"For the record, while I'm for women being allowed to choose to have abortions, I find abortion creepy and troubling -- but creepiest and troublingest when it's done well into a woman's pregnancy."

Which I think places you with the majority of citizens.

What is troubling is the fanatics on both sides of this issue, from the dumbest most fanatical of pro-lifers trying to protect a fertilized unimplanted egg and declare it a person, to the dumbest most fanatical pro-choicer declaring that of course, a fetus isn't a person worthy of protection until it has been born as if there is something magical and life giving about the act of birth itself, contrary to what the neuroscience tells us.

The analog does not work. When a group of houses under construction burn down the headline in the paper is "3 Houses Burn Down - Arson Suspected!" even if the houses were no where near inhabitable. The Home Depot would be like the farm that would produce the food Mom would eat getting destroyed.

Though I think the rest of the statements seem reasonable.

Though I do not expect reason to darken the doorway of everyone considering this issue, I have three fundamental observations that should make anyone think:

1) What do you think you get when you force someone to have a child when they don't want one?

2) If you insist that everyone be treated equally under the law, you must produce the same arena of opportunity to NOT violate it. What access to technology do you propose to pay for so that the poor do not kill these new "persons" through poor health choices?

3) If you consider abortion, or any approximation of it, a crime... tell me the criminal penalties you would impose, AND the effects of such penalties.

I think the endless abortion debate is ridiculous because people ask the wrong question. The issue isn't what you think of abortion or whether abortion is murder or even when does a fetus become viable.

The question we should be asking is "What is the role of the state in a pregnancy?" I'm extremely uncomfortable with any state forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby. And I'm even more uncomfortable with putting a police officer inside every doctor's examining room, which is the only possible way to enforce a ban on abortions.

The true issue in the abortion debate isn't "life" and it isn't "choice". The true issue is the role of the government in our personal lives.

What do we think about Dick, er, Rick Scott and the state of Florida wanting to force women to get (and pay for) an ultrasound before they can get an abortion?
This is of course, the same governor and legislature that wants welfare and SSI recipients to get (and pay for) a drug screening before they can get any support.

@Radwaste - I'll bite:

1) An unplanned, possibly unwanted child. My response would be: No one "forced" the mother to get pregnant. Except in the case of rape (which is a completely separate issue) the mother made a choice to have sex.

2) That's utter BS. Again, no one is forcing these women to get pregnant. The state/taxpayers are under zero obligation and owe absolutely nothing to people just because they don't break the law. That's absurd. I'd also contend that we already do pay tons of money, billions of dollars annually, to women and families in the form of free health care, welfare, food stamps, etc. Billions of dollars annually. I'd love to see that cut.

3) Simple. I don't consider "any approximation of abortion" a crime. For instance, I think Huntsman's a liberal RINO douche, and his bill is crap. I'd be content with a post 3-month ban. After that, the abortion provider loses whatever medical license he may possess, and goes to jail. The mother gets no penalty. Living with an abortion is punishment enough, I think.

1) "Except in the case of rape (which is a completely separate issue)" Which is part of the push back for the bill. It would eliminate those options for victims of rape and incest.

2) The best way to cut the billions we give to brood mares (plenty of them them here) is to prevent them from making the babies. Since once they are here few have the stomach to just let them starve. Who in turn repeat the same cycle growing the moocher class.

3) Those that have the money to go to say Sweden like my family. What pray tell do you propose for them? Ob-gyn scans added to the TSA? Also those women that do it through the pill or any number of self inflicted options?

Who cares if it was rape or not? if it's wrong to kill a baby, it's wrong to kill a baby. Circumstances of conception are irrelevant. If it's okay to kill a baby, it's okay to kill a baby. For any reason. The mom consenting to the sex or not does makes no difference in the baby. Any "rape exception" is really just the age old madonna/whore issue coming to light. Women who have sex willingly deserve the "punishment" of a baby. Women forced, do not.

I also think it should either be okay to abort, period, up to birth, or not okay at all. There is no magic second a clump of cells becomes a baby worth protection. Some babies can survive birth at 21 weeks, some not until 26. Medical science will continue to push that back. Yet our ability to save a baby doesn't mean squat in it's development. It's an arbitrary moment in time. (and we all know I fall on the side of not allowing it at all.)

I'm also a HUG fan of birth control, wish we could put it in the water, and donate regularly to Project Prevention (thanks to Amy for making me aware of that group!)

The woman who wants an abortion in the third trimester is either a selfish idiot or the weak-willed tool of a selfish idiot father. Either way i am in favor of allowing the abortion, perhaps even of having the government invest in the procedure. Eugenics works best when the defective stock self-select themselves out of the gene pool.

I keep ignoring this issue and hoping it will go away, but there it is. Again. This answer usually keeps people from asking me a second time.

Amy, I don't understand why you're being so precious with the Gazzaniga analogy, unless you think precious analogies are going to change minds... That seems unlikely. There's no particular reason to describe a fetus as merely "the matterials of life" than to describe Gwen Steffani as "the materials of life."

I support a woman's right to get an abortion at any time in the pregnancy, but I appreciate momof4's take on this.

Being a product of rape doesn't make a fetus any different than being a product of a one-night stand in Reno. What kind of sicko considers a baby a punishment for sex? "Whore. Serves her right for spreading her legs. Now make her be responsible for that helpless life."

One thing that should help people feel better is that very few women get to 8 months pregnant and decide to abort casually. At that point, it's generally a matter of health implications to the mother or fetus.

