Tough question- as a father of a small daughter- I want to be told about her medical needs- and think I have a right to know- darn tootin!

However- on the same level- I know the scumbags that NT talks about- I call them scumbags- because they are just a Christian and american type of taliban extremist- without total control of the goverment that the Taliban enjoyed.

They are not as much anti- abortion as anti-freedom. I have said it before, I grew up in this movement- and abortion is a stepping stone to the christian equivilent of the burka.

And NTs argument is very, very valid- I heard it preached as a kid in church "the shot gun effect" - lots of ball bearings shot out over and over again until one sticks and hits-

And that is what this Dakota thing is all about- trying to erode women's freedom as much as possible

I have heard many times Republicans say "Dems only have the ability to critiisize but have no solution of thier own"- this is one that can be turned around

I ask those anti-womens rights type "what is your alternative to this horrible situation? "- I counter Ledeverpac numbers of 1.3 million abortions or whatever being "uneccesary- do you think these women enjoy an abortion? Do you think they like the pain that comes after word- the bleeding, the cramps?

I tell you what- abortion is it's own aversion therapy- it is a painful and uncomfortable procedure that most women won't get unless they are desperate- and I will be willing to bet that 1.3 million abortion figure, has about 1.2999999 of those women hated every freakin' moment of it!

So, those that are against abortion- what is your alternative to these horrible needs that these women have?

Are 1.3 million women all sluts that should be forced to raise children?

It is certainly a tough situation for both sides- there are no bumper sticker solutions, and the extremists on both sides horribly muddy the issue for sure- but I tend to be more sympathetic, and unafraid, of the pro-choice side, rather than the hyper religious anti-choice side.

But this thing in SD is simply a ploy to get it before the SCOTUS and see if GWs new lapdogs play ball.

Imagine for a moment that you are a doctor faced with choosing between either going to prison or a malpractice suit. Which do you choose? I think that most would choose the malpractice, especially as they are insured afterall. You'd better believe that scenario is realistic. Doctors will likely forego performing abortions even in the interest of the health, or life, of the mother because they will fear encountering a witch hunt and potential prison sentence. Having to prove someone would have otherwise died (not encountered paralysis, or suffered other irreparable damage, but died), is a hell of an obstacle course to jump through.

This has happened to people I know NOW, who were sent to an abortion clinic while hemorrhaging profusely because the doctor had moral qualms (though no qualms with giving them a referral, apparently). Look forward to our medical care becoming more expensive if Roe is overturned and other states start to enact this type of legislation.

My point is that with better parenting, said girl would be less likely to take up with a predatory boyfriend. I volunteer for a rape crisis center and have for many years; the type of clients that I get who are young and are in an abusive relationship (to be distinguished from date-rape, which has a different genesis altogether) typically come from broken homes or don't have a good parental support structure. Oddly enough, and this is only my experience in an urban part of No. Cal, many of these unfortunate girls have a fabulous support structure in their friends.

Intuitively, believe that parental notification will only result in a small number of concerned parents finding out about their daughter's predicament. The girls who have strong relationships with their family will likely be unaffected by it. The flip side is that the number of girls that get pregnant via incest will be put in a tough place.

What I would like to see is mandated counseling for underage girls wwho go through an abortion.

I'll leave your boorish comments alone, and answer your arguments with a few quick questions:

1. How do polls in 2006 equate with popular opinion in 1973 (when Roe V Wade was decided?)

2. If states or even regions are opposed to abortions collectively, which is more democratic... allowing abortions to happen for the minority or inconveniencing those that have to travel?

3. If it did revert to a vote of public opinion on a state level, how would polls have any bearing on the matter??? (we all know how inaccurate polls can be....) If the opinion of the state dictated that abortion should be illegal, why go against the will of the people?
(you obviously can't argue the constitutional validity, as we can prove time and time again that the USSC really didn't do a good job w/ establishing this during Roe v Wade... so laymen as ourselves surely won't)

FINALLY... while we're so concerned with the rights of women, why not discuss the rights of babies? No one has ventured to state when a fetus becomes a baby...

Ok... here we go.

Pro-Choice people, again and again, haven't been able to hold an argument that doesn't revolve around women's rights. I'd like to discuss the rights of babies, and the fact that nobody on this board can commit to a time that a fetus becomes a baby.

I personally believe that in the land of the free, we're able to hold this argument with civility. Calling Christians "the Taliban" because we don't believe in abortion is just plain ill-mannered.

Leder's numbers ARE correct. The issue is that most women have abortions out of convenience.

The Chicago Tribune said it best in a Sept 1996 Article:


The reality is that when a mother's life is in danger, abortion should be legal, allowing the mother to choose.

Here are some interesting statistics, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which can be referenced here.
- abortion rates are highest among black and hispanic women
- poor and low-income women account for more than 1/2 of US abortions
- more than 80% of women having abortions are unmarried
- since 1990, a majority of women having abortions are already mothers
- nearly 1/2 of women having abortions have already had one.
- about 1/3 of women live in a county with no abortion provider
- not all states mandate minors to have parental consent


What is all this saying?? I believe a few things. First, poor and minority women are most likely to have abortions; which would allow one to speculate due to a lack of means to provide for the children. If there is a high likelihood of a woman having an abortion to be unmarried and a repeat "offender", chances are that it's even more unlikely that the abortions are medically necessary. If 1/3 of people in the US have to travel out of their own county to get abortions, chances are that if they had to leave the state it wouldn't be as imposing as some would like us to believe. Heck... in some states, kids can get abortions.

