Mean, sick, and poor is no way to go through life, son.

South Dakota:  another US state that sucks

S. Dakota Slaps Up Its Women
Another state you should never visit passes an appalling abortion ban, because they hate women

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/03/03/notes030306.DTL&nl=fix
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 9:32am
Yeah... while I tend to agree with the overall message, it's not exactly persuasive writing.  Pretty sophomoric.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 9:38am
This is a typical line in the whole abortion fight-

"Your state, apparently run be pallid sexless demagogic men who think they know something of God and morality"...

It's fairly typical to finger men as the culprits for abortion laws, under a misguided belief that women universally abhore it and men universally support it. That, of course, is complete bullshit. Apart from the fact that women outnumber men in virtually every district (and thus have more of a say in the democracy), a lot of younger women are against abortion, and a huge percentage of relatively older women (e.g. over 35/40) are against abortion. Women tend to embrace abortion only when they see it as a nice safety valve, entirely for selfish reasons, and when it isn't for their own benefit they reject it.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 9:40am
Your generalizations aren't any better than theirs.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 9:41am
Yeah they are. I'm not imagining some split where poor, suffering women are being held down by stodgy old men. In reality it's much more complex than that, and women most certainly aren't in solidarity on this issue.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 9:42am
And claiming it's because "men hate women" is just crass.
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 3rd, 2006 9:43am
But you generalize the reasons for the split among women.  It's not as simple as "women who need abortion think it's great and women who don't, hate it".
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 9:43am
Oh, and neither are men for that matter. Young men are often pro-abortion for the same selfish reasons -- they like going bareback, and they'd like the responsibility to disappear if something comes from it.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 9:44am
This same kind of talk is going on in Missouri right now.  Legislation for it will probably show up by the end of the year.
Permalink Send private email Jacob 
March 3rd, 2006 9:44am
Crappy writing aside, the law sucks for women and for the direction in which our country is going.  That's why I posted it.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 9:44am
Umm I'd imagine the number of young men thinking of any consequences whilst fucking is quite small...
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 9:46am
Dana,

After Roe vs Wade, unwanted pregnancies ***SKYROCKETED*** across the country. Abortion wasn't simply a safety valve in the case of rape or incest, it became a convenient backup plan contraceptive. I doubt this argument would be even occurring if abortions weren't subjectively abused to such an enormous degree.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 9:47am
Here's my only problem with the pro-choice side:
"They have no conception of a world in which they don't have complete control over their flesh, their reproductive rights, their sexuality"

No allowance whatsoever for the possibility that this is about protecting unborn children.

I've seen many pro-choicers that do recognize the philosophical difference, and try to address it. But a whole lot of them get as holier than thou as the author here and simply insist it's about "controlling women's bodies" - IMHO they're as narrowminded and intolerant as those they are excoriating.
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 9:47am
"After Roe vs Wade, unwanted pregnancies ***SKYROCKETED*** across the country."

How was this documented?
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 9:49am
"After Roe vs Wade, unwanted pregnancies ***SKYROCKETED*** across the country. Abortion wasn't simply a safety valve in the case of rape or incest, it became a convenient backup plan contraceptive. I doubt this argument would be even occurring if abortions weren't subjectively abused to such an enormous degree."

Links?  Studies?  Hard numbers?  Public records?  Let's have them.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 9:49am
In the absence of Dan Danmen: har har to your freedom!!
Permalink Send private email Geert-Jan Thomas 
March 3rd, 2006 9:50am
Search up Stephen Levitt's work that states that abortion cut crime. He has publicly expressed concern that his work is being used to support abortion when, he said, his numbers show that the number of unwanted pregnancies have increased by multiples since.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 9:51am
Well formulated abortion laws have nothing to do with 'unborn children' as they're foetal.  No one that gets placed in that position welcomes abortion but not allowing it creates only illegal abortions in conditions and under circumstances which will threaten the health of the women involved.