JDT: You're right. The taxpayers are not obligated to pay for babies they didn't make. But are we ready to look at a stream of pictures in the news of sick, starving and abused children born to these people? Most people aren't because they have a sense of humanity. So we'll end up paying for them for the same reason we don't leave people to die in the street, regardless of their insurance situation.

The rape/incest thing - I only mentioned it because it's the standard pro-abortion retort. I'd just as soon make all abortions illegal in this country. I believe life begins at conception. But I also realize that that position is untenably in the current political and cultural climate, so three months was an attempt at compromise.

Making it illegal to have an abortion after a certain point is not an attempt to "punish" anyone. A child is never a punishment, and I don't know where MonicaP got that idea. It's kind of sick that anyone would consider it so.

It worries me that a blog that is usually so strong on personal responsibility is so quick to disregard the role of personal responsibility in sex/childbirth.

@vlad - 1) "Except in the case of rape (which is a completely separate issue)" Which is part of the push back for the bill. It would eliminate those options for victims of rape and incest.

I acknowledged that this particular bill is utter crap.

2) The best way to cut the billions we give to brood mares (plenty of them them here) is to prevent them from making the babies. Since once they are here few have the stomach to just let them starve. Who in turn repeat the same cycle growing the moocher class.

You hit upon the key point there - many, many people in this country consider the baby already "made" when it's aborted. The best way to cut the billions is to cut the billions, not to encourage irresponsible behavior.

3) Those that have the money to go to say Sweden like my family. What pray tell do you propose for them? Ob-gyn scans added to the TSA? Also those women that do it through the pill or any number of self inflicted options?

Medical tourism is legal (I think). If someone is that selfish, to abort a child that they apparently are wealthy enough to care for but just don't want to, that's up to them. Re "self-inflicted options," you're ignoring that I allowed for first trimester window. That's more than enough time to make a decision.

The idea of a child being a punishment is common in the Madonna/whore breakdown momof4 mentioned. It lets people oppose abortion in all situations accept for rape, which makes no logical sense if you consider a fetus a person.

I want to see abortions legal throughout pregnancy because I place higher value on a woman's right to choose than I do on the potential for human life, and I dislike the idea of women being denied medically necessary abortions.

I place great value on personal responsibility in sex and childbirth. An abortion (especially an early abortion) is a responsible choice.

@MonicaP - JDT: You're right. The taxpayers are not obligated to pay for babies they didn't make. But are we ready to look at a stream of pictures in the news of sick, starving and abused children born to these people? Most people aren't because they have a sense of humanity. So we'll end up paying for them for the same reason we don't leave people to die in the street, regardless of their insurance situation.

Monica - Abortion is currently legal and relatively easy to get. That has hardly solved the problem of babies born to people that have no business having babies. We're already knee-deep in pictures of sick, starving and abused children. I'd argue that completely legal abortion has utterly failed as the state-sponsored eugenics program for which is was originally designed in this country. Maybe we try something else.

We're already knee-deep in pictures of sick, starving and abused children.

Actually, we're not. Even poor babies in this country don't usually starve to death or die from lack of medical care.

The idea of a child being a punishment is common in the Madonna/whore breakdown momof4 mentioned.

You're right, sorry, I missed that.

It lets people oppose abortion in all situations accept for rape, which makes no logical sense if you consider a fetus a person.

A rape/incest exception is a concession to the fact that a large portion of the country thinks abortion is just fine. Doesn't mean I want such as exception, but it would be hard to get any abortion reduction bill passed without it. It's compromise.

I want to see abortions legal throughout pregnancy because I place higher value on a woman's right to choose than I do on the potential for human life...

This reads as a little disturbing.

...and I dislike the idea of women being denied medically necessary abortions.

I place great value on personal responsibility in sex and childbirth. An abortion (especially an early abortion) is a responsible choice.

I could live with a first trimester allowance - again, realism vs. idealism and compromise. But someone that gets pregnant in this day and age without wanting to is the absolute opposite of responsibility.

> Gwen Stefani is a person. There's a difference
> between a person and a bunch of dividing cells.

Says who? How is that call made?

An abortion (especially an early abortion) is a responsible choice.
Agree.

Amy, I would ask you to clarify - you believe that an abortion - at any point in a pregnancy - is a responsible choice? This seems like an awfully broad statement.

Actually, we're not. Even poor babies in this country don't usually starve to death or die from lack of medical care.

You didn't mention dying. You mentioned starving, sick, abused - there are tons of children in this country that are starving, sick and abused already - legalized abortion hasn't changed that.

But you're right, they don't usually die for lack of medical care. The same societal programs that protect them would protect unwanted children born if abortion was made illegal after a certain point. The difference would be that we'd be discouraging irresponsible sex and pregnancy.

"Can a bunch of dividing cells deliver your mail?"

You're better than that. But if you want to be cheap - by that logic, abortion should be legal up to what, five years old?

But someone that gets pregnant in this day and age without wanting to is the absolute opposite of responsibility.

I read awhile back that 50 percent of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Making one irresponsible choice doesn't mean you have to compound the problem with another.

Says who? How is that call made?

Gwen Stefani, as far as I am aware, does not depend on a placenta for survival. It's good enough for me.

This reads as a little disturbing.

