The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011

The Arizona House of Representatives passed legislation Monday that has many scratching their heads: prohibiting abortions on the basis of the fetus’ presumed race or gender.

The governor of Arizona has recently signed the bill into law, making this a bit more current.

Thoughts? Should states prohibit sex- (or race) based abortions? Assuming the legitimacy of abortions in general, is there any reason to limit the reasons for such abortions?

Note that China technically prohibits sex-based abortions (because it's becoming a very common practice), is there any legitimacy to this?

Sounds like one of those silly unenforceable laws as the only reason they would theoretically need is "I don't want a baby". Begging the question after that point doesn't do much when the conversation ends there.

There is legitimacy, but actually confirming the reason why one chose to go through with it is going to be rather difficult.

I understand the principle behind the law (and indeed support it, I guess), but I have to wonder if this is going to lead to people being forced to answer these questions or be refused at the door.

Then again, how many people tell their abortionists that they don't want a girl/boy? I'd think that's something that is processed in their mind alone.

Race based discrimination that also violates federal law? Yeah, this will last long.

Is there the possibility of charging those who voted this illegal law in with something?

It might make some other flouters sit up and pay attention if federal law stepped in and arrested these dimwits and slung their asses in the big house.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Is there the possibility of charging those who voted this illegal law in with something?

It might make some other flouters sit up and pay attention if federal law stepped in and arrested these dimwits and slung their asses in the big house.

Is there a law against passing frivolous laws? Would said law itself be frivolous? The delicious irony.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Is there the possibility of charging those who voted this illegal law in with something?

It might make some other flouters sit up and pay attention if federal law stepped in and arrested these dimwits and slung their asses in the big house.

Ever read the 10th Amendment?

India as well as China has a problem with girl foetuses being aborted because they are girls and families want boys.

In the UK, when you go for your scans, the ultrasound technician may refuse to tell you the sex of the baby.

From one angle, the bill looks like a sensible measure to protect the gender balance of future society.

When one looks at the wording, however, realises it is proposed by republicans, and understands that Arizona does not have a large Chinese or Indian immigrant population, it begins to look like a ham-handed try at an end run around the various protections to the right to abortion.

This may actually be targeted at sex selection IVF, in which case it would be quite enforceable.

Requia wrote:This may actually be targeted at sex selection IVF, in which case it would be quite enforceable.

It isn't. There are several articles about this online and offline about the new strategy of adding race to the abortion debate. It even was used here on Dakka before it was enough of a trend for journals to be writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy of framing it as a minority apocalypse.

Requia wrote:This may actually be targeted at sex selection IVF, in which case it would be quite enforceable.

Sex selection IVF is a different medical process. This bill is not targeted at it..



Automatically Appended Next Post:

To address the original query, the dearth of girls in China has led to social ills such as bride stealing. Precautionary measures to preempt these problems would seem to be a "good thing".

If the intention is to maintain a natural balance of boys and girls in society, an easier way to do it is to forbid clinicians from revealing to parents the sex of the foetus.

The problem with embroiling abortion in the issue is that it interferes with women's legitimate rights.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with embroiling abortion in the issue is that it interferes with women's legitimate rights.

Would anyone really argue that there is a solid right for the mother to know the sex of the child?

I understand being aware of diseases and possible deformities, but should the sex/race of the unborn child be a non-issue?

There isn't a human right to know the gender of the foetus.

Some people like to know and others don't. (My wife and I decided to let it be a surprise.)

It is a problem if people use the technology to select the gender of their children and cultural preferences lead to a serious imbalance which causes social problems.

Like in China, yeah.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with embroiling abortion in the issue is that it interferes with women's legitimate rights.

Would anyone really argue that there is a solid right for the mother to know the sex of the child?

I understand being aware of diseases and possible deformities, but should the sex/race of the unborn child be a non-issue?

On the other side of that coin you would need to explain where the government has the authority to tell the parent(s) that they aren't allowed to know. Do we really want to tell a mother that the government won't allow her to know what the gender is if she wants to know? What is the punishment for finding out anyway? Take the kid away? Put them in jail while they are carrying to supervise them? A fine?

This is impossible to efnforce, and therefore a waste of legislative time. Gataca-style perfectly bred society and all that kind of "what if" is a load of hypothetical that cannot be enforced. Are we to strap a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to a lie detector about the reasons? Further, if this is a contested disallowed abortion but it remains unquestioned in the case of birth defect deformity disease, it sends a message to everyone that downs syndrome people, muscular dystrophy people, spina bifida people etc are not protected from prejudice while healthy babies are.

This law isn't about eugenics or really even really concerned with it. It is, as you said, unenforceable. It is a political maneuver from beginning to end to try and make an end run around Roe as well as intimidate women. As the father, or parents of the father, can sue the women if she has an abortion that is considered to be becuase of race or gender the mechanism is in place and anti-choice advocates are just waiting in the sidelines. They won't win the case, but they don't need to win, they just need to be able to take it to court. Whether it is true or not is inconsequential.

biccat wrote:
Note that China technically prohibits sex-based abortions (because it's becoming a very common practice), is there any legitimacy to this?

On the one hand there are compelling social reasons to prohibit, at least, sex-based abortion. As you noted, China has a significant issue with an increasingly male-dominated populace.

However, a law of this type is basically unenforceable, as others have said, and really has no purpose other than linking abortion to other political issues.

Guitardian wrote:This is impossible to efnforce, and therefore a waste of legislative time. Gataca-style perfectly bred society and all that kind of "what if" is a load of hypothetical that cannot be enforced. Are we to strap a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to a lie detector about the reasons? Further, if this is a contested disallowed abortion but it remains unquestioned in the case of birth defect deformity disease, it sends a message to everyone that downs syndrome people, muscular dystrophy people, spina bifida people etc are not protected from prejudice while healthy babies are.

Actually in the UK abortion to term is legal if the child has Down's Syndrome..

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

I don't like abortion at all, but I would agree with this law on the principle behind it. In theory its good but since I'm
not likely to be put in a situation where I need to think of this law, it doesn't affect me and so I don't particularly care.

Phototoxin wrote:

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

How deliciously classy.

Ahtman wrote:This law isn't about eugenics or really even really concerned with it. It is, as you said, unenforceable. It is a political maneuver from beginning to end to try and make an end run around Roe as well as intimidate women. As the father, or parents of the father, can sue the women if she has an abortion that is considered to be becuase of race or gender the mechanism is in place and anti-choice advocates are just waiting in the sidelines. They won't win the case, but they don't need to win, they just need to be able to take it to court. Whether it is true or not is inconsequential.

Good point.

Good ol' bride-stealing.

No comment on Arizona law. Now Arizona has been in the news regarding illegal immigrants I am going to assume this is unrelated.

Besides "no comment" Arizona is honestly kind of freaking me out I was otherwise looking at maybe moving there get my feet wet in the ol' U-S-of-A.

Phototoxin wrote:

Guitardian wrote:This is impossible to efnforce, and therefore a waste of legislative time. Gataca-style perfectly bred society and all that kind of "what if" is a load of hypothetical that cannot be enforced. Are we to strap a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to a lie detector about the reasons? Further, if this is a contested disallowed abortion but it remains unquestioned in the case of birth defect deformity disease, it sends a message to everyone that downs syndrome people, muscular dystrophy people, spina bifida people etc are not protected from prejudice while healthy babies are.

Actually in the UK abortion to term is legal if the child has Down's Syndrome..

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

Stop this childish bickering about who is pro- or anti- whatever, you're embarrassing the other Brits on here.
Secondly, yes, that kind of abortion is legal in the UK, but many parents choose not to use it for ethical/parental/etc. reasons.

dogma wrote:So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

He responded to a statement using a common prejorative with a similar prejorative. If you don't want people to use an unappealing term for your side, don't use an unappealing term for their side.

dogma wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

How deliciously classy.

... and perfectly demonstrating my point as some notice;

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

dogma wrote:So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

He responded to a statement using a common prejorative with a similar prejorative. If you don't want people to use an unappealing term for your side, don't use an unappealing term for their side.

Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

No different than calling the pro-abortion movement "pro-death". Or, anti-life, if that's what you prefer.

Obviously the basic philosophy of the pro-abortion movement is that abortions are a good thing and should be continued.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

If it's also race-based, given Arizona, does this mean that you'll only going to be able to get an abortion if you scream out "Mah baby will be born a mexican illegal immigrant! Kill it now, before it can steal your job!"