There again if you don't have cogent family planning facilities for young individuals its hardly surprising there are young single girls that get pregnant.

There again if your culture is saturated with sex there can hardly be much surprise that young people indulge in it.  Neither of the latter two are confined to the US, we suffer from it in lesser or greater ways as well.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 9:53am
That doesn't seem to have much to do with unwanted pregnancies skyrocketing when abortion was legalized.  Anyway how do you measure which kids are "unwanted"?  My guess would be to record the number of abortions.

So, by your logic, when abortion was made legal, the dramatic increase in recorded, legal abortions indicates that there were more unwanted kids.

Do you see the problem there, or should I spell it out for you?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 9:53am
So here's a question...

If abortion provided the safety valve for folks to have more and less protected sex, how does an increase in unwanted pregnancies carried to term support that? If the women engaged in riskier behavior because of the availability of abortion, WHY DIDN'T THEY GET ONE?

It might be worth mentioning that in the early 70's, when Roe v. Wade was handed down, there were some minor social upheavals going on as well, which may be a bit more likely to explain a minor baby boom...
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 9:54am
The increase in the rate of legal abortions could well be due to a reduction in illegal abortions that weren't counted.  In a similar way, if the police concentrate on a certain kind of crime then the incidence of that crime will go up and not down.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 9:57am
muppet,

Prior to legalized abortion very few back-room abortions really happened. The idea that legalization simply brought it in the public's eye is complete bullshit. Prior to legalization it was simply accepted that you made a mistake, and you went off to give birth into the adoption system, and returned, or you accepted a new life into your family.

Secondly, if you have a constant birthrate of 1.17 per 1000, with very little variance, and then you introduce legalized abortion and you have a birthrate of 1.16 per 1000, but an abortion rate of 0.5 (these are completely made up numbers), it isn't very difficult to connect the dots. There are fewer things more constant or more easily measurable than birthrates.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 9:57am
"Well formulated abortion laws have nothing to do with 'unborn children' as they're foetal."

?

I believe that once the thing in a woman's tummy has a recognizable head, it is a person. Since it is a person, killing it is murder, and that's not a choice the mother gets to make, any more than she gets to decide her six month old isn't worth the bother so she'll drown it.

That is my personal belief. How do you get to tell me I'm wrong?
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 9:58am
There's a lot of assertions there.

Certainly in the UK there was a continual background of backstreet abortions going on before the Act was passed in the mid-sixties.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 9:59am
"Prior to legalized abortion very few back-room abortions really happened. The idea that legalization simply brought it in the public's eye is complete bullshit. Prior to legalization it was simply accepted that you made a mistake, and you went off to give birth into the adoption system, and returned, or you accepted a new life into your family. "

Ah, so you assert that there is/was reliable counting of back-room abortions?  Was this counting done by psychics?  Mediums?  Subjects of the old Soviet telekinesis projects?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 9:59am
Ummm you're a lawyer, guess how your wrong.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 9:59am
"Recognisable head" is probably one of the dumbest boundry conditions for allowing or disallowing abortions that I've ever heard...  (What about people like muppet who, even at his grand old age, have something more akin to a mis-shapen turnip than a recognisable head? :)
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 3rd, 2006 10:00am
For the record:  I am not "pro-abortion".  I would prefer that there was no need for them.  Luckily I have never had to make the decision on whether to continue a pregnancy or not, but chances are I personally would have not chosen the abortion option even if my pregnancy was unplanned.  However, I would never presume to tell anyone else whether or not to continue their pregnancy.

From what I've observed, the same states that are so worried about the well-being of fetuses are often also the ones who don't do much for anyone once they've been born:  lousy education systems, medical care, and so on.  Save the unborn so we can abuse and neglect them after birth! 

Also, I've read that unplanned pregnancy rates are generally higher in the "red" states than in the supposedly pro-abortion "blue" states, which indicates to me that women in the "blue" states take more responsibility for their bodies and would rather prevent a pregnancy than abort one.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 10:05am
Muppet,

There plenty of available estimates of the number of illegal abortions performed prior to Roe vs Wade. They vary from a low of 39,000 to a high of 210,000 per year. Many of these estimates were created by pro-choice groups anxious to inflate them. Google them.