Women's rights? Ok... let's move back to fetus/baby rights... will someone make an argument about this? When is a fetus a baby?

I'm not sure what you find 'boorish', i think its quite accurate. In the rest of the first world, (and in the US in 1973) when abortions were legalised it was done as a measure of empowerment toards women, it was an issue of the right of women to choose. That has been universal in the justification for making this decision across the first world. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that reversing it would be a serious blow to this same principle. I'm hardly speaking out of turn, women's rights organisations around the US have been stating this for decades.



I'm not sure of the relevance of this. I don't happen to have a poll of 1973 handy, so I don't know. But the majority of the US now seems pretty majoritarily behind NOT overturning RvW...



I love this. Here is emocratic for you: If you don't want ab abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE. You make it sound like this debate is between bannong abortions and compulsory abortions. It is not. People have their own moraily, some are religious, some are not. Those whose moraily tells them this is wrong can feel free NOT to have an abortion. Those whose morality states otherwise can. Seeing as this is an issue ONLY of definitions of individual morality, isn't Choice the ultimate democratic principle? The options are ALLOW choice or REMOVE choice.




Actually, by banning late term abortions it seem the US has done just that. At the point when a fetus could survive independently, it is alive. When it is a small clump of whitish brown cells about the size of a walnut, it is not, and does NOT have more rights than the ACTUAL LIVING WOMAN in question.


A comedian (not the greatest source I know, but still) I heard made a great comment. You want to cut down on abortions? Then these protesters outside clinics, instead of waving flags, just have to present contracts stating they will adopt each and every one of these babies when born. But no, it seems for most (not all, but most) their campaign for the rights of the children STOPS with birth...


If you are SO convinced a zygote IS a Baby, I assume you will also be pressing for the law to change to allow manslaughter charges to be pressed against the 70% of all early pregnancies that end in miscarriage? After all, a baby has just died, so clearly the police need to get involved...


(sigh)

You know what, I should probably excuse myself from this debate. I am a Canadian in the UK, both nations where it has long been axiomatic that the rights of a person are more important than the rights of a maybe, possibly someday person. I don't live in a country where this basic right is under threat, so I should probably just step back and shake my head in silence...

I think that this is an argument that comes up in all of these debates, but I'd love to see how many women are having abortions due to incest or rape??

Frankly, here are some rape statistics. This shows a little over $200K rapes in the US. If one in 20 caused a pregnancy, that would allow for about 10,000 abortions in the US. If that's the case, then why does this show about 1.4 million abortions?

I think that if women are willing to report rape/incest to the police, file a report, and attempt to investigate the crime... then abortion could be legal (in which case I'd really prefer to have the woman's pre-natal care paid for and the children adopted). I also believe that if the woman's life is in danger that abortion could be legal.

Frankly, you mention that the child may have congential defects... consider this from Abortionfacts.com:


Also:


Basically, what we're saying is that a human life is less valuable than inconvenience. The mother shouldn't have to carry the child to term, as it's not favorable for working, social, and life-style conditions?

Am I missing something?

Again... this is why I used the term boorish in reference to your comments.

My point is that there is no point at which pro-choice proponents can state that the fetus is a baby. Miscarriage does happen, but how about some facts????

Basically, most miscarriages are not due to the fault of the mother. Really, what you're saying is that it's easier to not answer the question about the time at which a baby is not a fetus??

Or are you saying that when:


Well, realistically, then a baby isn't alive until... say... it's 11 or 12??? Babies require constant care from someone for long periods of time after leaving the womb. Is that the defining moment? I mean, survive independently from what? Are we going to let them loose in a field and see who lives?? hahaha... come on. I mean, we replace the umbilical cord with a bottle (or breast). They still aren't "independent"...

If so, then you are a proponent of abortions up until the very moment that a woman gives birth? How about 2-weeks prior to the due date?

I still don't see whats boorish apart from the fact that you don't agree, but we will leave that.

Thank you for those utterly irrelevant facts about Miscarriage. None the less, a baby has died, so I assume you will be pressing for an investigation into the circumstances? You are correct, most miscarriages are NOT due to the fault of the mother, but some are (drinking, trauma, drugs, smoking), and who can tell until the police are brought into the case and the situation is checked out... After all, according to you a baby has died!





Come on Aevans, you are a smart man I know this from our previous debates, so playing dumb does not suit you. You know very well what I mean by survive independently, it means the fetus can survive on its own AT ALL.



What the...... you just addressed my answer to the question, so you CANT have missed it, so why exactly did you feel the need to sarcastically ask the exact same question again as if I had not answered it? Before the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb, it is not a baby. Its actually a pretty simple definition. If you like though, you can ask AGAIN in a sarcastic manner, and I can cut and paste the answer for you...



EDIT to add Interesting statistics Aevans. Here is another one for you.

In the US, 88% of abortions happen BEFORE the 11 week mark. At 11 weeks the zygote is about 2 inches in size and less than half an ounce. BEFORE that it is of course even smaller. 60% of abortions happen before the 8 week mark, when the zygote is about 2/3 of an inch long, about the size of a fingernail.

Is THAT a baby? Thats what you are asserting right? THAT is what has more rights than a grown human woman?

Absolutely. It's human life.

I believe that it's human life. A baby cannot survive on its own without some sustenance from a "mother" (whatever form that takes). How is a bottle much different from an umbilical cord?