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

No different than calling the pro-abortion movement "pro-death". Or, anti-life, if that's what you prefer.

Obviously the basic philosophy of the pro-abortion movement is that abortions are a good thing and should be continued.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

I believe it is a serious issue that deserves a serious level of debate.

micahaphone wrote:If it's also race-based, given Arizona, does this mean that you'll only going to be able to get an abortion if you scream out "Mah baby will be born a mexican illegal immigrant! Kill it now, before it can steal your job!"

Actually, it is the opposite. The law in question prevents some-one from doing just that.

As for the Pro/Anti - abortion debate..... What Roe v Wade actually did was make it safer for women who wanted an abortion. Previously, women had to do such in secret and there was a cottage industry of "illegal" abortion providers. Many of these were performed by people who were only marginally linked to the medical profession. Many also led to the death of not only the foetus but also the mother. They were performed in unsterile conditions and without medical follow up. Making abortion "legal" allowed for women to consult with real medical professionals and receive treatment for any complications that may have followed such a procedure.
Making abortion illegal (It Technically was never actually illegal, just frowned upon and heavily restricted.) would mean a rise in both "abortion dens", as some of the illegal locations were called, and death or disability of women seeking such procedures.

So which is really a pro life movement?

helgrenze wrote:

micahaphone wrote:If it's also race-based, given Arizona, does this mean that you'll only going to be able to get an abortion if you scream out "Mah baby will be born a mexican illegal immigrant! Kill it now, before it can steal your job!"

Actually, it is the opposite. The law in question prevents some-one from doing just that.

As for the Pro/Anti - abortion debate..... What Roe v Wade actually did was make it safer for women who wanted an abortion. Previously, women had to do such in secret and there was a cottage industry of "illegal" abortion providers. Many of these were performed by people who were only marginally linked to the medical profession. Many also led to the death of not only the foetus but also the mother. They were performed in unsterile conditions and without medical follow up. Making abortion "legal" allowed for women to consult with real medical professionals and receive treatment for any complications that may have followed such a procedure.
Making abortion illegal (It Technically was never actually illegal, just frowned upon and heavily restricted.) would mean a rise in both "abortion dens", as some of the illegal locations were called, and death or disability of women seeking such procedures.

So which is really a pro life movement?

Well, they care about the pure, innocent, cute babies. That doesn't really make sense, as babies can become any type of person, and usually teenage mothers, or others who seek abortions are not going to be the best of parents. Just remember, even serial killers were once cute little babies.

micahaphone wrote: Just remember, even serial killers were once cute little babies.

Looking at my siblings I believe I can heartily agree with you.


Though I don't think it's by any means a decent argument to support abortion.

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

biccat wrote:If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

That doesn't quite work. Pro-abortion isn't the same as pro-death (even if you agree that you are killing a child).

And how would calling them anti-choice be a smear campaign? I'm honestly confused, isn't this precisely what pro-life groups are trying to do? Restrict access to abortion and put the life of the child/featus over the choice of the mother?

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

Is it pejorative to describe the anti-murder movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-murder movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive, and clearly not pejorative, even though you could simply call it the the anti-murder movement instead of anti-choice and be more accurate.

Is it prejorative to describe the pro-choice movement as pro-abortion?

Surely the basic philosophy of the pro-abortion movement is that abortion is a good thing, and should be legal everywhere for any reason.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive, and clearly not pejorative, even though the movement isn't actually in favor of abortion per se.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

"Pro-life" is itself a disingenuous emotional plea, since the debate has exactly nothing to do with life, and everything to do with trying to punish sex. Hence the same organizations being rabidly anti-contraceptive and anti-sex-ed, and leaping to condemn anyone who follows through on their rhetoric and actually goes and bombs clinics or assassinates doctors, as well as such events being quite rare compared to the number of people who claim to see abortion as 100% identical to the holocaust.

Abortion is a test of rights: the rights of a person to control their own bodies, and the rights of humans to live.

It's a complex issue, and trying to boil it down to "murder" isn't helpful, particularly since in no other instance is removing oneself from another person and refusing to allow it to live considered "murder." When a woman has an abortion, it's right there with a doctor: if if dies, what exactly did she do wrong, other than have it removed?

Obviously it's a situation in which analogies break down, and hardly anybody thinks that abortions are a good thing. Which is why being pro-choice isn't about being pro-murder: if anything, most pro-choice people support movements that limit or prevent unplanned pregnancies, and thus abortions. It's a realization that it's a complex issue, and at some point if we feel that all human life has value, than a woman's right to live her life as something other than an incubator has value, and maybe allowing her that choice is a good thing.

Now, calling the movement "pro-choice" is clearly euphemistic. But anybody trying to say that the terms "pro-abortion" isn't emotionally loaded language can sell crazy elsewhere, as I'm all stocked up.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

What would you prefer to called then

It's also worth pointing out that one can be in favor of people having the right to do things that you find morally repugnant. I mean, I find holocaust denial stuff to be pretty evil, but I wouldn't never vote to ban it. There are many religious practices that I worry about indoctrinating kids in, but it's the right of parents. I feel that people have the right to chose to end their lives, but I don't think they should.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

That's a red herring. The debate is about abortion.

biccat wrote:Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

Except that it isn't.

The position of anti-abortion people (pro-life, if you will) is that they wish to restrict choice. They are against choice. They believe that choice is wrong, and lack of choice is good.

The term "anti-choice" precisely describes this anti-abortion position. It is also, in anti-choice terms, a compliment.

I think it's best to just call groups by what they want to be called, and then get on with debating the actual meaning and facts of the issue. They want to be called pro-choice, we call them pro-choice. They want to be called pro-life, we call them pro-life. Then we get on with talking about how terrible and cynically manipulative this gakky bill is.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:"Pro-life" is itself a disingenuous emotional plea, since the debate has exactly nothing to do with life, and everything to do with trying to punish sex. Hence the same organizations being rabidly anti-contraceptive and anti-sex-ed, and leaping to condemn anyone who follows through on their rhetoric and actually goes and bombs clinics or assassinates doctors, as well as such events being quite rare compared to the number of people who claim to see abortion as 100% identical to the holocaust.

To be fair, I do know people who are wholly consistent in their pro-life stance. In addition to opposing abortion they oppose war unless their is an overwhelming humanitarian need, and they support health funding and social welfare to make sure the child grows up healthy and well provided for, even though it would cost them more in taxes. While I disagree with these people on abortion, I respect and admire the position they've taken in general and believe it is consistent.

Unfortunately, those people are not the majority of the pro-life movement. Typically pro-life people assume fairly standard conservative views, favouring aggressive foreign policy, and keeping their taxes as low as possible, even though it will result in reduced funding for health and education services. In short, while they may believe very strongly that the baby has an absolute right to life, they couldn't give two gaks about it or any other person once they're out of the womb. When, as you rightly did, you consider these people are typically opposed to safe sex education and in favour of teaching abstinence only, then it becomes obvious the motivation for these people isn't the life of the child, but the sins of the mother.

sebster wrote:Unfortunately, those people are not the majority of the pro-life movement. Typically pro-life people assume fairly standard conservative views, favouring aggressive foreign policy, and keeping their taxes as low as possible, even though it will result in reduced funding for health and education services. In short, while they may believe very strongly that the baby has an absolute right to life, they couldn't give two gaks about it or any other person once they're out of the womb. When, as you rightly did, you consider these people are typically opposed to safe sex education and in favour of teaching abstinence only, then it becomes obvious the motivation for these people isn't the life of the child, but the sins of the mother.

There is a term for them we can all agree on : idiots.

"Pro-life" is itself a disingenuous emotional plea, since the debate has exactly nothing to do with life, and everything to do with trying to punish sex. Hence the same organizations being rabidly anti-contraceptive and anti-sex-ed, and leaping to condemn anyone who follows through on their rhetoric and actually goes and bombs clinics or assassinates doctors, as well as such events being quite rare compared to the number of people who claim to see abortion as 100% identical to the holocaust.

Pro-life is the new anti-sex?

Except that it isn't.

The position of anti-abortion people (pro-life, if you will) is that they wish to restrict choice. They are against choice. They believe that choice is wrong, and lack of choice is good.

