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

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.