I can easily see how that would be disturbing if a person puts a fetus' life on par with that of a born person. But I don't. IMO (and I recognize how little that's worth in the grand scheme of things), the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. Once it is born, then it has all the rights of a singular person.

there are tons of children in this country that are starving, sick and abused already - legalized abortion hasn't changed that.

Again, they're not. We have programs designed to help feed and provide medical care to children whose parents can't afford it. Even poor children can eat pretty well, and do. Some still suffer, but not a lot compared to how bad it could be.

The same societal programs that protect them would protect unwanted children born if abortion was made illegal after a certain point.

That's more evolved than most people get with this. I can't count how many times I've heard people push to criminalize abortion at the same time they bitch that they don't want to pay for these kids.

As long as people understand that their taxes will go up to pay for even more unwanted children, then that's a perfectly logical argument. We live in a humane society that feeds and provides medical care to poor children. If there are more poor children, we will simply have to absorb the costs -- as well as the other costs of an increase in poverty, like prisons.

I can easily see how that would be disturbing if a person puts a fetus' life on par with that of a born person. But I don't. IMO (and I recognize how little that's worth in the grand scheme of things), the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. Once it is born, then it has all the rights of a singular person.

Understanding that this is a difference of opinion that won't be resolved here - just curious, what about the rights of the father? Do you think that the father should have equal say over the decision to abort the child?

I read awhile back that 50 percent of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Making one irresponsible choice doesn't mean you have to compound the problem with another.

Regardless of whether your figure is at all true - I think the first trimester should be plenty of time to decide to "correct" an irresponsible decision if one wants.

Again, they're not...as well as the other costs of an increase in poverty, like prisons.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions, while apparently continuing to ignore my allowance for legal first trimester abortions.

You're also making a huge leap to assert that society must absorb the costs that you assume would result in your assumed leap in unwanted or poor children. There are plenty of other possible solutions besides just raising taxes. A lot of them involve a cultural return to stronger family values and personal responsibility, which I know is a non-starter for many.

If you think a scraping of cells is a person, feel free to avoid having an abortion.

I just hope you realize how utterly callous you sound.

Do you think that the father should have equal say over the decision to abort the child?

I wish there were a way he could that wouldn't step on a woman's bodily autonomy. Do we give a father the right to tie a woman to a bed and force an abortion, or force her to carry to term? How would we enforce that? Do we give him the right to walk away from financial obligations? If so, the taxpayer will be picking up the tab on that life for certain. The biological reality of pregnancy makes giving the father power over the mother's body an icky proposition. In a perfect world, this would be a decision they made together.

I think the first trimester should be plenty of time to decide to "correct" an irresponsible decision if one wants.

Not necessarily. If she wasn't trying to get pregnant, it could be close to two months before she even realizes she is, especially if her menstrual cycle is irregular and there are no early symptoms. That leaves four weeks to determine whether she (and her partner, if he's involved) can care for the child or want to care for the child. Family opinions can muddy the waters. This stuff is never as clean as we want it to be.

There are plenty of other possible solutions besides just raising taxes. A lot of them involve a cultural return to stronger family values and personal responsibility, which I know is a non-starter for many.

How would we go about this? A lot of the response to this amounts to "But we should just be different."

The good old days weren't always so good, ya know? Young women who got pregnant out of wedlock were frequently "sent to visit an uncle" and came back 7 months later, her baby taken from her and put up for adoption. Or she found someone (medically trained or not) to perform the abortion. Or the couple had a shotgun wedding. Do you support forcing men to marry the mothers of their children against their will?

We no longer live in the kind of society that supports tight-knit families. We move around a lot and lose touch with people. It's the downside of a more mobile society. Rugged individualism means we don't want to have to take care of other people's crap, even when those people are related to us. And no amount of nostalgia is going to shove open sexuality back into the box it was in in the 50s.

I care about being honest. I don't find a potential person the same as a person.

Exactly. This is where a lot of people get hung up. A fetus has the potential to be a person. But every egg and sperm released have the potential to be a person. It's not the same thing as being a person.

Do you think in vitro fertilization is murder?

Amy, there are at least two instances in this thread where I say that I think the bill in the OP is crap. And probably a few more where I state that I'd accept a first trimester allowance on abortion.

Do you think that a child that could survive outside the womb is just a scraping of cells?

Amy: I care about being honest. I don't find a potential person the same as a person.

MonicaP: Exactly. This is where a lot of people get hung up.

Tell me about it. Much of humanity's long history of human suffering can be attributed to atrocities that spring out of a belief that individuals of a certain group are not persons.

-Jut

Please explain how "except in the case of rape" is supposed to work. Does this mean that a woman must have a police report to prove she was raped before she can get the abortion?

On another note: It's easy to blame this on modern sexual attitudes, but dealing with unwanted children is a problem we've been coping with forever. There's evidence that pre-agricultural societies regularly committed infanticide, when population stability was more important than population growth.

In the Middle Ages, mothers would drop their babies into revolving doors called foundling wheels, usually in convents, and walk away. In more recent times, mothers would simply leave their babies at hospitals, where they were fed and clothed but largely ignored. The mortality rate for these babies was near 100%.

It's a fantasy that if we simply go back to the way things were, we wouldn't have such problems.

Wouldn't this amendment grant personhood to IVF zygotes?
What are the ramifications of that? I've had friends go through IVF, and my understanding is that you have a bunch of eggs fertilized- then you have a few implanted but you also have some saved in case your first treatment round doesn't work, or you want to try for a second child later on. But, if you're successful early on, what are you supposed to have done with those zygotes? Just keep them frozen forever? I guess that this law would make it illegal to destroy them OR use them in research, since they'd be "people."