The term "anti-choice" precisely describes this anti-abortion position. It is also, in anti-choice terms, a compliment.

Totally and utterly wrong.
They are against abortion. The whole point of the 'pro-choice' movement (and similarly the pro-life movement) is that by inference their 'opponents' are bad. Anyone who's opposed to 'pro-choice' is 'anti-choice' or opposed to 'pro-life' is 'anti-life/pro-death' and sounds horrid.

However to say that pro-life-rs are 'anti-choice' is dishonest and deceptive. It's not like they want us to be zombies. Additionally what choices are the 'pro-choice' movement for? Freedom to choose about everything? Will they support the man-boy love association next? Pro-life is (or at least should) about being all life being good and giving dignity to human life from its earliest stages throughout all parts of life. Including the death penalty, euthanasia and so on.

As I remarked to biccat, the abortion debate is about abortion, not other things.

Sebster's idea to let the groups call themselves what they want to be called and deal with the actual issue is spot on.

Let's settle for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" since those are the most widely accepted terms.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
He responded to a statement using a common prejorative with a similar prejorative. If you don't want people to use an unappealing term for your side, don't use an unappealing term for their side.

I disagree, and have had sufficient dealings with Phototoxin regarding abortion to know that he would have most likely phrased his position that way regardless of any perceived derision.

In any case, to the point, anti-choice is precisely as descriptive as pro-choice when discussing matters of abortion. It speaks directly to whether or not women should have the ability to choose to abort a child they are carrying. Compare this to the use of pro-death, which isn't strictly apt given that questions regarding the status of abortion as killing is central to the debate. People commonly deny that abortion involves killing a child, fetus, or otherwise independent life. No one denies that matters of abortion law are about protecting, or inhibiting the ability of women to choose.

Phototoxin wrote:
.. and perfectly demonstrating my point as some notice;

Yes, I know that was your point. My point was that you were wrong, so clearly so that I felt flippancy was warranted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:
Totally and utterly wrong.
They are against abortion. The whole point of the 'pro-choice' movement (and similarly the pro-life movement) is that by inference their 'opponents' are bad. Anyone who's opposed to 'pro-choice' is 'anti-choice' or opposed to 'pro-life' is 'anti-life/pro-death' and sounds horrid.

To my mind someone who is anti-choice with respect to a single issue, which is the only sense pro/anti-choice has any meaning, is considerably less horrid than pro/anti-life; and, in parallel that one is descriptive by necessity, while the other is often disputed.

Phototoxin wrote:
Additionally what choices are the 'pro-choice' movement for?

If the issue area in question is abortion, and it is, then the answer to your question should be obvious.

In any case, it hardly matters either way. People that are sensible enough to have a rational conversation on the issue won't particularly care about what each movement is named, and those that aren't sensible won't be open to reason regarding why their descriptor is inflammatory to main body of the other side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Sebster's idea to let the groups call themselves what they want to be called and deal with the actual issue is spot on.

Let's settle for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" since those are the most widely accepted terms.

Even if it weren't spot on, its hardly as though we can force them to do something else.

youbedead wrote:

biccat wrote:Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

What would you prefer to called then

If someone opposes abortion, I would call them "Pro-Life." They're allowed to define their own term, so long as it isn't blatently contradictory to their initial premise.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

That's a red herring. The debate is about abortion.

If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

Except that it isn't.

The position of anti-abortion people (pro-life, if you will) is that they wish to restrict choice. They are against choice. They believe that choice is wrong, and lack of choice is good.

The term "anti-choice" precisely describes this anti-abortion position. It is also, in anti-choice terms, a compliment.

The argument from the pro-life side is that there can be no legitimate choice where one choice is the taking of innocent human life. They do not weigh the balance between "a woman's choice" and "a baby's life," they (generally) take the position that human life is sacred and taking it is wrong. You could describe them as "anti-choice," but that would be the same as calling someone against murder "anti-choice." It's a misnomer intended to deride the opposition.

Also, aren't there forum rules about using derogatory terms to describe your political opposition?

Looking at the bill, I can pretty much tell that it's not enforceable. It's a political move, although it's one I can get behind. I mean, whether or not you believe abortion is a right or not, it's fair to say that denying something life simply because you don't like the color of its skin or it has a certain gender is a dick move.

It's wasteful legislature. Now, let's do something that everyone can endorse: outlaw Hitler.

Semantics don't matter. Throw in a couple more, anti-sex-education, anti-bad-parenting, pro-single-teen-mom, anti-condom.

Doesn't matter. I will happily be called a "anti-lifer" by some of the hicks that picket abortion clinics and just point at their despicable misbehaving kids in the walmart lines as a reason. Yeah I'm an donkey-cave elitist but that's because I'm right - That kind of attitude - because past a point, people get tired of the filthy masses dictating what they can or cannot do based on the mistakes the filthy masses made. That's why condoms are your friend, dumbass picket line lady with her idiot kids and no dad to be seen.

(edit
While the stereotype of traler trash/ crackhead is easy to point at the reason why people should breed, a lot of ani-abortion arguements come from sensitive, well thought points of view. I agree with these, which is why I use contraception... no problem for me so far and I've been at it for 20 years. If I was foolish and got a girl pregnant, I would not urge for abortion, I would man up and be a dad (that's why I'm careful ), but that doesn't mean my personal feeling on that should be legislated upon another.

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

Guitardian wrote:Semantics don't matter. Throw in a couple more, anti-sex-education, anti-bad-parenting, pro-single-teen-mom, anti-condom.

Doesn't matter. I will happily be called a "anti-lifer" by some of the hicks that picket abortion clinics and just point at their despicable misbehaving kids in the walmart lines as a reason. Yeah I'm an donkey-cave elitist but that's because I'm right - That kind of attitude - because past a point, people get tired of the filthy masses dictating what they can or cannot do based on the mistakes the filthy masses made. That's why condoms are your friend, dumbass picket line lady with her idiot kids and no dad to be seen.

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

Bro, I understand how you feel, but this isn't the way to go about convincing other people that you have their best interests at heart. Or even convincing them to like you.

ack, ya ninjad me on the edit.

This isn't going to end well etc etc.

Can you not just argue the topic without descending into making inflammatory and sweeping statements? It really isn't advancing the debate and will probably end up getting the thread locked.

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

Edit: on topic ; assuming abortion is legal and morally correct, abortion on regards to race or gender alone is wrong in an of itself. But when you say 'abortions for family balancing only' (for example) you start on that slippery slope of 'rights to choose' over someone/soemthing/some cells 'right'/right to life.

Phototoxin wrote:

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

Two different beasts. Heroin is debatable and in many people's eyes, not just junkies, not worth criminalizing as it does make for more problems than it solves, and it is a choice of what the person wants to do with their own body. Rape is different entirely because it is not a choice over your own body, it is the victims body.

I know where thi could go with a fetus having its own body. I maintain that it does not, up to a certain point, as it is physically connected to and reliant on the mother's body while it is still a lump of cells and not a conscious developed organism of its own.

Could parents who are the same race (say, white) be denied an abortion as they are obviously having an abortion as they don't want a white baby?

SilverMK2 wrote:Could parents who are the same race (say, white) be denied an abortion as they are obviously having an abortion as they don't want a white baby?

This is the problem with the law. And with all "motivation" laws, by extension. If I go out and get an abortion, it doesn't really matter what personal reason I might have for it - unless there's observable evidence that I got an abortion because I hate pink/brown/black/aquamarine babbies, there's nothing to prove. Even if I silently fume about the subjugation of the noble green race, and those filthy aquamarines controlling the media, in the eyes of the government I haven't committed a crime by terminating this filthy aquamarine pregnancy.

That makes as much sense as the government telling you you have the right to kill your baby but not to know it's gender.

filbert wrote:This isn't going to end well etc etc.

Can you not just argue the topic without descending into making inflammatory and sweeping statements? It really isn't advancing the debate and will probably end up getting the thread locked.

No, we can't. Thats the problem. "Debating" this on the intranetz is pointless, utterly pointless, but apparently happy fun time. So get the popcorn and watch the hilarity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

micahaphone wrote: Just remember, even serial killers were once cute little babies.

Looking at my siblings I believe I can heartily agree with you.


Though I don't think it's by any means a decent argument to support abortion.

Surprisingly, most dads of teenagers have been advocates of (retroactive) abortions.