There are currently 1.4 million on-the-books abortions (illegal abortion strangely still happens in addition to that) in the US per year, 47% of the "mothers" already have had one or more abortions.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:05am
Estimates.  So how can you say with confidence that "not that many" occured.  You have absolutely no idea.

You want a good metric for how many illegal abortions occured before Roe vs Wade?  I'd bet that a fairly reliable figure would be slightly shy of the number of legal abortions that occured per year afterward.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 10:08am
This is about beliefs. This is what I believe. And apparently there's a HUGE number of people who have variations of the same belief (using anywhere from conception to birth as the boundary)

I still don't get how you can tell me what I should believe.

Remember - I'm not arguing for or against abortion here, I'm arguing about the stupid premise that abortion laws are "always about the desire to own women as chattel"
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 10:08am
Regarding the olden days before legalized abortion, don't forget that anyone with money just hopped on a plane and went to Denmark or wherever abortion WAS legal.  So back-alley abortions and giving birth were NOT the only options before Roe vs. Wade.

If Roe is negated, once again anyone with enough money will get an abortion if they want one.  It's just a little more difficult to accomplish.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 10:10am
"You have absolutely no idea. "

Wow.

So I've provided estimates created by pro-choice groups to push their agenda, and you've shot them down. Instead, apparently, 1.4 million abortions would be occurring if abortion were illegal.

Somehow I've grossly overestimated your intelligence.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:10am
"From what I've observed, the same states that are so worried about the well-being of fetuses are often also the ones who don't do much for anyone once they've been born:  lousy education systems, medical care, and so on.  Save the unborn so we can abuse and neglect them after birth!"

LOL! I like that.

And it should be pretty obvious (except to the religious zealots) that the difference between red and blue state abortion rates is sex ed.
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 10:11am
You've provided admittedly biased and probably utterly bullshit statistics, and are amazed that I don't accept them, and therefore you think I'm dumb.

Wow.  You're a piece of work.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 10:11am
muppet,

The stats are biased on the _HIGH_ side dipshit, yet you're coming back, with all of your medical statistics, to say that they're under-estimating by a factor of up to 28x. Amazing.

You're a real piece of work.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:12am
Yeah well it's been fun but this issue is tired and I've gotta go drown some of the neighborhood kids for dinner tonight.

Cheers.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 10:14am
Dana,

"It's just a little more difficult to accomplish."

Exactly, and I don't think anyone is refuting that. However that's true for virtually any law. Yet still I'm glad we have laws and enforcement against sexually assaulting children, even though some pervs still fly to Thailand and do the same.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:16am
"And it should be pretty obvious (except to the religious zealots) that the difference between red and blue state abortion rates is sex ed."

Not only that, but in places where non-procreational sex is not considered shameful, people are more prone to actually own up to the fact that they're going to have sex so they plan ahead and bring condoms, get birth control pills, etc.

My kids haven't had very much useful sex education at school (according to them), but I've been repeating the condom mantra since they were old enough to begin the discussion.  "Kids, I'd prefer you wait to have sex until you're all grown up and in a long-term relationship, but if you choose to have sex before that, USE A CONDOM and be prepared."

Responsibility begins at home.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 10:17am
To _____ and anyone else who's obviously anti-abortion.

Again, I'm not for it either.  I'm just of the opinion that sometimes it's better than the alternative of a kid being born into a shitty life.

If the pro-lifers were out crusading loudly for better health care, housing, and education for those already here, I might buy the argument that they really care about the little babies.  Since most of them aren't doing anything like that, I can only assume that many of them are against it because of the sin factor.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 10:21am
I don't understand how its about beliefs.  What have religious or moral beliefs have to do with the law?  They may describe some of the foundations of law but they do not modify the law once its created.