Also: For what it's worth, if a woman is going to have the tests to determine whether her fetus might have a chromosomal disorder, at the earliest that would be at 12 weeks. Amniocentesis would be done as early as 15 weeks. So, those are really on the beginning cusp (or well into) the second trimester.

Outlawing abortion does not force any woman to keep and raise a baby. It forces her to go full term with a pregnancy and deliver a baby. At that point she can give that baby up to someone who does want a baby. A lot of people in this country would be happy to adopt many of these babies.

I'm not saying we should outlaws abortion and I think the proposed Mississippi law is insane, but I think it's disingenuous to insist that if abortion were illegal all of these babies would have to suffer being raised by women who didn't want them or be supported by taxpayers.

No. They don't need to keep them, and some will give them up for adoption. But many will keep them if the means exist to care for them. Or drop them in foster care while they spend a few years thinking it over, which is what happened to my bio mom. Socially, it's difficult to give a baby up when everyone knows you had one.

> Can a bunch of dividing cells deliver your mail?

They can once they've divided to a Stefani-like number.

And even now, the carbon-unit we call Gwen is, at the cellular level, dividing in a manner which science describes as "growth"... As are we all.

We're gonna need a better metric than "dividing cells".

MonicaP, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think there's something messed up with a society where "Socially, it's difficult to give a baby up when everyone knows you had one" and so it's easier to just abort it.

All of this comes down to whether you consider a fetus a full person. If you don't, then aborting it is not the painful act giving away a full formed baby is.

Amy: "Oh, let's not descend into this silly attempt at an argument. A fertilized egg is a POTENTIAL person."

Um, no. This is EXACTLY what this post is about. You say it is a POTENTIAL person; others say it is a real person. It is not a silly argument; it is a logical extension of your belief.

-Jut

Potential and reality are two very different things. I have the potential to be car thief. I don't belong in prison because of that potential. I expect the world to treat me as I am now. A sperm has the potential to be a person, too, but the baby Jesus doesn't actually weep every time a guy jerks off.

"I believe life begins at conception. "

Fortunately science has provided actual data that our lawmakers can use to avoid creating "eggs are people too" laws.

Now if only we could get them to lead America instead of following the loudest voices in the mob.

Abortion is currently legal and relatively easy to get. That has hardly solved the problem of babies born to people that have no business having babies.

That is like saying, "Wow, look at all the traffic in New York City. Clearly there is no point in funding a subway system. It's not working."

The point being that, if you eliminate the subway, there would be even MORE traffic.

Many people will always neglect to use the resources available to them (whether because of pure stupidity or lack of money or lack of awareness). But that doesn't mean we should eliminate those resources for those who DO use them. And, judging from my experience as a clinic escort, many many women definitely take advantage of all the resources available to them.

At that point she can give that baby up to someone who does want a baby. A lot of people in this country would be happy to adopt many of these babies.

Splendid! And if nobody *does* want her baby, you will then volunteer to pay for her prenatal care and birth if she doesn't have insurance or the means to pay? You will pay for her living expenses if her hourly min wage job does not allow her to go to regular doctor appointments leading up to the birth? And, if her child has attributes that make it a tough sell for potential adopters, you will pay for that child's care?

Because, indirectly, you (and all of us)will be. It's a lot less expensive to terminate a pregnancy than to see it to fruition. We, thankfully, live in a society that doesn't let orphans starve. So, if the mother doesn't intend to keep the child after birth and all of the child's associated expenses, we all pick up the bill.

All of that aside, it is creepy to force a woman to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

What happens to the woman whose uterus won't support a fertilized egg? What happens to the woman for many various unknown reasons can not actually carry a baby unto term?

What about the bipolar medication that makes birth control useless, but a full term pregnancy improbable, and a healthy baby impossible? Would the state really imply that a married bipolar woman carry a mentally impaired and genetically unlucky baby into existence? Or are you saying that she should have never had relations with her husband to begin with?

MonicaP: A sperm has the potential to be a person, too, but the baby Jesus doesn't actually weep every time a guy jerks off."

Agreed.

And a sperm will NEVER become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it. But, a fertilized egg will always become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it.*

So, many people believe it becomes a "person" at that moment (morally, if not legally). They see a HUGE, BRIGHT LINE when that sperm fertilizes an egg (another potential person). At that point, a lifeform with a human DNA structure as unique as your own comes into being. Its sex is determined; it has a race; it's eye color may already be determined (I don't know for sure, but I presume it is); its blood-type is defined; whether it wil go bald (and when) may already be determined; hair color; propsensity to develop Type-II diabetes or to develop any number of different cancers; we may even know if it will die of Alzheimer's if nothing else gets to it first. There you have a human lifeform as unique (and complete) as any one of us. The only question is time (and a little luck).

Maybe that fertilized egg won't attach to the uterine wall and get flushed away. The fertilized egg may implant. It may grow. It may miscarry. It may be stillborn. Bad things happen in life, sometimes through the fault of no one.

But, that does not absolve humans that intervene in that process.

So, you can talk about implantation, you can talk about trimesters, you can talk about birth, you can even talk about "quickening." There are some people, though, who look at the moment of fertilization and say, scientifically, that cell has as complete of a blueprint for life as I have, minus the time. So, they don't see it as POTENTIAL life in any sense.