Phototoxin wrote:By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

The reasoning behind this analogy you posted is as flawless as a glass foundation which has been shattered into dust.

And then was gakked on and had sections of it removed and dumped into a landfill.

And then was hit by an earthquake with the house just above the epicenter.

Outlawing rape does not endanger women. That is a stupid, stupid, STUPID assertion, beyond stupid, a hideously low and disastrously poorly thought out idea, and frankly you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for making it.

The heroin analogy has some merit, I think.

While most of us can agree that people have the right to do with their bodies as they please, we do make certain exceptions in order to guarantee public safety and order. Even though the government cannot and should not regulate what I do with my genitalia in my own home, I am subject to certain rules that indirectly safeguard the safety of others. Heroin and other dangerous narcotics are illegal because they make people behave irrationally and dangerously towards themselves and others. Additionally, such behavior benefits criminals and puts money into the hands of the enemies of our society.

Ultimately, I think, the debate over whether or not a woman has a "right" to an abortion should be fought over whether or not her actions regarding her own body negatively affect those around her. If, like the heroin addict, a woman having an abortion harms another individual or creates an unsafe society, then it is the local government's duty to legislate against abortion. If, like a person getting a tattoo or a piercing, a woman getting an abortion does NOT affect those around her, then it's the government's job to leave her alone.

I hope I'm making sense, here. It's bloody hot where I am and I'm not thinking straight.

Have you ever seen someone high on heroin? "dangerous" is not exacly a word that comes to mind. "melting into the corner" is a more appropraite an image. They behave irrationally and dangerous when they are having a withdrawal fit while NOT all high from it. They do illegal or dangerous things to obtain their drug of choice because it's illegal, therefore harder to come by. They are hurting really bad from the withdrawl fit and therefore desperate to do whatever it takes to feel better.

If anything, criminalizing abortions could be seen as potentially leading to the same behavior in a pregant and desperate woman feeling she has no choice but to break the law and take risks to get the abortion.

Guitardian wrote:Have you ever seen someone high on heroin? "dangerous" is not exacly a word that comes to mind. "melting into the corner" is a more appropraite an image. They behave irrationally and dangerous when they are having a withdrawal fit while NOT all high from it. They do illegal or dangerous things to obtain their drug of choice because it's illegal, therefore harder to come by. They are hurting really bad from the withdrawl fit and therefore desperate to do whatever it takes to feel better.

If anything, criminalizing abortions could be seen as potentially leading to the same behavior in a pregant and desperate woman feeling she has no choice but to break the law and take risks to get the abortion.

Heroin is in high demand not only because the government cracks down on suppliers, but also because it's an addictive substance with few substitutes. It's also physically harmful to those addicted to it - which would fall under my "dangerous to themselves or others" label.

I agree. Mostly they are a danger to themselves when actually using. Others when they run out. I am not an advocate of heroin any more than I am an advocate of irresponsible and/or unprepared parents, who are also a danger to themselves and others (the kid? society in general?). We can say about the junkie "well it's her own stupid fault she gets that way, selves her right if getting better isn't pleasant". Why not the same about the potential teen moms and their "babydaddy"s?... just from my point of vew, if there is to be regulation AT ALL (which believe there shouldn't be) why not make it the opposite, equally invasive to the rights of the woman in question - and make them mandatory unless she can show how she can be a fit and responsible parent? Its just as extreme, just in the opposite direction, but at least a heck of a lot better for the rest of society.

Guitardian wrote:Have you ever seen someone high on heroin? "dangerous" is not exacly a word that comes to mind. "melting into the corner" is a more appropraite an image. They behave irrationally and dangerous when they are having a withdrawal fit while NOT all high from it. They do illegal or dangerous things to obtain their drug of choice because it's illegal, therefore harder to come by. They are hurting really bad from the withdrawl fit and therefore desperate to do whatever it takes to feel better.

If anything, criminalizing abortions could be seen as potentially leading to the same behavior in a pregant and desperate woman feeling she has no choice but to break the law and take risks to get the abortion.

I have known people high on crack. They were crazy dangerous ers.

And coffee is not robitussin either.

Alcohol is more dangerous than heroin.

The reasoning behind this analogy you posted is as flawless as a glass foundation which has been shattered into dust.

And then was gakked on and had sections of it removed and dumped into a landfill.

And then was hit by an earthquake with the house just above the epicenter.

That's very colourful but doesn't exactly explain why my analogy is flawed. Keeping in mind that its supposed to be flawed since it itself is a parallel of a false analogy (access to abortion = less women endangered)

Guitardian wrote:I agree. Mostly they are a danger to themselves when actually using. Others when they run out. I am not an advocate of heroin any more than I am an advocate of irresponsible and/or unprepared parents, who are also a danger to themselves and others (the kid? society in general?). We can say about the junkie "well it's her own stupid fault she gets that way, selves her right if getting better isn't pleasant". Why not the same about the potential teen moms and their "babydaddy"s?... just from my point of vew, if there is to be regulation AT ALL (which believe there shouldn't be) why not make it the opposite, equally invasive to the rights of the woman in question - and make them mandatory unless she can show how she can be a fit and responsible parent? Its just as extreme, just in the opposite direction, but at least a heck of a lot better for the rest of society.

I've often heard, from my parents and from other parents, that no one is truly prepared to have a child. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that a person who deeply questions their ability as a potential parent might make them better caregivers in the future, as they put the health and happiness of the baby before their own.

Besides, even if such potential abortion-getters won't make better parents, having screwup parents doesn't guarantee the next generation to be less capable than the last. My own parents came from deeply flawed households where their parents were ill-equipped to have children, yet the example that my grandparents provided has given my family a gauge against which we can measure ourselves. I'm certainly not representative of an entire generation, but having bad examples helped make my parents' marriage work. I've read of other "rags to riches" stories where incredibly talented and influential people have come from poor backgrounds. If it's possible that a child will grow up to be great, is it really wise to deny them a future simply because it's also likely that they'll grow up to be poorly educated trash?

biccat wrote:
If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

The thing is that it isn't a useful parallel since the crux of the debate is whether or not abortion can be justified, meaning that comparing to it murder does nothing except presume that abortion is an unlawful (or, more broadly, unjustified) killing.

In an honest conversation it makes more sense to discuss what we consider to be justifiable reasons for taking a life (if we've already agreed that abortion is taking a life) than it does to begin at murder. Of course it doesn't help much, as this is the sort of issue where people are likely to either be irrational, or arguing from fundamental principles; meaning no one is likely to be convinced one way or the other. Its interesting topic only because some people can come up with truly creative arguments.

Phototoxin wrote:(access to abortion = less women endangered)

This is not a false statement.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term without risking her life, the abortion may be the only way to save her life. Banning all abortions would remove this option from the doctor, and if they accidently caused the fetus' death in trying to treat the woman they'd probably be held liable by law if abortion was banned to boot.

In the situation where the doctor has to choose between a half-developed fetus and the mother and is forced to abort the fetus, noone wins. If the action he performed is made is illegal, everyone loses by an even larger margin-- if he doesn't do it, both fetus and mother will die, but if he does, he's held legally responsible for the fetus' death.

This is part of the problem. Most people who want to ban abortion don't care for the reason that the abortion happens to begin with. Abortion is never a casual thing... it's a deeply emotional, and often traumatizing thing for the women who go through it. Nobody WANTS to go through the ordeal... but we live in an imperfect world, full of imperfect people. Mistakes are made, and sometimes we have to make decisions we don't like, and we never want to make.

Wen talking about abortion, one could look towards Ireland and see ow tings worked out ere.

Sorry - my keyboard seems o ae ied...

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

The thing is that it isn't a useful parallel since the crux of the debate is whether or not abortion can be justified, meaning that comparing to it murder does nothing except presume that abortion is an unlawful (or, more broadly, unjustified) killing.

You're making the same presumption against murder, that it is unlawful, and therefore not subject to debate. Besides, the example was used in the context of applying labels.

The pro-choice side sees the issue as protecting a mother's right to choose. Anyone opposed to this is anti-choice.

The pro-life side sees the issue as protecting the life of an unborn child. Anyone opposed to this is anti-life.