I understand though that the US suffers because it has no unified law on this, only decisions.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 10:21am
Simon:

Unfortunately in the US, "moral" beliefs seem to have entirely too much to do with the law.

Of course, it's all in how you define morality.  To me, letting people live in poverty while others have tens of millions of dollars is immoral.  Premarital sex, to me, is not.

Apparently some people feel the opposite.
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 10:23am
Actually I'm not really anti-abortion. I'm somewhere in the middle. Nonetheless I find some of the tactics of both sides deplorable, and this case brought up the "stodgy old men controlling women" argument that drives me nuts. Apart from the fact that there isnt' such a sexual divide, as Rock mentioned it has everything to do with the child-in-development, not controlling a woman for the hell of it.

I do find the stats concerning the number of abortions concerning, as do I find the number of "repeat customers" a bit obscene.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:24am
It should be mentioned that the number of abortions has been heading down (from a high in the late 80s), probably due to emergency contraceptives.

For those on the fence (who don't like the idea of basically a baby in utero being killed), emergency contraceptives should be hugely supported. It seems a lot less obscene flushing out a couple of cells, much like the human body does regularly, than it does scraping out a baby and basically strangling it on the table.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:27am
Many insurance policies won't cover contraceptives. And if you were somehow stuck living in an American Sharia Zone such as the one that the founder of Dominos Pizza wants to form, you'll be prevented from purchasing contraceptives.

I seem to remember reading that only 3 doctors regularly performed abortions in SD, none of which lived in the state.
Permalink Peter 
March 3rd, 2006 10:32am
Not that this really proves anything one way or the other, but it's funny:

Michael Moore called up some major pro-life org and started complaining that men everywhere were recklessly aborting their sperm. "Are there others amongst you who feel the same as me", he asked.

The spokesman confirmed that there are many, MANY people who do. They just keep quiet (except amongst themselves, I guess).
Permalink Send private email كولم 
March 3rd, 2006 10:36am
"Many insurance policies won't cover contraceptives."

If you have an insurance policy, you can afford contraceptives. If you don't have an insurance policy, public health clinics will be more than happy to load you up.

What makes the whole abortion argument so difficult is that both camps are so enormously divided, and too many pretends that it's all or nothing. Each camp sees the other as---

Pro-Life - Religious fundies. No contraceptives, no sex until marriage when you will go forth and multiply, and of course no abortion.

Pro-Choice - Anarchist free for alls that want the ability to basically strangle their 2 year old under the name of a "woman's body" if they feel they want to.

The saddest part is that the most vocal and hyped of both camps are the ones who voice these sorts of beliefs. There is that core pro-choice camp that will accept zero invasion into their "right", not even considering the possibility of limiting very-late term "abortions" (aka murders), whereas the publicized pro-lifers are the anti-contraceptive fundies. It really makes it an absurd debate, especially given that most real people fall in the center, and choose a side based purely on FUD.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 10:37am
Theoretically you can get condoms on the National Health Service as you can the Pill, but the Pill is exempt from prescription charges and condoms wouldn't be so they'd be nigh on £7 a box. 

Now it should be possible to get the morning after pill from a chemist without a prescription.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 10:42am
Here in the US pharmacists have refused (and been backed up by local courts, iirc) to dispense ordinary birth control let alone emergency contraception, citing moral objections.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 10:43am
Then they should lose their licence.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 10:44am
---"This same kind of talk is going on in Missouri right now. "---
Missouri? That's crazy talk :)
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
March 3rd, 2006 10:44am
"I don't understand how its about beliefs.  What have religious or moral beliefs have to do with the law?"

?!??!

You're joking, right?
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 10:58am
I don't see why that's such an odd question.  What *does* religion have to do with the law?  And as morals are all a bit grey and fuzzy, how can it be the basis for a concrete set of rules?
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 3rd, 2006 10:59am
"...£7 a box..." However, local youth services usually hand them out free in vast quantities.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 3rd, 2006 11:01am
No its quite fundamental.  Our legal system is not founded upon religious beliefs, nor was any of the original 13 States, Louisiana or California.  Moral beliefs may have informed them but neither moral nor religious beliefs have anything to do with applying the law.