-Jut

*IVF (and, potentially other fertilization methods) don't quite fit the logical structure of this statement. Also, the failure of an egg to implant does not quite fit the structure of this statement either.

MonicaP: A sperm has the potential to be a person, too, but the baby Jesus doesn't actually weep every time a guy jerks off."

Agreed.

And a sperm will NEVER become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it. But, a fertilized egg will always become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it.*

So, many people believe it becomes a "person" at that moment (morally, if not legally). They see a HUGE, BRIGHT LINE when that sperm fertilizes an egg (another potential person). At that point, a lifeform with a human DNA structure as unique as your own comes into being. Its sex is determined; it has a race; it's eye color may already be determined (I don't know for sure, but I presume it is); its blood-type is defined; whether it wil go bald (and when) may already be determined; hair color; propsensity to develop Type-II diabetes or to develop any number of different cancers; we may even know if it will die of Alzheimer's if nothing else gets to it first. There you have a human lifeform as unique (and complete) as any one of us. The only question is time (and a little luck).

Maybe that fertilized egg won't attach to the uterine wall and get flushed away. The fertilized egg may implant. It may grow. It may miscarry. It may be stillborn. Bad things happen in life, sometimes through the fault of no one.

But, that does not absolve humans that intervene in that process.

So, you can talk about implantation, you can talk about trimesters, you can talk about birth, you can even talk about "quickening." There are some people, though, who look at the moment of fertilization and say, scientifically, that cell has as complete of a blueprint for life as I have, minus the time. So, they don't see it as POTENTIAL life in any sense.

-Jut

*IVF (and, potentially other fertilization methods) don't quite fit the logical structure of this statement. Also, the failure of an egg to implant does not quite fit the structure of this statement either.

Sorry for the double-post. (Although, in all fairness, it was only a POTENTIAL post, when I hit "Submit" the second time.)
-Jut

I understand why people think the zygote should be granted personhood at conception. I just think they're wrong. Like I said, the potential for personhood is powerful. Of course it's life in the most general sense. The question is whether it's life in any meaningful sense. And the truth is subjective. It's meaningful to some people and not others.

Some people will be turned off by the idea of trying to determine "meaningful" life, but just because it can go down some very dark paths doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If a life that doesn't know it's alive, can't feel anything and won't be missed by anyone dies, does it matter?

This is of course, the same governor and legislature that wants welfare and SSI recipients to get (and pay for) a drug screening before they can get any support.

Of course. If you have money for drugs, you have money for rent, food, and clothing, and have no need of public assistance.

Right?

''What about the bipolar medication that makes birth control useless''

Really? Bipolar meds rip off condoms? Yank out IUD's? Rejoin fallopian tubes? Reverse vasectomies? That's some damn impressively skilled medicine!

Not to mention, basing policy on extremes is a bad idea. Really-married bipolar women whose meds rip out surgical devices? You can do better.

''Fortunately science has provided actual data that our lawmakers can use ''

What is that? That babies are made by sperms and eggs meeting? That they start moving in the first trimester? Dreaming in the second? Which study definitively answers the "life" question?

Here's why abortion is legal and moral:

http://news.yahoo.com/michelle-jim-bob-duggar-expecting-20th-child-144832226.html

Really? Bipolar meds rip off condoms? Yank out IUD's? Rejoin fallopian tubes? Reverse vasectomies? That's some damn impressively skilled medicine!

Of course, sexually active people *should* take EVERY precaution necessary to prevent pregnancy -- especially if their uterus is a dangerous place. I, for one, am on the pill and take a pregnancy test every month.

But...sometimes women get pregnant, either through sheer ignorance/stupidity or just bad luck. And, sometimes, these women don't want to be pregnant. Fortunately, there is a safe and legal medical procedure these women are able to get.

I just can't get on board with the "you got pregnant, so too bad so sad" sentiment.

Then again, I have no moral qualms about abortion, so I don't think there will be a meeting of the minds on this issue.

Pregnancy is a medical condition, and women and their doctors need to be able to make medical choices without the state getting involved, otherwise it gets difficult. If there's a, say, 5% chance a woman could die at birth do you let her abort? What about a 1% chance? 75% chance? She needs to be able to decide the amount of risk she wants her body to take as a result of her medical care.

I believe the abortion rate is about 1/3 of all pregnancies are aborted? There is something seriously fucked up about a society where that many women think their best option is to kill their kid.

I think we should provide more marriage incentives. Which as we learned last week puts me at odd with the forum.

Fink-Nottle, what can you tell us about the mating and aborting habit of the speckled newt?

> Um, no. This is EXACTLY what this post is about.
> You say it is a POTENTIAL person; others say it
> is a real person. It is not a silly argument;
> it is a logical extension of your belief.

Jut's correct: You're in a tight loop.

"I believe the abortion rate is about 1/3 of all pregnancies are aborted? There is something seriously fucked up about a society where that many women think their best option is to kill their kid."

There certainly would be something wrong with that society if it existed anywhere.

But it doesn't exist. Most mothers aren't murdering babies. Pregnant women are sometimes choosing abortion.

Big, big difference.

> in all fairness, it was only a POTENTIAL post,
> when I hit "Submit" the second time

I love that stuff.

> Pregnant women are sometimes choosing abortion.

33% is "sometimes"?

Are there other arguments in public affairs for which you'd find that rhetoric proportionate?