Melissia wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:(access to abortion = less women endangered)

This is not a false statement.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term without risking her health, the abortion may be the only way to save her life. Banning all abortions would remove this option from the doctor, and if they accidently caused the fetus' death in trying to treat the woman they'd probably be held liable by law if abortion was banned to boot.

Catholic hospitals have a great way of dealing with this issue: when they treat a pregnant woman, they consider that they are treating two patients.

Now, I disagree with the Catholic idea that abortion should never be on the table - if the choice is to save A and kill B or let both A & B die, then they should try to save at least one of the patients. Then again, if you have two patients who are going to die (e.g., A needs a heart, B is going to die soon, but has a healthy heart), does it make sense to take one of their lives to save the other? Tough call.

Phototoxin wrote:
Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Nothing can prevent a self-induced miscarriage either, that is just a lot less safe yet an equally guaraunteed alternative than a medical procedure. Why the unnecessary risk or legality - the only purpose left it serves that can stand against all the refutes is one of personal belief. It makes believers feel like a more wholesome society, for what good it'll do. I didn't think those personal belief things were supposed to be legislated.

biccat wrote:
You're making the same presumption against murder, that it is unlawful, and therefore not subject to debate.

Murder is unlawful, or unjustified by definition. We don't say that soldiers murder each other in combat, for example.

biccat wrote:
Besides, the example was used in the context of applying labels.

The pro-choice side sees the issue as protecting a mother's right to choose. Anyone opposed to this is anti-choice.

The pro-life side sees the issue as protecting the life of an unborn child. Anyone opposed to this is anti-life.

Sure, and contextually both labels make sense. Though, as I said, I think the label from choice is more appropriate as one can be "anti-life" and still really dislike abortions. You're right though, the nomenclature is all part of the political game, just as political liberals (in the traditional sense) believe in personal freedom insofar as people are prevented from taking steps to limit that freedom.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I would also hazard to guess that in many cases it isn't all that difficult for the woman to choose if she will have an abortion. I know that, of the 3 I've "witnessed", only 1 girl legitimately thought about keeping the child: the other two were merely scared of the procedure.

I think that most pro-life people make an exception if the life of the mother is jeopardized by a pregnancy. If your own life is jeopardized by another and you haven't committed a crime, then you always have the right to do whatever it takes to stay alive.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Consider for a moment that abortion is just plain illegal for any reason other than the rape/incest/life jeopardized stuff. You just can't have an abortion, period, because it's wrong.

My what a lot of happy well raised kids there would be since their moms obviously really wanted to be moms.

What a lot of career-pursuing women there would be since they were able to go ahead with that college scholarship while being a full time mom, since they get free A's in school as part of their new benefits package for being a single mother (it went hand in hand with the food stamps, scholarship, child-care stipend, rent rebates, and all the other good stuff single moms get as part of the Abortion-is-illegal bill. Hell, why not tack on an easy grading scale too?)

My what a lot of new jobs for prison guards in a few years.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Casually indicating that the decision is trivial does not make your position sound intelligently thought out.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote: Tough call.

Yes it is. THat's the whole point I was making. I don't consider a fetus to be a person, but even then, it's still an extremely difficult choice for the mother to be.

Except in most cases, abortions are convenience, rather than based on the health or safety of the mother.

You went from an agreeable "it's a tough decision" and accepting that the situation is more complex than many people make it out to be, to oversimplifying the issue for the sake ofe making those you disagree with look bad. Seriously biccat, you need to stop that

I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Casually indicating that the decision is trivial does not make your position sound intelligently thought out.

The decision to terminate a human life should never be less than a life-or-death situation for someone else. To suggest otherwise is to depreciate the value of human life to whatever decision is being made.

If abortions can be decided on the result of convenience, then human life has no more value than that convenience. Such a view is deplorable, and a civil society should not tolerate such wanton killing.

Meh, I'm not gonna get into this argument. It's bad enough that I have to deal with the local nutjobs, then there's also too much political arguing in off topic recently...

I don't see many blob like bundles of cells that are considered to be "human life" (except that aforementioned line at walmart that is).

That becomes an arguement of what is considered to be "human life" from a legal standpoint. I guess masturbation is murder too them since it results in the termination of millions of potential human lives.

Guitardian wrote:I don't see many blob like bundles of cells that are considered to be "human life" (except that aforementioned line at walmart that is).

That becomes an arguement of what is considered to be "human life" from a legal standpoint. I guess masturbation is murder too them since it results in the termination of millions of potential human lives.

I always hear this argument, and it always fails to convince me. Firstly, those faiths that do consider masturbation to be a sin despise it for that very reason. Secondly, for those (like me) who do not see masturbation as genocide, the reason why a sperm is not considered a human life is because it can only become a fully grown adult if it is left alone. A fertilized egg, without exterior interference, will almost always become a baby given time. The fact that a zygote, embryo and fetus all undergo metabolic functions, cellular reproduction, maintain homeostasis, possess the capacity to grow and the ability to respond to stimuli makes the claim that they are not "alive" fall flat for me. Additionally, I do not believe that one can state that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not technically human, as it shares all our genetic material. Therefore, I think one can state that such "bundles of cells" count as "human life."

Hawkward wrote:

Guitardian wrote:I don't see many blob like bundles of cells that are considered to be "human life" (except that aforementioned line at walmart that is).

That becomes an arguement of what is considered to be "human life" from a legal standpoint. I guess masturbation is murder too them since it results in the termination of millions of potential human lives.

I always hear this argument, and it always fails to convince me. Firstly, those faiths that do consider masturbation to be a sin despise it for that very reason. Secondly, for those (like me) who do not see masturbation as genocide, the reason why a sperm is not considered a human life is because it can only become a fully grown adult if it is left alone. A fertilized egg, without exterior interference, will almost always become a baby given time. The fact that a zygote, embryo and fetus all undergo metabolic functions, cellular reproduction, maintain homeostasis, possess the capacity to grow and the ability to respond to stimuli makes the claim that they are not "alive" fall flat for me. Additionally, I do not believe that one can state that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not technically human, as it shares all our genetic material. Therefore, I think one can state that such "bundles of cells" count as "human life."

Wait, a sperm is not human life beasue it can only become a human life if it is left alone? I hope that was a typo.

A fertilized egg, without external interference? Like the 9 months of being nurtured by the host body kind of interference? Like the years of attention it needs to mature beyond a point of screaming/soiling itself for defense mechanisms kind of interference?

dogma wrote:Sure, and contextually both labels make sense. Though, as I said, I think the label from choice is more appropriate as

When you try to slap a label on the other side that frames the debate in your terms and which they consider inappropriate, the label is simply inappropriate if you want to hold an actual discussion about an issue and not the label. This is doubly true if you admit that both labels you could choose from sound reasonable to you, since you could just choose the one that doesn't get the other side to object, since you don't have the argument that their preferred label is actually wrong. If you want to feel superior by saying 'haha, they're anti-choice', go for it. If you want to hold an actual discussion or change anyone's mind, though, you should use a label that isn't going to obscure the rest of what you're saying.

Or, as he already pointed out, let each side label itself (Pro-choice, Pro-life) and have the courtesy to use the term for each side that it has collectively chosen.

pro regulation, anti regulation, embryo rights activism, anti foolspawn, load it however you want. Call the other side "idiot" or "murderer" or "government control freak" as you please, the semantics simply don't matter.

The question of regulation and the real reasons behind it becoming a legal matter, and effects of it being a legal matter are an issue though.

Abortions as illegal, for whatever reason (fear? unpreparedness? birth defect? brown eyed? female? bi-racial?) It does not stop unwanted children from happening to foolish people. It cannot even stop terminated pregnancies, just make them more dangerous physically and criminally.

The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts. It's the moral OPINION of some people that the moral OPINION of their group should be enforced by a supposedly impartial government supposedly under no influence from the creed of any specific moralistic belief oriented groups. (I can't say religion as the only culprit but I get the idea it somehow is involved, no idea why that could be)

Guitardian wrote:The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts. It's the moral OPINION of some people that the moral OPINION of their group should be enforced by a supposedly impartial government supposedly under no influence from the creed of any specific moralistic belief oriented groups. (I can't say religion as the only culprit but I get the idea it somehow is involved, no idea why that could be)

Just to be clear then: you also oppose the FDA and medical regulatory boards, right?