I think this says it all.
In Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion, the Supreme Court stated:


I believe that we should reiterate this... from Roe v Wade...
In making his affirmation, the Court disregarded the clear consensus within the medical community that conception initiates life.

I would venture to state that most Pro-Choice Americans wouldn't be happy about babies being aborted shortly before delivery. However, that is exactly what your notion would suggest.

If it's not a baby until it's outside of the womb, that would allow VERY late term abortions.

I personally believe that American opinion revolves around the fact that a fetus at 8 months looks like the babies you see in pictures, where as at 2 months it does not. Hence, it's ok to abort the fetus. The hazy part comes in when we consider that there are months when the baby doesn't look like an infant, nor does it look like a cluster of cells...

Lest we never forget that we were all once a zygote, albeit probably less cynical in some cases.

That of course it where we get into the realm of 'your opinion'.

And Please do not try and pretend you cannot see the difference between a zygote and a fetus which at a certain point can survive outside the womb. Your response is 100% semantics: "Well all babies need SOME help to survive and are thus not independent!" Yes, and humans need help from the Biosphere to provide oxygen, so by your logic are technically not independent organisms, The deifference if plain as day. Now you CHOOSE to ignore it but please don't pretend you cannot understand it.




Aevans, I am going to assume this was an accident and you reading too fast, because if it was on purpose this is one of the worst examples of perfidity I have seen on this board.

You see what you quoted me, from Roe V Wade? Everything in the quotation marks is from the RvW decision. Everything NOT in the quotation marks, like for example the completely counterfactual last sentence you tried to pass off as a quote from the decision is NOT from the text of the decision, it is an editorial added on by the pro-life webside you copied it from. So again, I am going to take your ascribing it to the supreme court decision as an error rather than a blatant lie, as you're a reasonably intelligent person, and thats not your style from what I have seen....

Oh, and by the way, that added editorial is also totally not true. The AMA, the AMSA, the AMWA and just about every professional medical body in the US is pro-choice. They are also for the morning after pill and stem cell research for that matter, other things the religious right feels like opposing...



Its funny. After having defined this for you THREE TIMES, I made a sarcastic statement about how you seem to keep ignoring my answer and pretending it was something else. I repeated my definition, and commented in jest, you could always ask again and I can cut and paste my answer for you.

I meant it in jest, but right afterwards, here you go for the FOURTH time, ignoring or deliberatly misinterpreting my answer. So, as promised, I shall cut and paste the answer for you AGAIN!



Clear? Or are you going to deliberatly misinterpret it again?




We were all once a sperm cell too, so are you religiously against masturbation as well?

You also never answered my question, if at conception a zygote is INSTANTLY a full baby in your eyes, I assume you will be pressing for Manslaughter investigations in the case of miscarriage? This is a legitimate legal issue, you can't assert its a full baby in the eyes of the law in one case but not in others... Make up your mind one way or the other.


By the way Aevans, I looked over the Alan Guttmacher Institute report you cited. What I found very interesting is that you quoted every single chart he presented there, prepeated the findings of ALL of them for our benefit... all except one. I find it VERY interesting that you gelt it necessary to quote ALL the charts from that report but ONE.

The one chart you seem to have misplaced, is the one where it demonstrated that:
-Deaths of women during abortions declined by 95% immediatly following the legalisation of abortions in the US.

Now why did you leave that one out Aevans? Seems it makes a pretty substantial point, wouldn't you agree?

This is kind of an interesting statistic. I am pro-choice and can certainly distinguish between a zygote, a fetus and a baby; I favor allowing all medical options for abortion to be available to the doctor. Bias disclosed.

It seems to me that the argument that significantly less women die during abortion now that it is legal, while a compelling figure, is not wholly relevant to the abortion debate. Just because women would choose to have an illegal abortion, and die from it, doesn't mean we should, as a society, allow abortions.

There are many compelling reasons to allow abortions; I just feel this particular one is weak.

Ah, but I don't think you read far enough into that statistic. The fact that women were dying from abortions before abortions were legal meant that women were STILL HAVING ABORTIONS. It being illegal did not get rid of it, it just meant when it did happen, it happens in unsafe and dangerous environments in back-rooms, and the rate of fatality among the women involved was 2000% higher.

That was the price of the 'morality' of Aevans and his kin. Abortions still happen, and women die.

Still, as you say, it is not the most compelling reason of the many to keep the choice of abortion legal, but it is am important one...


EDIT to add: Woop! 1000!

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

Again, I don’t think this case will ever reach the U. S. Supreme Court. The addition of Roberts and Alito, assuming either would vote to overturn Roe, would still be 5 to 4. It take four votes for the court to bring a case up on a writ of certiorari. Assuming Chief Justice Roberts wants to overturn Roe, I don’t think he would want the S. Dakota case brought up knowing that a federal appeals court decision to overturn the S. Dakota law would be sustained 5 to 4.

If, tragically, Bush gets another Supreme Court nominee, all bets are off. We’d better work hard to keep the amusingly hilarious Ann Coulter, and others of her ilk, far away from the aging Justice John Paul Stevens.

I hadn’t thought of it before, but Joe Scarborough made an interesting oibservaion on Hardball Friday night.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

Beware!

Actually, I don't suppose that you lay claim to mathematical prowess as well, but there are actually multiple slides that I didn't discuss (i.e. the cost of abortions, number of states paying for medically necessary abortions, number of abortion providers, abortion rate among teens, etc). Guess it was tough to discern the difference between one and a few...

