
If the womens life is in danger, I think abortion is acceptable. But if she just doesnt want to carry it, no.
Just a thought: what does murder do to the victim? Prevent him/her from experienceing the rest of their lifes.
Killing a baby prevents it from experienceing the rest of its life, so its murder. Why should you rob a child of its chance to live just because the parents dont want it? Children can be adopted.

So you're okay with the government can force behavior as long as it "allows a child to live"?

yep, i think forcing a women to bear a child so it may live is acceptable.

Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.
They still have the right and responsibility to decide for themselves what they think is right, even if they eventually come to a decision we don't like or agree with.

I disagree.

Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.

So we should legalize rape, murder, kidnapping, and robbery? Just because something won't end doesn't mean legalizing it is the answer (no comment on the actual issue of abortion or post-birth killing, just that this argument doesn't really have any meaning to any issue because its too broad).

biccat wrote:
Sure there is.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Those are just the explicit mentions.

No prohibition against the violation of freedom. Certain freedoms, sure, but not freedom as a general concept.

Even the prohibition against the deprivation of liberty is couched in "due process", which means that the state won't deprive you of freedom if the state doesn't feel like it. And maybe you can vote, or something.

And, before you delve into the "life" argument, personhood isn't tacit to humanity.

biccat wrote:
There's a right against having your life "suck" for 9 months? Where to I sign up?

Aww, its cute that you think I can be so easily redirected.

You asked where the harm lies, I told you where the harm lies. Rights don't enter into the equation without you injecting them into it.

biccat wrote:
Should I just forward this to the Supreme Court, or do you want to do it yourself?

I'm glad that you acknowledge your argument is facile, and that you shouldn't consider the pursuit of it.

biccat wrote:
We're not talking about state action, we're discussing the legality of private action.

It is a private action to call the police.

biccat wrote:
Yeah, dogma, I don't have the same ideas as you so quite obviously I haven't spent the same amount of time studying it.

No, I don't expect you to have the same ideas as me. That would be boring. I expect you to spend enough time thinking about things you comment on, philosophically, to understand what is and is not a factual error.

You'll find, or should have found, that I'm very open when it comes to possible arguments. The problem I have with you is based entirely on you tendency to do exactly what you're accusing me of.

biccat wrote:
I suggest you try being less condescending. I accept the legimacy of your views that are different from mine, I would like, but do not expect, the same.

I think you have perhaps misunderstood my worldview.

I don't mean this to be hateful regarding Breitbart himself, but I agree with the sentiment.

I am a bastard (possibly a lovable one), and I would be disappointed if no one said so.

biccat wrote:
Only if you conceive of rights as commodities is fungibility required. Fungibility of rights stems requires a conception of rights as stemming from government, rather than naturally existing limitations on government.

There are no naturally existing limitations on government, not even the SC agrees with that notion.

Insofar as rights exist naturally, they are properties of individuals. The state, or really just 'the other', respects them or does not respect them at its purview.

biccat wrote:
With a "states as grantors of rights" position, you cannot say that the United States is more or less free than North Korea.

Really?

State 1 grants rights X, Y, and Z.

State 2 grants rights Y and Z.

By what metric can state 1 be considered, in terms of freedom, equivalent to state 2?

biccat wrote:
If rights are fungible, then they aren't "rights." They're concessions, and particularly fragile ones at that.

No, they're still rights. Rights are just far more fragile than you want to admit.

I would be surprised that this whole thread has been reduced to a 'take the logic to it's most ridiculous extreme where the logic totally breaks down' discussion... but then, that's where the article posted by the OP started, isn't it.

There will never be an agreement on this subject, because there really isn't any moderates involved.

One side screams 'baby killers!"

The other screams 'woman haters!' (This is the short version of it, the long version is 'you don't think women are smart enough to make decisions!')

And nothing ever comes of it.

It might be a good idea to lock this thread now. No one is going to persuade anyone of anything, even the need for a change in the nature of the discussion.

MrMerlin wrote:
I disagree.

Look at it this way: If a woman wants to kill her 2-year old, is it still her descision?

This enters into a debate that I think we both know is a complete minefield; whether a foetus can be classed as a person.
A foetus may or may not be aware, a 2-year-old certainly is.
A foetus cannot survive outside of the womb without specialised machinery, a 2-year-old can.

However, regardless of this, I still think the woman (and the man, to an extent - it takes two to tango, as they say) should make up their own minds on the issue. This is an issue, I feel, that should be left to personal morality to decide, rather than a blanket judgement by society on an issue that is about as black-and-white as a rainbow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.

So we should legalize rape, murder, kidnapping, and robbery? Just because something won't end doesn't mean legalizing it is the answer (no comment on the actual issue of abortion or post-birth killing, just that this argument doesn't really have any meaning to any issue because its too broad).

Hm, point. I suppose this is where logic abandons me; I feel that there is a difference between those things and abortion, but I cannot explain why.
This is, of course, why the subject is such a minefield for any ethical debate.

Vulcan wrote:Let's say she has a job that requires physical activity that is impossible in the third trimester and the month or so after giving birth. Let's further say that said job doesn't give pay to women on maternity leave. Let's further say that since she has this crappy job, she hasn't been able to save up enough money to NOT be able to work those 4-5 months without risking loosing her residence and everything she owns.

Still no harm?

Nothing that the government needs to involve itself in, no.

If you're in that precarious of a condition, do you really think it's a good idea to be having unprotected sex? Or engaging in any sort of risky behavior?

streamdragon wrote:So I know where we're arguing from, and I promise not intended as a trap in any way though it basically is:

Define "child" in this context for me? After a certain trimester? When it's viable outside the mother? At the moment of conception?

I feel it's an important enough distinction, although I realize that the article in the OP is saying that there is no distinction.

As I've explained before, using the term "child" here is a bit of shorthand. The actual interest I'm balancing is the future interest of the child in life. It is indisputable that a fetus, without further affirmative action from the mother (assuming everything goes well), will develop into a living child. That right is deserving of protection.

We can have a debate about at what point that interest develops. But we can't have a debateif you deny that the interest exists.

LordofHats wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Except that even then you won't get rid of abortion. Prohibition has never worked; not for alcohol, and it won't work with this.
Ultimately, it's far better to have it legal and controllable, and allow the people involved to make their own choices as to whether it's right for them or not, than to force a choice upon them.

So we should legalize rape, murder, kidnapping, and robbery? Just because something won't end doesn't mean legalizing it is the answer (no comment on the actual issue of abortion or post-birth killing, just that this argument doesn't really have any meaning to any issue because its too broad).

Ah, but the laws against violent crimes ARE working. Violent crimes in America have overall been trending DOWNWARD for several decades now. Check the FBI website and look up the statistics yourself. (It just SEEMS like violent crime is getting worse, because the media tells us all about each and every story in glorious gory detail.)

On the other hand, laws against immoral behavior that ISN'T violent have a long history of NOT working. Again I refrerence Prohibition and and the War on Drugs. Most places have given up on enforcing Adultery laws, assuming the laws are even still on the books (many if not most have been removed). Same thing with sodomy laws, they are never enforced unless violence is involved.

So... why don't laws against immoral behavior work? In America, there is a strong tradition of personal freedom, to do as one wishes so long as no one else is harmed. And it is hard for most people to see a collection of cells in a woman's uterus as 'someone else;' the default belief is that it is a part of the woman until such time as it is 'disconnected,' so to speak.

Lazy thinking? Almost certainly. But that is the way it is. Stridently screaming 'BABY KILLER' just polarizes the issue and makes them defensive. And beleive me, making someone defensive just makes them entrench themselves all the more firmly in their beliefs.