It seems hard to argue that the FDA is somehow enforcing a primarily moral viewpoint.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term without risking her life, the abortion may be the only way to save her life. Banning all abortions would remove this option from the doctor, and if they accidently caused the fetus' death in trying to treat the woman they'd probably be held liable by law if abortion was banned to boot.

In the situation where the doctor has to choose between a half-developed fetus and the mother and is forced to abort the fetus, noone wins. If the action he performed is made is illegal, everyone loses by an even larger margin-- if he doesn't do it, both fetus and mother will die, but if he does, he's held legally responsible for the fetus' death.

This is part of the problem. Most people who want to ban abortion don't care for the reason that the abortion happens to begin with. Abortion is never a casual thing... it's a deeply emotional, and often traumatizing thing for the women who go through it. Nobody WANTS to go through the ordeal... but we live in an imperfect world, full of imperfect people. Mistakes are made, and sometimes we have to make decisions we don't like, and we never want to make.

Firstly, if a pregnant woman has, for the sake of argument, cancer and requires chemotherapy, the treatment will most likely kill the child/foetus/end the pregnancy/whatever. No doctor should say ‘sorry mrs McGee no chemo for you because you’re pregnant.’ It’s called the principle of double effect. The intent of the chemo is to save a life, an unintentional by-product of that is the death of the embryo/foetus/child/cell-lump/whatever. That is not an abortion.

In Ireland abortion is illegal. Gynaecological and obstetric measures to save the life of a mother which result in the death of the foetus are legal. They are not abortion. Not all killing of a foetus = abortion. I know Ireland is rodgered to the hilt economically and that the health service compared to the EU is 2nd only to Romania, but it’s maternity care is some of the best in the world.

Secondly the definition of ‘without risk to her life’ is ambiguous – all pregnancy carries risk. There is a risk that by being pregnant a woman cannot outrun bears compared to a similar un-pregnant woman. Being pregnant in this case carries risk to her life. If you are speaking about something like an etopic pregnancy (where implantation occurs in the fallopian tube) then in that case the removal of the blastocyst is a medical intervention to save the mother’s life. Not abortion.

No, that's wrong. In the example of abortion making it legal reduces the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to abort a child without professional assistance

That’s like saying ; making heroin legal reduces the chance of the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to inject without professional assistance. (not to mention that it wouldn’t be cut with ketamine, brick dust or the good ol' anthrax!)

Guitardian to Dakka: Nothing can prevent a self-induced miscarriage either

Phototoxin as an aside to the audience: FFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAALCON PuNcH!

Jokes aside a self induced miscarriage is an abortion. In addition 'spontaneous abortion' is what's commonly called a natural miscarrage. I think about 50% of pregnancies naturally end this way (although stat's wise I'm not sure how accurate that is) So the teminology in itself can be obfuscating. So pro-life people are against 'abortion'? - tough as spontaneous abortion happens anyway!

In the end I think its mostly to do with i)when does human life begin and/or what rights does the foetus have if any.

If abortions can be decided on the result of convenience, then human life has no more value than that convenience Such a view is deplorable, and a civil society should not tolerate such wanton killing.

Well thats another part of the issue – unless we have a severe wave of suicidal mothers in the uk (as technically you need to be referred on health grounds ) most of the time the justification is put down to ‘social reasons’. Nothing health related so in effect despite the law being against elective abortion on demand that's what is practices in the UK.

A fertilized egg, without external interference? Like the 9 months of being nurtured by the host body kind of interference? Like the years of attention it needs to mature beyond a point of screaming/soiling itself for defense mechanisms kind of interference?
If this is true (foetus are parasites/don’t live outside the uterus argument ad nauseum) then how come (aside from partal birth abortion) that infanticide is not legal? I mean kids don’t survive without their parents… adults don't survive outside their natural environment (space etc) without severe interventions.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
When you try to slap a label on the other side that frames the debate in your terms and which they consider inappropriate, the label is simply inappropriate if you want to hold an actual discussion about an issue and not the label. This is doubly true if you admit that both labels you could choose from sound reasonable to you, since you could just choose the one that doesn't get the other side to object, since you don't have the argument that their preferred label is actually wrong. If you want to feel superior by saying 'haha, they're anti-choice', go for it. If you want to hold an actual discussion or change anyone's mind, though, you should use a label that isn't going to obscure the rest of what you're saying.

I think that depends on how seriously the parties to the conversation regard labels, but in general if the purpose of discussion is diplomacy, then you're correct. However, I'm not sure that's possible with respect to abortion, as the labels almost always reflect the emphasis of the debate for the parties in question, indeed I've noticed that the first real step towards a serious abortion debate is getting the other party to acknowledge that they are in fact advocating what the other side is accusing them of (at least insofar as the accusations are reasonable).

Put specifically, pro-choice people do want to allow women to terminate their fetuses and pro-life people do want to deprive women of ability to choose to have their fetuses aborted. As such, any conversation I might have with a pro-life person, or even another pro-choice one, is likely to come down to me stating that they support something which, when phrased a certain way, is offensive; and most people will pick up on that if its said in direct conversation, where they might not in written material.

Polonius wrote:It seems hard to argue that the FDA is somehow enforcing a primarily moral viewpoint.

"The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

If the government has no business telling a woman whether she can have an abortion or not, they have no business telling me what drugs I can consume, or that my doctor can suggest.

Phototoxin wrote:

No, that's wrong. In the example of abortion making it legal reduces the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to abort a child without professional assistance

That’s like saying ; making heroin legal reduces the chance of the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to inject without professional assistance.(not to mention that it wouldn’t be cut with ketamine, brick dust or the good ol' anthrax!)

Again, that's wrong. You're trying to make a 1 to 1 analogical comparison between two things that are only similar in the sense that they can both be made illegal. The harm resulting from women undergoing abortion, and the harm resulting from people injecting themselves with heroin (to the extent that the later is regarded as necessarily harmful) arise according to entirely distinct circumstantial sets. Unless you're going to argue that abortion is always harmful to women in the same way that the injection of heroin is thought to be always harmful to addicts, in which case I really see no reason to discuss anything with you because you're using preposterous examples for emotional effect rather than sensible comparison.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:It seems hard to argue that the FDA is somehow enforcing a primarily moral viewpoint.

"The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

If the government has no business telling a woman whether she can have an abortion or not, they have no business telling me what drugs I can consume, or that my doctor can suggest.

Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Polonius wrote:Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

dogma wrote:
I think that depends on how seriously the parties to the conversation regard labels, but in general if the purpose of discussion is diplomacy, then you're correct. However, I'm not sure that's possible with respect to abortion, as the labels almost always reflect the emphasis of the debate for the parties in question, indeed I've noticed that the first real step towards a serious abortion debate is getting the other party to acknowledge that they are in fact advocating what the other side is accusing them of (at least insofar as the accusations are reasonable).

Put specifically, pro-choice people do want to allow women to terminate their fetuses and pro-life people do want to deprive women of ability to choose to have their fetuses aborted. As such, any conversation I might have with a pro-life person, or even another pro-choice one, is likely to come down to me stating that they support something which, when phrased a certain way, is offensive; and most people will pick up on that if its said in direct conversation, where they might not in written material.

that's an eloquent point. Fundamentally, pro-choicers are ok with the death of (most likely) viable fetuses. And pro-lifers are ok with treating pregnant women as brood mares for the state.

It's a genuinely interesting moral debate(until you tire of it and decide to buy condoms), as you have to decide what's worse: allowing the death of an almost-human, or forcing an actual human to serve as life support for a fetus. Creepy stuff all around.

Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

dogma wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

No, that's wrong. In the example of abortion making it legal reduces the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to abort a child without professional assistance

That’s like saying ; making heroin legal reduces the chance of the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to inject without professional assistance.(not to mention that it wouldn’t be cut with ketamine, brick dust or the good ol' anthrax!)

Again, that's wrong. You're trying to make a 1 to 1 analogical comparison between two things that are only similar in the sense that they can both be made illegal. The harm resulting from women undergoing abortion, and the harm resulting from people injecting themselves with heroin (to the extent that the later is regarded as necessarily harmful) arise according to entirely distinct circumstantial sets. Unless you're going to argue that abortion is always harmful to women in the same way that the injection of heroin is thought to be always harmful to addicts, in which case I really see no reason to discuss anything with you because you're using preposterous examples for emotional effect rather than sensible comparison.