Secondly, the number of deaths due to abortions is an interesting statistic, as you can see that the difference between 1965 and 1973 is drastic. I suppose you're also not a law expert either, but Roe v Wade was in '73. This doesn't even mention the fact that people were still dying at a similar rate for about 2 years post Roe v Wade. The dip in the graph was by no means immediate.

Simply put, the difference between 1973 and 2001 isn't that substantial. The other statistics are. We're talking about most likely 20 deaths/year, probably due to "back alley" abortions that came due to the lack of availability of medically sound abortions (and/or cultural issues). This doesn't even claim to argue the difference in procedures, medical advances, etc. I'm sure that we could make graphs that show the lack of deaths due to numerous illnesses and operations over the same period. There is no direct coorelation between the legalization of abortion and deaths; specifically in that we cannot show how many happened in licensed medical facilites.

Frankly, I wouldn't ever say that anyone deserves to die, but in the event that you're having "illegal" abortions by unlicensed "practitioners", there is undoubtedly a risk. It's like unprotected sex... you may be able to do it 1000 times, but that 1001st time may land you herpes. Not the best idea, and I can imagine that most Md's wouldn't rec'd it.

Congrats on 1000!

No, of course--just because abortions may become illegal does not mean women will stop having them (just as with Prohibition). But that's exactly my point. If I were anti-choice I would then say, well, just because women aren't going to follow the law doesn't mean the law is no good. It just means we need to enforce it (gun debate anyone?).

Another weak argument but one that bears some thought is that any anti-choice legislation would practically only affect the poor. If I wanted an abortion, I have the means to go to a reasonably-minded country and have it done there. So, speaking of enforcement, there are still ways around it for some.

All things considered, aevans176, it was your remark directed to Vermillion that was kind of "boorish." I wasn't aware that only Americans can venture an informed and enlightened viewpoint of how abortion is handled here. As contentious as the issue has become here we might be well served to see how Canada handles this dilemma (God forbid we might actually learn something from "foreigners").



If I were interested in taking the time to do so I am sure I could find out how many abortions are due to incest or rape. But to what end?

Even pro-lifers are willing to find an exception in their morality where they are willing to sacrifice "a child." All but the most rabid of abortion opponents are willing to abort a fetus if bringing it full-term would result in the death of the mother.

It's quite a stretch to call a woman who is impregnated by rape or incest is merely suffering an "inconvenience."

Merely because sperm and egg meet does not mean a happy family unit is somehow going to be created when the circumstances of the event are from sexual assault via rape or incest. Why would you presume that a child born of rape is going to be loved by the mother? It's not as if the father is going to show up and demand custody.

The line about Hitler and Stalin added a nice rhetorical flourish, aevans176, but if you don't think polling in support of abortion today are relevant, I don't see how your references to Nazi Germany and eugenics are any more so. But allow me a rhetorical flourish of my own:

GENEINA, Sudan, June 29 -- At first light on Sunday, three young women walked into a scrubby field just outside their refugee camp in West Darfur. They had gone out to collect straw for their family's donkeys. They recalled thinking that the Arab militiamen who were attacking African tribes at night would still be asleep. But six men grabbed them, yelling Arabic slurs such as "zurga" and "abid," meaning "black" and "slave." Then the men raped them, beat them and left them on the ground, they said.

"They grabbed my donkey and my straw and said, 'Black girl, you are too dark. You are like a dog. We want to make a light baby,' " said Sawela Suliman, 22, showing slashes from where a whip had struck her thighs as her father held up a police and health report with details of the attack. "They said, 'You get out of this area and leave the child when it's made.' "

Another international aid worker, a high-ranking official, said: "These rapes are built on tribal tensions and orchestrated to create a dynamic where the African tribal groups are destroyed. It's hard to believe that they tell them they want to make Arab babies, but it's true. It's systematic, and these cases are what made me believe that it is part of ethnic cleansing and that they are doing it in a massive way."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun29.html

By your logic, aevans176 these women should follow the command of their rapists and bring these babies into the world. I'm sure a life of comfort and joy will follow.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the percentage of women impregnanted by sexual assault is one or ten percent. It is repugnant and extremist to suggest a woman raped by a stranger or a relative should be compelled to risk her life to conceive a child born out of rape.

And that holds true whether it happens in Darfur or South Dakota.

I really do think that if we're talking about one or one thousand that it's pertinent to the conversation. Also, the comment about Nazi Germany may have been offensive, but hold water in this debate. Simply put, we're putting a price on the life of a human.

It's easy to say that the life of a child aborted "may have been hard"... or that there "may be congenital defects", but those thought processes are no different than the actions of the men in Africa that you seemingly detest. I suppose it's okay to kill a child that has downs syndrome, but abhorrid to kill someone due to physical appearance or national origin?

That's basically what you're saying....

I know more than one mother/father that can't stand the other half of the couple, but love their children... come on.



That's a stab in the dark. Also, how would the life be "less comfortable or joyous" than had the women had consentual sex??

It is basically about convenience. It's all about the fact that the majority of mothers that seek abortions really just don't want to deal w/ the pregnancy or the child.

We can argue semantics about rape/incest, etc... but the scope and nature of abortion (1.3-1.4Million/year) in the United States doesn't have anything to do with either for the most part.

You COULD find stats about abortions and rape/incest, but I'd venture to guess that they wouldn't prove your case...

