It was definitely Locke, not Hobbes, who actually believed the opposite.

I hope what I said didn't come across as accusing you of promoting murder. If it did, I apologize, I didn't mean that at all. I also don't think your being silly.

As for my "purporting" of the concept that the government, and their laws, exist to protect citizens' rights: it's not some idea I cooked up in my free time. The idea goes back to John Locke (or Hobbes, if I'm mistaken) and was made quite clear by John Adams, and other founding fathers, to be the sole purpose for which the government exists. I also did not say the law shouldn't be enforced. I said proper enforcement won't directly effect women seeking abortions, but instead will restrain organizations which provide them.

Here's what I think we can agree on: Abortion should be stopped, as long as no oppressive force is employed by the government; The government should use absolutely no form of tyranny to enforce any kind of law.

The idea (which I do not know whether you hold or not) that the only choices are between using taxes to let abortion clinics run rampant and the government employing agents to stalk women's every move and keep them from getting abortions is incorrect. Here is a more diplomatic approach (It is not something I formulated myself, it is my impression of what anti-abortion laws would look like): Any organizations providing abortions will cease to do so, or be fined or shut down until they comply (there's your enforcement). Any organizations which still provide abortions will be working illegally and in the dark, under threat of seizure by authorities. Pregnant women will be unmolested, as will women openly seeking illegal abortions. If a woman is found having an abortion, the doctor and other providers will be arrested, not her.

To be brief, anti-abortion laws will make the providing of abortions illegal, not the receiving of them. The women seeking abortions are of concern to the abortion doctor, since they are his customers. They are of no concern to the law.

Hi excon. First of all, you're somewhat right in your premise, but the purpose of a law is not to eliminate the possibility of a crime being committed, it's to protect certain rights of citizens as much as possible without infringing on other rights, thus reducing crime largely.

Secondly, a law prohibiting abortion applies directly to distributers, not procurers, which means the government would prohibit organizations like Planned Parenthood from lawfully making money from abortions; meaning we would not need a "womb police" (I hope I didn't misunderstand what you meant by that).

Lastly, you said maybe. Were you referring to the question of whether fetuses constitute lives or not? This actually seems to be the only relevant question to me. Being under the impression that they do, I don't particularly like the idea of my tax dollars being funneled into the mass murdering of children (If I'm wrong about this position, then I'm VASTLY mistaken in my choice of words; So it's an important question).

I struggle to see how having sex with prostitutes, torturing enemies, and killing people in your way gets you "addicted to doing the good."

The world also does not tell you one thing or another, it just depends on where you choose, or were taught, to look. There are times where acting virtuously will make you miserable, and epicureanism (though, you tended more towards sadism) will satisfy you. But fornicating will not make me more faithful to my wife, nor will stealing from the rich increase my love for the poor. Your experiment has already been run (in Soviet Russia for example). It's a bad idea.