Actually it has been noted that aside from the lifestyle aspects often associated with heroin addiction that in and of itself it is not as harmful as alcohol. Indeed the former UK government's head consultant held this particular view.

Legalising might make it safer, but in and of itself is not a reason to make it legal.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

Abortion has well known, managable, and primarily psychological side affects. The cost benefit ratio, solely to the woman, is pretty high. Most cancer drugs have unknown and complex side effects, with much lower cost-benefit ratios.

Also, abortions can literally be performed in a back alley by a med school drop out, while pharamacueticals take much more resources.

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

Abortion has well known, managable, and primarily psychological side affects. The cost benefit ratio, solely to the woman, is pretty high. Most cancer drugs have unknown and complex side effects, with much lower cost-benefit ratios.

Also, abortions can literally be performed in a back alley by a med school drop out, while pharamacueticals take much more resources.

Well, I see that you can distinguish between cancer treatment and an abortion, but I don't see how this affects the government's authority to regulate one or the other. Again, the issue is the authority of the government to regulate a certain "treatment." Cancer on the one hand and abortion on the other. It has been proposed that abortion-based regulations are invalid because it's none of "the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

Is this rationale not applicable to cancer drugs? Why or why not?

Phototoxin wrote:
Actually it has been noted that aside from the lifestyle aspects often associated with heroin addiction that in and of itself it is not as harmful as alcohol. Indeed the former UK government's head consultant held this particular view.

If you're talking about David Nutt's study, then you misread it. The physical dimension of the matrix analysis showed heroin at the top of the list, it was alcohol that derived the majority of its total effect from social harm and dependency. Note figure 3.

Phototoxin wrote:
Legalising might make it safer, but in and of itself is not a reason to make it legal.

If the primary reason for making it illegal is harm to the individual, or the society, then it may well be.

biccat wrote:Well, I see that you can distinguish between cancer treatment and an abortion, but I don't see how this affects the government's authority to regulate one or the other. Again, the issue is the authority of the government to regulate a certain "treatment." Cancer on the one hand and abortion on the other. It has been proposed that abortion-based regulations are invalid because it's none of "the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

Is this rationale not applicable to cancer drugs? Why or why not?

Well, that wasn't the proposal. The proposal read, to me, that it's nto the business to regulate a person's ability to use their body for purely moral purposes. Drugs, both legal and illegal, have non-moral implications. So, to a degree, does abortion, but it ain't banned because it's bad for the person getting one. It's banned primarily because people don't like the idea of women having sex.

But no, I have interest in try to defend the strawman you picked out of that post.

Trying to analogize abortion is tough, simply because it's such a unique case.

Polonius wrote:It's banned primarily because people don't like the idea of women having sex.

But no, I have interest in try to defend the strawman you picked out of that post.

It can't be a fluke that these two sentences were typed by the same hand.

Guitardian wrote: The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts. It's the moral OPINION of some people that the moral OPINION of their group should be enforced by a supposedly impartial government supposedly under no influence from the creed of any specific moralistic belief oriented groups. (I can't say religion as the only culprit but I get the idea it somehow is involved, no idea why that could be)

So you're fine with abortions at 8 months, not just in the first trimester?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's banned primarily because people don't like the idea of women having sex.

But no, I have interest in try to defend the strawman you picked out of that post.

It can't be a fluke that these two sentences were typed by the same hand.

I didn't employ a strawman. I made a pretty bold assertion, which is almost the opposite of a straw man.

Heh, well, show all those people that seek to ban abortion that also seek to increase access to health care for children, and is supporting efforts to reduce the demand for abortions with contraception and eduction beyond absitinence, and in general acts like a person that seeks to protect and nurture life, I'm more than willing to change my mind.

Look, I think abortion is bad. I think it's immoral and a bad call. But when the same people try to ban abortion because it kills babies, but then oppose any law or regulation that will help make or keep children healthy.... what conclusions should I draw? When many of the same people seem to oppose any sex education beyond absitience? I'm sorry, I'm dumb, but I ain't stupid.

Everybody thinks abortion is bad, but the people that campaign most tirelessly against it are probably not coincidentally also the biggest proponents of "traditional family values."

Polonius wrote:

that's an eloquent point. Fundamentally, pro-choicers are ok with the death of (most likely) viable fetuses. And pro-lifers are ok with treating pregnant women as brood mares for the state.

Really? responding to dogma's excellent post with that?

"(Most likely) viable fetuses" vs "brood mares for the state"

Hardly an evenhanded approach.

Polonius wrote:
Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

In this honest debate we would address both sides from their strongest position.

Polonius wrote:Everybody thinks abortion is bad, but the people that campaign most tirelessly against it are probably not coincidentally also the biggest proponents of "traditional family values."

And people who campaign for it are the types who support taking tax dollars to pay for the health of children. And they oppose the death penalty for murderers, but support abortion of innocent lives. It's almost as if there is some ulterior motive.

If you look hard enough or assign motives to people based on perceived consequences of political positions, it's not hard to find hypocracy in any political position.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Everybody thinks abortion is bad, but the people that campaign most tirelessly against it are probably not coincidentally also the biggest proponents of "traditional family values."

And people who campaign for it are the types who support taking tax dollars to pay for the health of children. And they oppose the death penalty for murderers, but support abortion of innocent lives. It's almost as if there is some ulterior motive.

If you look hard enough or assign motives to people based on perceived consequences of political positions, it's not hard to find hypocracy in any political position.

Very true. Everybody has an agenda. Hey, at least as a pro-choice guy I'm honest. I'm in favor of women having lots of sex (especially if some of it comes my way).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:

Polonius wrote:

that's an eloquent point. Fundamentally, pro-choicers are ok with the death of (most likely) viable fetuses. And pro-lifers are ok with treating pregnant women as brood mares for the state.

Really? responding to dogma's excellent post with that?

"(Most likely) viable fetuses" vs "brood mares for the state"

Hardly an evenhanded approach.

I was trying to make a point: both sides are advocating pretty distasteful consequences. I'm not sure who you think I'm making look worse, but it's a pretty messy situation, which I elaborated on later.

Polonius wrote:
Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

In this honest debate we would address both sides from their strongest position.

In an honest debate, we'd get to the actual issue. Which is only partially about the life of the fetus. The debate is about the right of people to have sex, families, etc. as they see fit. There are big chunks of this country that feel that pre-martial (or even non-reproductive) sex is inherently wrong. You have issues of demographics, and population. You have the religious ideal of populating the earth. There's a lot of stuff going on, and the actual fetus is only a small chunk of it.

Polonius has hit the nail on the head here. Pro-choice movements aren't demanding more abortions, as an abortion is generally an unpleasant thing regardless. Pro-choicers are okay with the death of the fetus, but they aren't after an explosion in the number of abortions that occur, they're after the option that will keep women safe and healthy.

But with legal access to safer abortion the number of abortions has gone waaaaaaay up.

I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Maybe the number of reported abortions. Go figure.

Phototoxin wrote:But with legal access to safer abortion the number of abortions has gone waaaaaaay up.

I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Guitardian wrote:Maybe the number of reported abortions. Go figure.

Pretty much.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Maybe the number of reported abortions. Go figure.

Pretty much.

As long as we're making unsubstantiated claims, I would suggest that the number of "back alley abortions" have gone way up since Roe was decided.

Why on earth would that have happened if there was no need for them? That just doesn't make any sense. It does make sense that less abortions are reported because they were illegal.

biccat wrote:I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Of course, what you've done there is assume the primary element of the debate when you just declared the foetus a human life.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the only real point of debate between the two sides, whether or not the foetus is a human life with all the rights the rest of us enjoy, or it isn't. Everything else is bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hawkward wrote:I always hear this argument, and it always fails to convince me. Firstly, those faiths that do consider masturbation to be a sin despise it for that very reason. Secondly, for those (like me) who do not see masturbation as genocide, the reason why a sperm is not considered a human life is because it can only become a fully grown adult if it is left alone. A fertilized egg, without exterior interference, will almost always become a baby given time.

I have some sperm and an egg. I flush them down the sink. That isn't murder by your definition and fair enough.

But if I took that sperm and egg, combined them, waited a day then flushed it down the sink, that would be.