"Results: A total of 820,151 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2005 from 49 reporting areas, the abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) was 233, and the abortion rate was 15 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years. For the 46 reporting areas that have consistently reported since 1995, the abortion rate declined during 1995--2000 but has remained unchanged since 2000."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm

P.S. I'm absolutely 100% percent pro-choice.

Gog, you are unfathomable. You think it's more moral to kill a kid than have one more? Last I checked (and I do watch the show on occasion) the Duggars kids' are healthy, happy, wellfed, well adjusted individuals who happen to have beliefs and a lifestyle you don't agree with. This makes killing their kids moral? I'm sure I don't agree with your beliefs or lifestyle, can I kill YOUR kids? After all, according to your logic I can.

I know a woman here with 14 kids. No welfare, happy healthy pretty high-achieving kids. Why do you have a problem with that? Does it offend you in some dark deep-rooted way, that some people love kids a LOT? That some people find raising them to be a very fulfilling life? And if so, why?

"But, a fertilized egg will always become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it."

Uhh, no.

A tremendous amount of life-support has to happen, too. That's why I asked about access to technology: if you're treating these as "people", they are equal under the law, and the penniless in Appalachia or a Compton crack-house have the same obligation under this law as Mr. & Mrs. Cruise. Let the fetus die, you've committed some kind of crime.

Don't waffle. Tell me what that is. A crime is a violation of a statute. If the law says the fertilized egg is a person and you let it die, that's already prosecuted as negligent homicide when an infant was breathing.

Taking the RU-486 pill would then be premeditated murder, right?

What's the penalty? Don't dodge that!

"can I kill YOUR kids? After all, according to your logic I can."

No, according to my logic if you're an abortion doctor and my pregnant wife/girlfriend/acquaintance comes to you for a legal abortion you can perform it.

Not sure where this conflation of 'baby murder' and 'aborting a fetus' came about but I suspect it was in the basement church of some wingnut part-time born-again halfwit.

Or Topeka.

I read about some fantastic news in a recent scientific journal. It seems they've come up with a morning after pill for men. It changes your blood type.

No, you said the Duggars aborting this baby would be the moral thing to do. Presumably, because you don't like their beliefs although I'll admit I don't know WHY you feel it would be moral for them. Ergo, I can say aborting (killing) your baby is the moral thing to do.

There is very little difference in a 24 week baby and a 22 week one. Very little difference in a 22 week one and a 20 week one. Little difference in a 20 week one and an 18 week one. Fetus growth is steady throughout. How do you personally get to decide when that tiny difference makes the difference in baby and not? One doesn't need to be a fundamentalist, half-wit, born-again, or Topekan to call a fetus a baby. Or maybe you've never spent time in a NICU. If you have no experience with babies preterm, you don't have a very informed opinion on the matter.

Gee Momof4, if you can't even quote me correctly maybe you should, I dunno, stop before you post your straw man. It's not that far of a scroll up the page. You can pop up there now and see for yourself.

The question as to whether NOT spending time in the NICU disqualifies a voting adult American from having an opinion on the legality of abortion I leave to the rationalists on this board.

I'd just note that by that measure most of us should have no opinion on the goals and projects of NASA, taxes, the environment - or any one of an endless list of topics of concern for all of us even though we don't work at NASA or plan the budget or engage in far-ranging studies of the natural world.

I also think it should either be okay to abort, period, up to birth, or not okay at all. There is no magic second a clump of cells becomes a baby worth protection. Some babies can survive birth at 21 weeks, some not until 26. Medical science will continue to push that back. Yet our ability to save a baby doesn't mean squat in it's development. It's an arbitrary moment in time. (and we all know I fall on the side of not allowing it at all.)
I'm also a HUG fan of birth control, wish we could put it in the water, and donate regularly to Project Prevention (thanks to Amy for making me aware of that group!)
Posted by: momof4

So abortions for cell clusters 3 days old should net prison time in your opinion? And BC isn’t 100%

>There's a difference between a person and a bunch of dividing cells.
Says who? How is that call made?
Posted by: Crid at November 8, 2011 7:00 AM

Science, research

What kind of sicko considers a baby a punishment for sex? "Whore. Serves her right for spreading her legs. Now make her be responsible for that helpless life."

Christians

Outlawing abortion does not force any woman to keep and raise a baby. It forces her to go full term with a pregnancy and deliver a baby. At that point she can give that baby up to someone who does want a baby. A lot of people in this country would be happy to adopt many of these babies.
Posted by: Fink-Nottle

No, but it would force some women to die, either from eptopic pregnancy, or of a disease which the medication for could kill the baby, or of complications of the birth itself, giving birth isn’t a cake walk.

1) No one "forced" the mother to get pregnant. Except in the case of rape (which is a completely separate issue) the mother made a choice to have sex.
2) That's utter BS. Again, no one is forcing these women to get pregnant. The state/taxpayers are under zero obligation and owe absolutely nothing to people just because they don't break the law. That's absurd. I'd also contend that we already do pay tons of money, billions of dollars annually, to women and families in the form of free health care, welfare, food stamps, etc. Billions of dollars annually. I'd love to see that cut.
Posted by: JDThompson

Actually with pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, and occasionally giving out fake birth control pills, & doctors running scam clinics which delay abortion seeks until beyond the legal time limit some women are indeed being forced into pregnancy

Also BC is not 100%, condoms break, pills have interactions with other meds and general health, IUD can fall out. Just because these methods fail should someone who isn’t looking for kids and doing everything possible to prevent them be forced to have a child? Also wouldn’t it be cheaper to pay for abortions then to pay for the kids that will wind up on welfare or in foster homes JDThompson?