I'm surprised as a lawyer that you can think of it in any other way.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 11:02am
Why can't I just thump you on the head and take your wallet? Sure, it's illegal, but why?
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 11:02am
Mat, according to you, what is Law?
Permalink Send private email Joie de Vivre 
March 3rd, 2006 11:02am
It's illegal because its against the law, Common Law, which predates Christianity as the main religon.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 11:03am
My theory on America's obsession with abortion is that they don't have any 'old wive's tales'.
Permalink Send private email Joie de Vivre 
March 3rd, 2006 11:04am
Ummm, not that I meant to imply that Common Law was a religon.

:-)
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 11:04am
Why is prostitution illegal? I don't believe it was in the Roman Empire.
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 11:05am
Fuck, that's weird... why the hell *is* prostitution illegal?
Permalink Send private email John Haren 
March 3rd, 2006 11:06am
It depends what view you take of law - is it to enforce a particular moral code? or just to keep society running smoothly?
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 3rd, 2006 11:06am
Cynic, are the two mutually exclusive?
Permalink Send private email Joie de Vivre 
March 3rd, 2006 11:08am
Prostitution isn't illegal, living off the earnings if not the prostitute is, prostitutes have to pay tax.  Originally the crime was just 'running a bawdy house', then some time during the Commonwealth it became 'an unruly house' and the Victorians added 'living off immoral earnings'. 

However it would be a bit of a stretch to say there was a religious basis to it.  A cultural one yes, but not a religious one.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 11:09am
No, I'm not being facetious... for the first time, it actually struck me as genuinely odd that prostitution is illegal in a patriarchal society.  Assuming:
*That men are horny horny horndogs;
*That men treat women as sex objects;
*That a man's estimation of a woman's value is directly proportionate to her sexual allure;
*That men are more-or-less in control;
Then you'd think that prostitution would be not only legalized, but institutionalized as well.

Oh, wait.  That's marriage.  My bad.
Permalink Send private email John Haren 
March 3rd, 2006 11:13am
Unless one accepts the fact that children and therefore marriage and therefore sex was a functional arrangement to manage and own assets thereby providing financial and social stability, one cannot resolve the apparent contradictions and/or tangential concepts pertaining to prostitution and surprise, surprise, abortion.

Also note that above is a hangover from mainly agararian societal structures.
Permalink Send private email Joie de Vivre 
March 3rd, 2006 11:18am
C'mon Simon - Common Law dates from about 1186 when Henry II sought one legal code across the Angevin empire. Granted much of it was a codification of traditional law from much earlier but we're still well into the Christian era.

Joie - no not mutually exclusive, but divergent. The biggest argument in favour of legalising abortion in the UK wasn't that of "choice" it was the number of women dying in illegal abortions. 

It seems to me that in the UK debate is dominated by the practicalities and in the US by moralities.  Hence the mutual incomprehension on occasion.  It probably has something to do with the prevelence of utilitarianism as a philophical doctrine in the UK and the self-selection of the devout in the settlement of America.
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 3rd, 2006 11:19am
John, George Carlin said it best:
"Selling is legal; fucking is legal. Why is selling fucking illegal?"

FWIW, I think prostitution should be legalized. Anything between two consenting adults should be legal.

The problem is that many people seem to think that one of the parties in an abortion can't really express consent...
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 11:22am
Steely-

What about prostitution with a pregnant 'ho? Then there are three parties. "What a cuddly medicine ball this is." says the foetus.

Should it get a cut of the preceedings? "Here's your cut, darling." says the 'ho sticking a wad of fives up there.
Permalink registration not required 
March 3rd, 2006 11:32am
Someone mentioned that many insurance policies don't cover contraceptives.  However, most of them DO cover drugs such as Viagra.