The fact that a zygote, embryo and fetus all undergo metabolic functions, cellular reproduction, maintain homeostasis, possess the capacity to grow and the ability to respond to stimuli makes the claim that they are not "alive" fall flat for me. Additionally, I do not believe that one can state that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not technically human, as it shares all our genetic material. Therefore, I think one can state that such "bundles of cells" count as "human life."

The issue isn't if it is alive, obviously it is. But so is a cow, or some grass. We don't grant the cow or the grass the fundamental right to life, because what matters isn't that they're alive, but the level they're operating on, and their level simply isn't comparable to humans. That zygote/embryo/foetus doesn't have the knowledge, personality and social connections that many people consider the real basis of what makes human life sacred, and so many people believe it should not be granted the same rights as a person out in the world.

I'm not saying you're wrong in believing that human life starts with conception, but I think you're doing a disservice to the complexity of life by insisting it so simple. It's actually an incredibly complex subject, and very subjective, and there are many reasonable points of view about when we should consider human life to have really begun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

Anti-cancer drugs are a matter of significant technical complexity, where the average layman is not only unlikely, but in most cases incapable of making an informed decision over which drug is best for him. Where such information assymetry exists then informed decision making (a primary goal for any market) requires a third party to act on behalf of the poorly informed consumer.

On the other hand, the mother is just a knowledgable as anyone else as to whether her unborn deserving of the fundamental right to human life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's a genuinely interesting moral debate(until you tire of it and decide to buy condoms), as you have to decide what's worse: allowing the death of an almost-human, or forcing an actual human to serve as life support for a fetus. Creepy stuff all around.

Thing is, ultimately, it depends on whether you consider the unborn a human life. If you do, then the inconvenience of the mother cannot possibly outweigh the need to protect human life. If you don't, then there is nothing to be gained from forcing a woman to carry her child to term.

Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

Not necessarily. I don't see the death of foetuses as bad, because I don't believe they're human.

I understand that other people do, and I respect that, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:As long as we're making unsubstantiated claims, I would suggest that the number of "back alley abortions" have gone way up since Roe was decided.

It's pretty hard to know how many abortions were performed before 1973, and while the number was almost certainly less, we can't know if it had any relation to phototoxin's claim that it has gone waaaaaaaaaaay up.

But we do know for certain that the number of backalley abortions has decreased immensely. We can measure this by seeing how many women died as a result of bungled backalley abortions before and after Roe v Wade. In 1972 there were 39 deaths from illegal abortions. In the 38 years since then, there's been one death. Multiply that out, even ignoring the population increase, and you see we now have 1/1,482 the number of backalley abortions.

So, basically, the rate of abortion pre-1973 to now is unknown, and probably somewhere between phototoxin and guitardian's claims. Whereas your claim about an increasing rate of backalley abortions is objectively wrong.

Sebster, at what point would you differentiate between non-human fetus and human child?

RustyKnight wrote:Sebster, at what point would you differentiate between non-human fetus and human child?

Truthfully, you don't have to. We don't accord children the same rights as adults, so simply possessing the status of "human" does not mean the a fetus must have all the same rights as a child, let alone an adult. Moreover, even if we accord the fetus all the same rights as any other human, there is no particular reason to presume that we must act to protect those rights.

Phototoxin wrote:I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Just so you know, they more or less form the entirety of the "pro-life" movement, at least in the US. Especially the leadership of said movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

Random killing is not, and should not be, permitted on the rationale that a society in which it is acceptable to randomly kill people is not a safe place to live, even if said rationale comes in the form of subconscious emotional reactions. Terminating unborn humans poses no threat to members of society beyond potential medical complications for the mother, which are less than the risks of complications from carrying it to term. The two are therefore completely incomparable. At the point of abortion, the fetus is a mindless lump of tissue, compared to which a cow appears sapient, only human on the genetic level.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Just so you know, they more or less form the entirety of the "pro-life" movement, at least in the US. Especially the leadership of said movement.

Oh yes,they most assuredly do. In fact, it's probably the extremism of the anti-choice movement which has caused so many people to join the other side, more than anything else.

RustyKnight wrote:Sebster, at what point would you differentiate between non-human fetus and human child?

I actually don't there is a point. The child develops over time, and there's millions of steps that are all essential, but no single point absolutely, definitively makes it a child.

We could just look at cognitive ability, but the brain is still developing well after birth, and you end up with the plainly ridiculous situation where the argument can logically be made that a two year old isn't really a person. I think it's the most important consideration in terms of a person, but it really doesn't produce a clear answer of when they become a person (years ago I held the view quite stridently that because the unborn lacked the mental capacities of human it proved clearly that abortion was fine, but I was handed my ass when I attempted to debate it, because tracking the development of the brain is not that clear or easy, and I've since accepted a much more moderate view).

You could look at birth, but that's just an arbitrary point that doesn't really mean anything substantial. It marks the point that the child is no longer dependant on the mother.

You could look at a range of points in utero, and lots of them have some merit (lots don't, mind you, and it's disappointing the pro-life crowd keep focussing on emotive stuff like fingernails and heartbeats over matters of actual substance).

Or you could look, quite reasonably, at conception at the point where it's human life.

There isn't a clear, single point, in my opinion. So when people say 'within the first trimester' I say 'alright, I guess'. And then I say 'but there's lots of other points which could also be entirely reasonably defined as the point where it's a human life so all we can really do is have a polite discussion on the issue, vote on the issue and hopefully move on.'

On the other hand, the mother is just a knowledgable as anyone else as to whether her unborn deserving of the fundamental right to human life.

What makes the mother the decider if a seperate human being should have life? Why does the father not get a say? It's half his genes too.

It marks the point that the child is no longer dependant on the mother.

Yet if you leave a neonate alone it will die. It is still dependant on *someone* to clean, feed, and love it.

As for increases, I don't know about the States but in the uk :

Additionally since it was legalised it's been generally rising. It may have fallen 2010-2011.

Phototoxin wrote:What makes the mother the decider if a seperate human being should have life?

Nothing, but that wasn't the point of the quoted text. In quoting only that one section you managed to miss the point. The question was on why the state should interfere with new drugs on the market through FDA administration, but be restricted from controlling a mother's decision to abort is because the first relationship has a chronic case of information assymetry that prevents the consumer from making an informed decision that properly represents their interests, while in the latter case no such information assymetry exists.

Why does the father not get a say? It's half his genes too.

That's a whole other debate. And yeah, you have a point, but sometimes life sucks one way or another. It sucks if the guy wants to have a baby but the women makes the decision to abort, it sucks if the mother wants to abort but the father insists she keep it to term.

Pick one.

Yet if you leave a neonate alone it will die. It is still dependant on *someone* to clean, feed, and love it.

Obviously. But anyone can do that, it is not physically attached to and dependant on the mother. As such, the mother is capable of saying "I don't want this child and will not care for it" and the state can actually provide for that child. The same cannot be done with

What are you trying to achieve with that little interjection, by the way? Because to me it just looks like a little bit of pedantry with no relevance to any greater point.

As for increases, I don't know about the States but in the uk :

It doesn't really say that. It says the rate has been rising steadily since 2002, before which presumably the rate was constant or in decline. Meanwhile in the US the peak was in 1990*. The abortion rate drifts up and down over time, annoying the extremes of both sides by refusing to fit neatly into their ideologies.

Not that that really has anything to do with anything, because the issue is if they've risen compared to when they were illegal, which is of course impossible to know because there are no statistics for when abortion was illegal. It'd be crazy to argue they hadn't risen at all, anytime something has been legalised useage is only going to increase. The issue is that given how the rate tends to drift slowly over time, it's a long shot to declare they got waaaaaaaaaaaay higher all of a sudden, even over as big a change as legalisation.


*Which is weird, because it seems like most everything sex related reached a high water mark in 1990 (STDs, teen pregnancy...) then started declining. I don't know why. Maybe because that's when Bill Clinton started campaigning in earnest and stopped goofing around so much. That'd probably account for at least a few thousand less unwanted babies each year.

I guess the real question I have here, is what is wrong with the people in Arizona? Why do they consistently push such wacky, out there nonsense? Why do people like Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio consistently get elected and then re-elected?

It's perplexing. United States of America vs Jesusland, indeed.

Ouze wrote:

It's perplexing.

A pertinent and all too true summary of the situation. We appear, quelle surprise mon ami !, to have reached the inevitable impasse that this discussion seems to end in, best we leave it here then until such time as some radical new thought or discovery throws light on the subject.