The rape/incest thing - I only mentioned it because it's the standard pro-abortion retort. I'd just as soon make all abortions illegal in this country. I believe life begins at conception.

Prove it then, until that point I’ll thank you to keep your baseless, unproven, religiously inspired dreck off of and out of my life

It worries me that a blog that is usually so strong on personal responsibility is so quick to disregard the role of personal responsibility in sex/childbirth.
Posted by: JDThompson

I could live with a first trimester allowance - again, realism vs. idealism and compromise. But someone that gets pregnant in this day and age without wanting to is the absolute opposite of responsibility.
Posted by: JDThompson at

Again birth control IS NOT 100%, even doing everything right a woman might still get pregnant

MonicaP: A sperm has the potential to be a person, too, but the baby Jesus doesn't actually weep every time a guy jerks off."
Agreed.
And a sperm will NEVER become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it. But, a fertilized egg will always become a "person" UNLESS something happens to it.*
So, many people believe it becomes a "person" at that moment (morally, if not legally).
Maybe that fertilized egg won't attach to the uterine wall and get flushed away. The fertilized egg may implant. It may grow. It may miscarry. It may be stillborn. Bad things happen in life, sometimes through the fault of no one.
But, that does not absolve humans that intervene in that process.
So, you can talk about implantation, you can talk about trimesters, you can talk about birth, you can even talk about "quickening." There are some people, though, who look at the moment of fertilization and say, scientifically, that cell has as complete of a blueprint for life as I have, minus the time. So, they don't see it as POTENTIAL life in any sense.
-Jut
*IVF (and, potentially other fertilization methods) don't quite fit the logical structure of this statement. Also, the failure of an egg to implant does not quite fit the structure of this statement either.
Posted by: JutGory

Jut, by this logic god has killed more babies than any abortion doctor, and as god(being the moral head of all existence) is to be emulated wouldn’t that, logically, make abortion a moral thing?

After all if it is good enough for god why not humans

"How do you personally get to decide when that tiny difference makes the difference in baby and not? {snip} If you have no experience with babies preterm, you don't have a very informed opinion on the matter."

Actually, I don't get to decide, and neither do you, but this, again, is why I talk about technology. The development of your baby is only mostly, not totally, up to you. You can miscarry at any time. You will have to prove that's what happened if you buy into the law defining a fertilized egg a person. What a lovely idea, huh?

And actually, fallacy aside, professional biologists know more about viability than any layman.

The plain fact of the matter is that without technology, you don't have a baby until it pops out and lives on its own. Somehow, other nations, even tribes, understand that as we struggle with fantasies. You might miscarry, you might bear a monster, you might have no problems at all and deliver at home in the kitchen. But the law is based on a fixed definition, and you damned well better be sure you know that law is for you, not just some anonymous "other people".

> I think we should provide more marriage
> incentives. Which as we learned last
> week puts me at odd with the forum.

I think I heart you, perhaps in totalistic way.

Part of the problem here (albeit probably a small part) is the number of doctors who refuse to sterilize women who NEVER want kids, because, oh, yanno, "You'll change your mind". Yet it's perfectly okay to let her BC fail and then call her a murderer.

Thank God my uterus is in a trash can somewhere.

Being bipolar and taking the medication does horribly limit birth control options.

Worse, allergies limit mine even more. I have had allergic reactions to latex. I also have had allergic reactions to copper, which is what all the non-hormonal IUDs are made out of.

I have yet to meet a doctor that will consider tying the tubes of a woman under twenty-five without a child.

I have a three year implant now in my arm, that hasn't completely failed yet. However, every few months I test positive on a pregnancy test, only to miscarry within a few weeks. This bill would make me a murderer.

Technically, Roe v. Wade was not in the SCOTUS's purview, If you look at it is a state's rights decision. Just like DOMA, Loving, and many other social issues -- they aren't covered by the Constitution.

So while I don't care if a woman has an abortion, I also should not be responsible for paying to raise said child.

I don't think late term abortion is right, I won't say it is wrong either.

But most doctors now counsel older pregnant mothers not to bother having an amniocentesis unless they will actually terminate on a bad outcome.

> P.S. I'm absolutely 100% percent pro-choice.
>
> Posted by: Meloni

Me too, but people shouldn't be pricks about it. People shouldn't be pricks about ANYTHING.

I always liked Paglia's ideas about this: "Pro-choice" is pussyfooting language. She's pro-abortion...

On the other hand, she understands that abortion opponents are mostly sincere in their concern about this disregard for human life.

Abortion is an excellent test of one's capacity for adult (unpleasant) irony. The competing truths go like this:

• Women need absolute control over their reproduction. Civilization thrives where safe abortion is available. You invariably find other big problems where abortion isn't available.

• Abortion is unnecessary human killing, and people who're blasé about it, or who backhandedly discuss it as a harvest of freedom, are no less monstrous than those who'd deny it to a woman who needed one.

We aren't talking about clipping toenails here.

So, there... That's how it works. If you want to book me for your dinner party or something, call the office, and have your credit card ready.

And call soon, because Q2 '12 is filling up quickly.

Props to Meloni also for the verifiably factive citational input.

As I said, women should be able to make their own medical decisions.