I sincerely hope that you are kidding when you say it makes no difference in comfort and joy whether a mother conceived via consensual sex or by rape. it takes women decades, if EVER, to get past the loss of trust caused by rape. Many do not have stable relationships after that; those that do still require years of counseling. As a rape crisis volunteer, I can attest to the many hours some of these women just spend crying, wishing they were dead,wondering what they did to deserve this. I also get clients who have pushed away their sub-conscious for years, and then come back to the shelter to get help because they can't get past what happened to them.

So, to imply having a child by rape in these circumstances is the same as having an even unintended child thru consensual sex is naive.

I'm just curious... when did pregnancy/childbirth become a "convenience" (or "inconvenience"), not a major life changing event with profound physical and emotional implications that are almost impossible to comprehend without having experienced them?

More to the point, when are the women in this community going to come out and put aevans in his place for using that euphamism.

A hangnail is an incovenience, as is a flat tire. It seems to me a child, which is an unparalleled responsibility in our society, and has the potential to stop dead in our tracks careers, social lives, biological existence and family relationships warrants slightly more consideration, or at the very least less dismissive terminology. But that's only if we want to have a debate based on reasoned discussion and not influential perjoratives.

Then again, I'm only a Canadian... I can't possibly appreciate how complex the use of nouns is in America.

I'm trying to think of a single reason in the world I need to "prove" anything to you, aevans176. So far I haven't come up with one.



Speaking of proving things, you keep repeating that most women choose abortion out of "convenience," but I'm darned if I've seen a credible poll or study (y'know like from somewhere that ISN'T an obviously biased pro-life source). Show me your proof and I'll show you mine...

The difference here is that you (and the majority of the South Dakota legislature) believe life begins upon conception. I don't. Period.

Your argument seems to spring from the premise is that it's the life that matters, not the circumstances that bring it about or the conditions it grows up under. That's very noble, but it ignores the reality that children whom are born with known mental and/or physical challenges already have a tough row to hoe. Add to the mix that they were conceived through sexual assault and you've increased the likely misery that child will endure.

If there were enough caring and loving families out there to take in the children already here that nobody wants, maybe we wouldn't be having this debate. But then again, we probably would.

This debate is beginning to remind me of the old quote that liberals want to kill the child while it is still in the womb while conservatives prefer to wait until it is born and then execute him after he grows up.

And I agree with Ultimatejoe in there's waaaay too much testosterone in this thread. It sure would be nice if we had more input from some posters with ovaries.

Having taught special education for 25 years, I would be offended if a Downs Syndrome child were dragged out of a home or classroom and slaughtered, but...

Aevans176 you make sense only if you take the emotion laden position that a fetus, at any stage of development, is a "child." Clearly this is not an undisputed definition. If we define a fetus as a child, we give you home field advantage. We don't necessarily have to play on your field with your ball.

Ok... It's impossible to show that women chose an abortion out of "convenience", but it is possible to show that more than half of the abortions are from women that have had previous abortions... read this (previously posted). I'd venture to guess that these women aren't getting repeatedly raped and impregnated. Also, the same source states that 80% are unmarried. It's simply in inference... I'll give you that.

I do believe that life begins at conception, and so does our judicial system when it comes to the fetal protection act. Basically, if a man kills the fetus in his wife's body, he can be tried for a crime against the fetus. This happens in many states, shown here.

It's a logical argument, and arguably a double standard. How can you stand behind the notion that a fetus is just a few cells, but on the other hand try someone for murder if he/she kills a fetus? (here is another article)

Finally... BOF..

I don't suppose that the fact that the medical establishment is split upon when life begins detracts from the notion that you believe my stand is "emotion laden"??
Frankly, I do believe that life begins at conception, but against popular notions it has nothing to do with religious beliefs... crazy conservative mantras, or any other kooky notions that people would like to bestow upon my argument.

I just see a double standard, and arguably what I perceive as a reprehensible loss of life due to predominantly actions of convenience.

Just to correct another error, but...



The judicial system has not at any point weighed in on when life begins. This is a legislative act, and no decision regarding the biological questions for debate has been arrived at from any challenge to this bill.

Question: Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I doubt that Roe will be toppled. However, if it does I think that certain states will do what South Dakota wants to, most will not. I predict that it will be shortlived because as they say, all politics are local and the voters will quickly see that attempting to eliminate all abortions except, ostensibly if the mother's life is at risk will have more consequences than they had predicted.

A comparison of abortion rates worldwide indicates that the abortion rates are roughly the same whether legal or not.



Brazil has the highest rates in the developing world.

I hope, Aevans, that your wife doesn't have an IUD and isn't taking the pill or any hormone-style of birth control. If so, several of your "offspring" have likely been slaughtered already.

Uh, no, you are completely 100% wrong. Look at the slide.

When in 1970 many states liberalised their abortion laws, death rates were at the high point, They dropped DRAMATICALLY over the next 3 years. RvW was in 1973, by 1974 deaths due to abortion were a tenth what they were 4 years earlier. Over the next three years the number of deaths halved again, as people set up abortion clinics and started performing them in hospitals. By 1977 the death rate due to abortions was 5% what it has been 7 years earlier. The difference between 1977 and 2001 is not that substantial mind you that because abortion was legal that whole time.

Thats pretty cut and dry.




It's just a big coincidence then. a 95% drop in deaths at exactly the same time as abortion was legalised. Just a HUGE coincidence.

I see. So to sum up, you present a source for everyone. All the charts from that source that DO agree with your argument are perfect and ideal and the epitome of accuracy and fact. All the slides that DON'T agree with your argument are unsubstantiated, unproven and unreasonable... all from the same source?

(boggle)

Nice to see your objectivity and reason are unaffected by this emotional debate there Aevans...