Double standard?
Permalink Send private email Dana 
March 3rd, 2006 11:33am
"The problem is that many people seem to think that one of the parties in an abortion can't really express consent..."
Same with birth.  I can honestly say that, given a choice in the matter, I'd have asked NOT to have been born.
Permalink Send private email John Haren 
March 3rd, 2006 11:34am
"The problem is that many people seem to think that one of the parties in an abortion can't really express consent... "

And, there is no guarantee that they ever will be able to express consent.

If you want to reduce abortion rates, the solution is not to prohibit it.  The solution is to reintroduce frank and honest sex education that is not "abstinence only."
Permalink Send private email Jacob 
March 3rd, 2006 12:05pm
Some people want abortions.  Some people in starving nations need meat.  Two birds with one stone, here, people.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 12:06pm
Now THAT'S thinking outside the box!
Permalink Send private email John Haren 
March 3rd, 2006 12:12pm
Naa...he just cribbed it off an old vicar (one J.Swift).
Permalink Send private email a cynic writes... 
March 3rd, 2006 12:18pm
Yeah, but he was Irish, so no one paid attention to him.
Permalink Send private email John Haren 
March 3rd, 2006 12:23pm
"many people seem to think that one of the parties in an abortion can't really express consent..."

One of the parties isn't a person, so consent isn't necessary.

Anyway, laws exist to protect the individual from other individuals.  Some people also seem to think we must also protect "society" as a whole which is why we have prostitution laws and drug laws.  These are the ones based on morality or religion and are usually the most fucked up laws on the books.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 12:27pm
Plenty of people disagree with you about whether both parties are people.  Sorry, but you can't flat out say they're not.  Well you can, but your definition is not absolute.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 12:28pm
"Some people also seem to think we must also protect "society" as a whole which is why we have prostitution laws and drug laws."
+1 to that.
Permalink Send private email John Haren 
March 3rd, 2006 12:29pm
"Well you can, but your definition is not absolute."

I know, muppet.  Sheesh.  The entire abortion debate is really about whether or not fetuses are people (although many people who argue for either side don't often to seem to realize that).
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 12:32pm
President Bush seems to be one of those people..  no abortions except in the case of rape or incest?  Better hope your momma wasn't raped because then a doctor can come over and shoot you in the head and it'll be all nice and legal...
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 12:34pm
Until they learn to talk, I don't think infants are people.
Permalink bring in da punk 
March 3rd, 2006 12:38pm
"The entire abortion debate is really about whether or not fetuses are people"

That's how I feel, but the author of the article in the OP seems to think it's about owning women. That was my point way back when.
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 1:08pm
More its about a woman having rights over her own body up until the time that there are two, or more, recogniseable individuals.
Permalink Send private email Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2006 1:31pm
No, Simon, it's really not.  That is a given, unless you're some sort of Nazi.  The debate is at what point there are two individuals.  Some would argue that that moment is at conception.  It's never really a question of a women's body except for people looking for a good solid strawman.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 1:32pm
Nah, until they learn English, they are not person.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 1:39pm
Well, if you decide that this particular clump of human cells is not a person then you still have to start discussing the women's body.  Even if it's not a person, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.  At some point, it's value trumps the women's body and the she-can-do-what-she-wants position.

This is already reflected in the law.  You can have an abortion, but only up to a certain point.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 1:41pm
"This is already reflected in the law"

Really?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 1:42pm
"Well, if you decide that this particular clump of human cells is not a person then you still have to start discussing the women's body. "

No, no you don't.  If you decide that a particular clump of cells is not a person then the debate is over.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 1:43pm
Bullshit.  You can go to jail for killing a dog, for godsakes.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 1:55pm
Oh good grief now let's play fucking semantics.  If you decide that the clump of cells is not *sentient*...