But let's not pussyfoot, it's taking a life. No, its not the same as killing the lady next to you on a bus. But life is not a boolean, its not either or. It is a spectrum.

Sometimes in life it is necessary to kill. But it shouldn't be done wantonly. I am all for your having the right to chose, but I maintain the right to form my opinion of you on it. And if you've had multiple abortions, well, that is going to affect my opinion of you. I also will think badly of you if you go around stomping on mice. Or frying anthills for fun.

How come spellcheck doesn't recognize "boolean"?

> spellcheck doesn't recognize "boolean"?

Humanities types who're consulted for spellcheck databases don't know about such things, or they'd be doing the programming themselves and keeping all the money.

Since you recognize it, watch this Ted talk... It's interesting for its own sake and includes on-point mockery of Brian Eno, an inexplicably beloved noodler who's long had it coming.

(...Though I once deployed this as holiday music during a Christmas afternoon drive through the snowy Rockies, and it really hit the spot.)

Thanks so much for the link, its awesome, I love the combination of art, mysticism, and math. I posted it onto FB.

lujlp: "Jut, by this logic god has killed more babies than any abortion doctor, and as god(being the moral head of all existence) is to be emulated wouldn’t that, logically, make abortion a moral thing?

After all if it is good enough for god why not humans"

I don't see how that follows. I never mentioned god. Why do pro-choicers insist on bringing god into discussions about abortion? But, the funny thing is, by YOUR logic, god really has killed everyone that has ever died. So, let's go on a killing spree to be like god!

Radwaste: "A tremendous amount of life-support has to happen, too. That's why I asked about access to technology: if you're treating these as "people", they are equal under the law, and the penniless in Appalachia or a Compton crack-house have the same obligation under this law as Mr. & Mrs. Cruise. Let the fetus die, you've committed some kind of crime."

If by, "a tremendous amount of life-support" you mean "gestational functions in the woman's body," sure. But, those kind happen involuntarily; the mother does not really have to DO anything for nature to take its course.

As for your analogy between the Mr. & Mrs. Cruise and poor people, it makes no sense. How are they letting the "fetus die"? Bad nutrition, drugs, poor medical care, what? I said that bad things can happen in life and no one is at fault. Just because someone miscarries does not mean someone did something wrong; similarly, just because a guy falls off a ledge does not mean he was pushed.

-Jut

'Here's why abortion is legal and moral:

http://news.yahoo.com/michelle-jim-bob-duggar-expecting-20th-child-144832226.html'

Good enough quote for ya? Or do you want to argue that you putting the Duggars right under your statement that abortion is moral is just a random coincidence and you were making no statement on the Duggars at all?

Luj, there are no abortions of 3 day cell clumps. They haven't even implanted at day 3. They are still in the fallopian tubes. People arguing FOR abortion should at the very least have the tiniest bit of actual biological knowledge of reproduction.

The abortion topic is always going to cause passionate debate.

Our societal laws are based on the lowest level of behavior we will tolerate, not the highest level some of us morally strive towards.

Throw in the side dish of ever-changing medical technology and basically no one person agrees with anyone else about anything. Guaranteed drama.

Have you seen the Slate article? Enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/mississippi_s_anti_abortion_amendment_the_very_weird_implication.html

"We came up with some interesting (possibilities.....), but we bet you come up with even better ones. Please add them in the comments section...."

Reminds me of the very funny letter about the Old Testament sent to Dr. Laura in 2000.

"I said that bad things can happen in life and no one is at fault."

Distinguish between a miscarriage and abortion via RU486. State the penalty for willfully terminating the legally defined "person" at the 3-month gestation point.

Because the LAW depends on DEFINITIONS, not on the homily quoted here.

Fortunately, this "personhood" thing got voted down.

Radwaste: "Distinguish between a miscarriage and abortion via RU486."

Why? You just did. They are different things.

Radwaste: "State the penalty for willfully terminating the legally defined "person" at the 3-month gestation point."

There isn't one. You do realize, don't you, that there are not legally defined persons at the 3-month gestation point, right?

Because the LAW depends on DEFINITIONS, not on the homily quoted here.

I do not know how this is a "homily." Or how the two parts of your statement: 1) fit together; or 2) relate to that "homily." My homily was just a statement of fact. You see, some pro-choicers bring up STUPID arguments that masturbation and menstruation are equivalent to abortion, or that pro-lifers want all miscarriages to be prosecuted. Maybe there are pro-lifers that believe that. If so, they are as stupid as the pro-choicers that fight them. Are you one of those stupid people Radwaste? Do you believe that to be pro-life you have to believe that miscarriages should be prosecuted as murder? Your question about RU486 suggests that you do.

Radwaste: "Fortunately, this 'personhood' thing got voted down."

Agreed. That would be a legal quagmire. From a moral perspective though, things are pretty much clear to everyone. They just don't agree.

-Jut

Sigh. Jut, you're just being obtuse. I have been talking about the effects of this ruling, had it passed, and the effect on law - NOT the status quo.

We prescribe criminal penalties today, for killing living people or failing to support those to whom we are guardians, and we would have to do this for a group of cells had this bill passed. Then, quagmire.

Sigh. Radwaste. You are just being a bully. I have not been talking about the effects of this ruling, but you insist that I answer your questions. YOU are being obtuse.

I have never suggested that that there should be criminal penalties involved in this. You are stuck on this notion. If you want to fight this battle, fine, fight it with someone else.

-Jut

What's the point of making something illegal if there are no penalties for it?