In other news, you keep repeating to all the world your 'opinion' that life begins at creation, yet still refuse to accept the simple consequences of that 'opinion'. I have asked you several times if you believe miscarriages should be investigates for manslaughter, after all a full person with absolute rights under the law has ben killed, a bay at that.

Or are you suddenly NOT so sure that a zygote is a full person? You need to make up your mind there... It seesm there is only one person in this debate who cannot get their story straight.

Mrs Pigpen makes a great point. As well as investigating any miscarriages for manslaughter, I assume you will want to have murder investigations against anyone use birth control our in IUD?


Its all basic law 101 if a zygote is a full person Aevans. You can't have it both ways.



And the other points in your last post to me; your inaccuracies, misquotes and misinterpretations, I assume you have just dropped those too?

You keep making statements like that the medical community is split, yet ignore the fact that every professional medical association in the US is pro-choice. You dismiss anything against your opinion (oh THAT chart is inaccurate)(Oh, Polls are misleading) and so on, yet in the end, all it comes down to is you have an opinion. You have every right to act upon that opinion in your own life (don't have an abortion) yet you seem insistant on forcing that opinion, wheither founded in religion or whatever, upon others.




Frankly, thats just boorish, if I may coin a phrase.

You're assuming here that the burden of proof would be on the doctor. That's not usually how it is in criminal cases. A close analogy in modern medicine would be patients with "do not resuscitate" status. It's still illegal for the doctors to actually kill them (except in Oregon), but they can prescribe nearly any dose of pain medication, and if that medication "just happens" to speed up the dying process, oh well, the doctor can still claim that he didn't intend to kill the patient, he was just giving her what in his judgments was the necessary dose to keep her comfortable. I've never heard of doctors being criminally charged in cases like that.

Someone else on this thread posted a linked reference to the fact that pre-Roe, many states allowed abortion to save the life of the mother. Do you know of any instances where a doctor was prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy in a case where he argued that it was necessary to save the mother's life, and where there was nothing obvious to indicate that he was lying?


Moral qualms are a whole separate matter. They would not be affected by this kind of legislation.

Vermillion, I don't know where your opinions come from, but my posts have been flush with referenced articles from professionals, court cases, and studies related to this topic.

Your posts have been rhetorical rants in which case you have only made attempts to make insulting statements.




Good Lord... you really need to read better or begin to support your arguments. Read this. It states:
.

Sure, we're talking about percentage decrease that seemingly is exponential, but frankly, the change is only 34 women. Again, do I need to post stats about other medical procedures that are now not fatal?? I already stated in other posts that it probably had to do largely with women not having "back alley" abortions.... of which we all know was their choice. This also doesn't even broach the idea that maternal mortality was drastically higher at the time.

Do we also need to discuss how many babies don't get a chance to live every year?? Most people don't know that they're pregnant until about 3 weeks into their pregnancies according to this site.

Mrs P...



Too bad that doesn't necessarily hold true for the United States... from our buddies a Guttmacher.org:


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if we were to split the difference, we'd still leave a 500,000 or 600,000 gap in abortions according to contemporary statistics.


I find it interesting that there is a plethora of liberal outrage over the idea that the US may go back to pre-Roe v Wade ideology.

Let's read a little of what Mr. Rehnquist said:


Finally, from Carolyn Gargaro...


I suppose this says it all... Vermillion, how about this time you take a second to form an opinion not specifically designed to malign my posts? How about an objective argument this time please.... ??

If you are going to bring up the fetal protection act, where a person can be tried for murder if they kill the fetus in the woman's body, I would reply that this also falls under pro-choice-based legislation. After all, the woman had chosen to carry the child to term (or had not made the choice to abort, at least). Someone killing the fetus is taking her choice away. Doesn't have anything to do with whether the fetus is a person yet.

And, what about all of the fertilized eggs created during in vitro fertilization. Are you against destroying the unused embryos?

Interesting bit of revisionism. Your posts have been full of utter misquotes, errors of logic and sources you then dispute when they turn out to oppose your point of view. MY posts have been full of questions you keep refusing to answer because you know they expose the logical fallacy of your position. Oh, and constantly repeating basic points you have been deliberatly misquoting.

But I will tell you what, rather than both of us re-hashing what our posts have or have not been, why not let people read them? My posts are all here in this thread for all to read, and I'm quite happy to stand on my record. I have not been misattributing quotes and dodging logic.




This is beyong belief Aevans. I mean, is this you trying to win an argument in any means necessary, or do you actually believe this?

I need to read better or support my arguments? OK, here is some support. This is the source YOU CITED so you can hardly impugn its veracity. This is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute report, I say again, YOUR source:

http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/trends.pdf

Abortion laws started to be liberalised in various states in 1970. Death rates at that point were 140 a year. They death rates diminished as abortions were being performed legally in states across the country. The rates dropped staggeringly. In 1973, with RvW they dropped further. By 1974, the death rates were down to 35 a year. They plateaued for a year during which time abortion clinics were set up and the actual capacity to get an abortion was made more available (as is demonstrated by the chart one earlier) and by 1976 they were down to about 7 a year. That was a drop of about 96% in 6 years, the EXACT six years in which abortion laws were liberalised and lfinally legalised nation wide. That is the whole point of the slide.

Remember? The slide from the Alan Guttmacher Institute report, which you have been quoting left and right? Obviously you are not going to dispute the veracity of the report...

So I repeat, you accept as dogma the elements of the report that SUPPORT your personal opinion, and you reject as bogus those slides that OPPOSE your personal opinion?

And you don't see anything a bit absurd about that?


And you comment about other medical proceedures that are now non fatal. OK then, please tell me which brilliant new procedure came into place in 1970 which slashed death rates by 96% in 7 years, death rates that have essentially not changed since. Since you refuse to se the blatantly obvious connection, perhaps you could propose a concrete alternative? No?

Your last bit of 'logic', that these women died because back-ally abortions were 'their choice' is actually grotesque. Yes, they chose unsafe abortions because ABORTION WAS NOT LEGAL. Once it became legal, they had medically safe options, and stopped dying.




Yes thats true, and as I said the same report shows that almost 90% of abortions happen before the 11th week. At the END of the 11th week the zygote is less then 2 inches in size, so the majority happen before that. Lets just be clear, this is what you claim has the rights of a full human being.


Or Does it? Despite my asking, you have continued to refuse to answer some basic questions about your 'belief'. You maintain and restate again and again that a zygote is a human being deserving of full protection under the law. So I ask for the fourth or fifth time, I'm losing count:

-Do you support then a change in the law to require manslaughter investigations for miscarriages?
-Do you support then a change in the law to require first degree murder charges for use of the birth control pill or an IUD?

These are both straightforward, practical results of the zygote getting the full protection of the law as a human being.

So, as I have said, make up you mind.

In your 'opinion', Is a Zygote human and deserving of legal status, or something less and not deserving?





I have been making objective arguments all along, you have just been ignoring them. I have been backing up my arguments with YOUR sources. I am still waiting for answers from my questions to you.

And when I malign your posts, I do so because you have made some startling errors and misquotes, misinterpretations of statements and illogical arguments. You obviously agree, because you have dropped any reference to them once I pointed them out.



But maybe I'm wrong, maybe I am being too 'boorish', but than again, what was it YOU said: "I'm just a Canadian and you would not expect me to understand?"

How's the pretend moral high ground from Waaaay down there Aevans?

Goodness this sure became a male dominated debate.

First I really resent the framing of this argument in life or death, I think that is just horrible. I feel it is horrible when pro-lifers frame it such as this, in order to argue we are killing babies, infanticide or even as one here claimed our prosperity. But I also equally hate it when pro-choicers frame this debate with death too, death of women who are forced to use questionable means to abort.

I think this debate represents a fate worse than death, and that fate is that someone like aevans176 would have the right to tell me as a woman what I must do with my body.

aevans176, why do you insist that we all must focus on this with the "child" in mind? Why do you insist the woman is so insignificant? Why is it in your view the woman is secondary? RU486 is only functional if used before 7 weeks of pregnacy, and 88% of medical abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. I think it should also be noted that most miscarriages occur at this time too. At 12 weeks the baby has no eyes, no nervous system, no functioning brain or lungs and is still developing most of it's bones The baby needs all of this in order to become a cognizant being from it's mother, you know the one you insist we ignore. The baby and mother are not independent or separated from one another. And I find your request that we view them as such not only disturbing but terribly dishonest.

It always seems to me that men such as yourself that show so much concern to "life" and claim it starts with conception have one objective in mind. You desire to make the paternal role of reproduction the deciding and of course the most important moment in reproduction. Perhaps you feel left out in the process of making life? Perhaps you think this paternal god of yours ordained this sexual act and the paternal contribution with more importance than the actual physical and biological development of a child in utero. I really don't know your personal reasons for this insistence of defining this as the most important moment but I think if you actually spoke to women who have given birth about how they feel instead of telling them how they should feel you would probably learn something very different.

I feel your argument that you are only concerned with the life of the child and protecting it false. I think it is something more than that, I think it is your role, the paternal role in reproduction that you wish to preserve or protect.

1,500 children die every year in this country as a result of abuse. They are tortured, beaten, sexually abused, and made to suffer for years. I started a topic about this horribly alarming number and it got very little attention and in fact none at all from you. Why? These children were brought to term and had to endure horrible miserable lives, why do you not advocate their rights to life? Why would you focus so much energy and attentions to zygotes and fetuses, but actual children alive in our society and in need of our protection, you seem to find less alarming.

Again, I'll politely ask you to read more critically.

The post that I gave referenced numerous sources, but most importantly is discussing illegal abortion deaths, while the agi-usa (my source again in the first place) references total abortion deaths in general. AGI does not reference deaths due to illegal abortions, and the source I cited isn't even pro-life...

I'm sorry if you choose not to believe the sources. Again, I've used more than my simple opinion on this one sir.

That doesn't even make any sense. You claim the agi-usa chart is dealing with abortion deaths overall (legal and illegal) when the chart itself clearly states otherwise. To coin a phrase, "I'll politely ask you to read more critically".

But one would have to assume they are talking about the same thing, as they AGREE. Your second source compares only 1972 to 1974, and its numbers actually agree entirely with the agi-usa chart. What your second source (which is an editorial in an online newspaper: good source!) does not do is look back to 1970, when abortion laws started to liberalise. The difference in scope, nothing else.

Your second source in other words, says the same thing as the first: RvW saved women's lives, but the difference between 1972 and 1974 was only about 35 or so a year.

What it doesn't say is that the diference between 1970 and 1975 was about 140 a year.

Critical enough for you?


As I said, if you claim the masive 95% drop in mortality precipitously at the exact time of liberalisation is somehow UNRELATED to the this same liberalisation, then please explain to us what miraculous medical advanacement or technique changed the entire fact of abortion at that exact time, resulting in a 95% drop in fatalities?

It must have made front page news, thats a heck of an improvement.



Now then, since even your SECOND source agrees illegal abortion kills women, and all we are doing is arguing about scale, perhaps we could get back to the actual issue at hand, which is where you try and logically justify your 'opinions' about when life begins, and the implications of that?

You say full human life begins at conception. So I ask you: Is a Zygote human and deserving of full human legal status, or something less and thus not deserving of full human legal status?

Arguing semantics doesn't prove or disprove anything. I simply posted the source in reference to illegal abortions in order to show that the legalization of abortions hadn't made a serious impact on the landscape of American society. More people have died due to cigarrette smoking while I'm typing than died due to illegal abortions in 1973. (give or take...)

However, since you insist, I will agreeably provide my stance in reference to the legal status of a fetus in regards to rights.
The Fetal protection act does give rights to the fetus in reference to violence against him or her from an external source, of course excepting the mother.

There are numerous cases of murder of a fetus (i.e. an easily remembered one... Scott Peterson) by someone other than the mother.

What I've said, and I'll gladly state again is that in the eyes of the law, the fetus only carries "non-human" status when in relation to the woman. This (as I've also stated) gives preferential treatment under the constitution, if Roe V Wade stands, to women. If a woman cannot be held accountable for the lawful and willing "abortion" of a fetus, this right currently is not afforded to the father, for instance.

Doesn't it bother anyone that the South Dakota legislation doesn't provide an exception for the health of the mother? Yes, it provides exception for death of the mother, but doesn't care about serious risks to mother's health (heart attack, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, diabetes, depression--and various other specialized risks).

Will the bill, if passed, be able to withstand court challenge given this weakness? I'm not sure.

Let's see if I can satisfy our curiosity.

Aevans, do you believe, that means, should we treat every possible person from an hour-old zygote to a full-formed fetus as if it has the same rights born babies are afforded? Membership in society has its privileges. Should society extend those same privileges to the unborn in the form of issuing death certificates for miscarriages, outlawing the sale and distribution of birth control methods that work by making it impossible for a fertilized egg (otherwise called a “baby” by pro-lifers) to implant itself in the uterus and growing (otherwise called “killing a baby” by pro-lifers), etc. Or do you think men across America will come to their senses and recall that getting nookie is more important than sparing their partners an unintended pregnancy even if they're old farts.



Give us the goods, man; a straightforward answer.

I hear what you're saying in reference to IUD's.. However, many pills actually prevent the sperm from meeting the egg, contrary to what you're actually suggesting. As a general rule, they don't allow eggs to be released during ovulation and the two never meet.

From your article:


This is also true for the depo shot for instance:

From this site.


However, I do believe that we can't stand on both sides of the fence. Currently in Texas (and many other states), if my wife is pregnant and I punch her in the stomach, I can be tried for murdering the fetus.
Here is a good site.

I'd venture to state that an IUD isn't a whole lot different from an abortion in the 4th week, other than the fact of implantation. However, the question is how many of these are used, and what are the alternatives? I'd venture to guess that hormonal treatments and other forms of contraceptives are more prevalent.

I wish I could look up advocacy groups at work but... just to be clear. The pill's primary method of birth control is preventing ovulation. Secondary methods are thickening the lining of the cervix and uterus, making implantation impossible or very difficult. How difficult depends on whether a woman pops one at the same hour once a day, if she gained a significant amount of weight, was she on antibiotics and such circumstances.

In essence, she is taking a potential Plan B pill every day. Plan B derived from the pill. If the pill has the same potential to “abort” a zygote/embryo, why shouldn’t it be outlawed? Isn’t murder, murder? Is fetal “infanticide” only infanticide when the remains can no longer be mistaken for a blood clot?


I know about these laws. I also know they have nothing to do with what I’m asking you.


Like I said, I don’t have or have very limited access to advocacy groups. Some of the frames in that birth control site I linked were blocked by our company. I’m afraid of winding up linking a pro-life cite that does more than just provide a statistic to answer your question.

I do know the pill is the most widely used form of contraceptive for women. The article I provided states: “nearly 150 million women use it worldwide.” Let’s start with a conservative estimate and say that only 500,000 women in the U.S. have an IUD. Of those 500,000 women, 250,000 are sexually active. Of those 250,000 sexually active women their partners will fertilize an egg 6 months out of the year. That’s a total of 1,500,000 “human deaths,” 200,000 more than the 1.3 million estimate for medical abortion some have provided.

To what legally invasive and ridiculous ends will pro-lifers go to in order to secure citizenship status for a group of dividing cells in a blastocyst, and for some men, meet their maker with a pure conscience by demanding contraceptive concessions from women when they would never go through the hassles and costs associated with pregnancy prevention themselves?

I am going to bow out of this debate now. I feel the need to address this, though:

*emphasis mine*

"Too bad" illegal abortions aren't as prevalent and you expect I would perceive this as bad news? This is exactly why I hate to debate this issue. People become insulting in the extreme. For what it's worth, your statistics prove my point. The population in 1955 was just a little over half what it is now. Those figures need to be multiplied by almost 2 to make a comparison. That places the abortion rate (using an average) at roughly the same as it is now (particularly when you add the numbers for abortions which were legal even then, not included in your figures). And no, I don't think that is anything to cheer about.

*****************
Edited to add math formula: Average rate of abortions=(200,000 + 1,200,000)/2= 700,000 each year in 1950s