Better?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 1:56pm
Because a dog is more important than a baby. Remember, a baby knows nothing, remembers nothing and therefore not a person.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 1:57pm
We're not talking about a baby.  We're talking about a fetus and whether or not a fetus IS a baby.

Perhaps you should focus on learning English first and debating in English second, Rick.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 1:58pm
It's not semantics at all.  Once you decide that the clump of cells isn't a person, then killing it isn't murder.  That's it.  That doesn't automatically mean it's a free-for-all.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 1:58pm
So aborting a eight months old fetus is ok, but killing a six months old baby is not.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 1:59pm
Sure it does.  If it's not a person, then it's a growth, not a pet.  People have growths removed all the time.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 2:00pm
Yeah.. that's right muppet, bitch about Rick getting the argument wrong and then say "We're talking about a fetus and whether or not a fetus IS a baby."
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 2:00pm
Come again, AA?  That's about where we were.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 2:01pm
No.  An 8-month old fœtus has a reasonable chance of survival ex utero, so you'd be hard pressed to argue it's not "a baby".
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 3rd, 2006 2:01pm
"If it's not a person, then it's a growth, not a pet."

Is that hamster in your ass a pet or a growth?
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 2:01pm
Rick -

Who said aborting an 8 month old fetus is ok?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 2:02pm
Of course not.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 2:10pm
Oh, who said? The law.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 2:11pm
When does it stop being a clump of cells and start being a baby?

Some people honestly believe it happens at conception.
Some people honestly believe it happens during the third trimester.

There are a group of people who think that somewhere during the first trimester it stops being a clump of cells and becomes a "potential human" that should be protected within reason, but doesn't quite get the full legal protection a person does. Basically they see it as a sliding scale - the fetus goes from 0.0 human at conception to 1.0 human at birth, and everything in between is relative.

I find the people in the last group to be generally the most realistic and reasonable about the whole thing. :)
Permalink Send private email Steel McLargeHuge 
March 3rd, 2006 2:20pm
Techinically, a fetus is always human.  But basically, I agree with the last point.  It's continuum from non-person to person.  And at some point along that chain, you can even call it a baby. 

Anti-Abortionists actually have it much easier since they have a definitive point at which it's a person.  I'm sure that's why most anti-abortionists also tend to be very black & white thinkers (you're either with us or against us).
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 2:34pm
Personally I can't figure how one can perform abortions everyday without feeling guilty.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 2:41pm
Who said they don't feel guilty?
Permalink Send private email Mat Hall 
March 3rd, 2006 2:42pm
You're assuming that there is something to feel guilty about, which is fallacious.
Permalink Send private email Jacob 
March 3rd, 2006 2:43pm
Probably after seeing thousands of crying hopeless knocked-up 15 year old girls, one probably feels like the ends justify the means.
Permalink Send private email Almost H. Anonymous 
March 3rd, 2006 2:43pm
Rick, where does the law allow abortions of 8 month old fetuses?
Permalink Send private email I wear assless chaps 
March 3rd, 2006 2:52pm
The law was just changed, buy Bush and crew, to ban very late term abortions. It was legal, and don't think Bush's changes have gone without a fight from the pro-choice crowd.
Permalink ___ 
March 3rd, 2006 2:56pm
Where was it legal?  Not in Connecticut it wasn't.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 3rd, 2006 2:58pm
You tell me: Which federal and state law prohibit it?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 3:02pm
"hopeless"

Hope to *kill* something.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 3rd, 2006 3:08pm
Woohoo. Noisy in here.

Looks like the Poms could remove VAT on condoms:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16766856&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=rubbery-jubbly--name_page.html

which flies counter to some comments in our quiet backwater that it's in our national interest to outbreed our competitors.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Vanstone-blasts-Vale-over-abortion-views/2006/02/14/1139679560667.html

Retrospective abortion anyone?
Permalink trollop 
March 3rd, 2006 4:07pm
Hey, ya know what, Dana? YOU SUCK!
Permalink South Dakota 
March 5th, 2006 2:51pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2006 Other topics: March, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics