Pharyngula

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 1, 2009 6:04 PM

I dunno; Frank Schaeffer claimed part responsibility with his rhetoric--isn't that at the very least what we ask of the moderates?

He and I can disagree about the scourge of all the late-term abortions destroying all the potential Einsteins and Gandhis, but I'm willing to give him credit for speaking up and saying sorry; even if only because so few others will have the balls to do so.

Posted by: Bachalon | June 1, 2009 6:14 PM

Of course, Terry and his ilk were screaming bloody murder when gays protested outside of LDS churches.

Suppose one is pro-life, and suppose one is a hypocrite, but I repeat myself.

Posted by: Meat Robot | June 1, 2009 6:17 PM

You rightly point out that late term abortion is rare and performed under dire circumstances. It is a hobgoblin of the pro-life movement, but it is just about statistically invisible in terms of actual occurrence.

Most elective abortion occurs very early, and very few gynecologists will consider performing an elective abortion after viability, around 24 weeks. The medical community essentially self-regulates.

A real pity here is that late term abortion requires specialized skills which even many general gynecologists would not typically possess. So, the already small population of late term abortion providers may become even smaller. I know I'd think twice about keeping surgical privileges if one possible outcome was a random bullet in the chest.

Posted by: the pro from dover | June 1, 2009 6:24 PM

Is it just me or do the most fervent pro lifers also seem to be the ones who are also anti gun control, pro capital punishment, and pro military involvement overseas and want the national guard called in when there is any civil disturbance and turned a deaf ear to the people of New Orleans because of the sinful nature of their city? Why are so many pro life supporters also the ones who pray for the end of times and armageddon which would lead to the deaths of most of those left behind? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: stogoe | June 1, 2009 6:25 PM

A real pity here is that late term abortion requires specialized skills which even many general gynecologists would not typically possess. So, the already small population of late term abortion providers may become even smaller.

Posted by: Aconite | June 1, 2009 6:32 PM

PZ, in Terry's latest press conference, in which he said Tiller was a mass murderer who "reaped what he sowed," he concluded by mentioning what he'd like for lunch (beer and hot wings) if anyone wanted to buy it for him.

Yes. Honestly. He did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37eu8MSXdP8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epamshouseblend%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 1, 2009 6:36 PM

@8 Pro from Dover- Don't forget that they also are more likely to be pro-torture than atheists and agnostics.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 1, 2009 6:37 PM

Dear Frank,

In my daily chat with God, he said he was very pleased with you 'fessing up like a big boy. But he also mentioned all those millions of inflammatory books you and Pop Schaeffer sold to the holy homicidals, and wondered whether now might be the time to cash in your tainted investments and give the proceeds to the family, and the causes, of the man you helped terminate.

Your brother-in-Christ Smoggy.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 1, 2009 6:43 PM

Not good enough I agree with you, PZ, on your ethical stance. I disagree politically. If we could legislate what is standard practice anyway, we could get some of these people to SHUT THE FUCK UP about it.

I'm OK with the patronising crap. I'm OK with the additional requirements of legal faffing about for women and their families who are in great distress already. I'm OK with it not because it's right, but because it will help save lives.

But it's also not sufficient. I mean, this already is the situation in Kansas, and it didn't help Dr Tiller.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 1, 2009 7:01 PM

If we could legislate what is standard practice anyway, we could get some of these people to SHUT THE FUCK UP about it.

But the standard practice now is "it's a decision between the doctor and the pregnant woman", which is already legal because of Roe v. Wade. Why would passing a law that changed nothing make any of the pro-lifers shut up?

Posted by: Holbach | June 1, 2009 7:03 PM

There's that bullshit cliche again, "the law of god", as applied by the demented law of morons bent on wreaking havoc for insane religion. Humans are always taking the law into their own hands and claiming they are doing their god's command. Prosecute these religious slime in the same court with the slime rapist priests, and then bury them together for the worms to devour without remorse.

Posted by: Annold T Pants | June 1, 2009 7:08 PM

I just had an idea- since Schaeffer is also selling a book, perhaps if he really does feel penitent he could donate the proceeds to Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 1, 2009 7:10 PM

meat robot:

"So, the already small population of late term abortion providers may become even smaller."

actually, in the USA, that pool now appears to consists of consist of exactly one practitioner willing to provide the same health services dr. tiller did, dr. warren hern, in colorado.

i believe he is in his late 60's and there appears to be no one to fill his shoes when he retires (assuming no hideous excuse for a human harms him first.)

http://www.drhern.com/biography.pdf

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | June 1, 2009 7:14 PM

I don't know. I strongly disagree with the para that PZ has quoted, but I think that, here, Schaeffer is merely wrong. He seems, though, to be wrong in good faith. I can live with people like that, even if I wouldn't vote for them. And on the bigger issue, surely he is dead right. In fact, even somebody who (unlike Schaeffer) believes that abortion should be illegal could be right on that issue, viz., that if you go about loudly asking who will rid you of this meddlesome priest, sooner or later somebody will, and you will then bear part of the blame.

Compare and contrast to that scumsucking cobag Randall Terry. I do not hope that somebody shoots him, because like other normal people (and unlike the psychopaths, fascists and crawthumpers that make up Terry's fan base), I do not advocate murder of people I disagree with. But I do hope somebody manages to enforce all those civil judgements against him despite the care he has taken to shield his property from bankruptcy proceedings and child support claims. The idea of Terry spending his last years eating from dumpsters before dying of exposure would, I admit, put a bit of a spring in my step.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 1, 2009 7:17 PM

Naked Bunny, Roe v Wade is US-specific, so not so much directly relevant to me and many other commenters. Even so, I'm not 100% sure that Roe v Wade applies to such late term pregnancies? There seem to be restrictions already in the US. Perhaps some US person could explain how that works.

As to passing a law that changed nothing - well, have you been reading these threads? The idea that late term abortions are somehow done just for laughs, and the state should force women to bring all late term viable fetuses to birth? There are a whole lot of people commenting who take that position. Some even claim to be atheist. And they just need to shut the fuck up.

BTW, viable doesn't mean what they think it means. Viable != healthy. Viable means not going to die all by itself just yet. A "viable" fetus may have anencephaly, or spina bifida together with hydrocephaly, among other possibilities. And be doomed to a very short and painful life.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 1, 2009 7:21 PM

As an addendum to my previous comment:

I would love to see a more rigorous study on reasons for late-term abortions if anyone knows of one and could direct me to it.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 1, 2009 7:25 PM

Bridget McKinney-

sorry, i can't direct you to a better study, but i can point out that the paper you cited through wiki, who sourced it from the "holysmoke" website is made up of data gathered in 1987 and published in 1988.

so were talking about a 3-rd hand account of data that is from about 400 women 22 years ago.

we should put much stock in it being really accurate.

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 1, 2009 7:27 PM

actually, in the USA, that pool now appears to consists of consist of exactly one practitioner willing to provide the same health services dr. tiller did, dr. warren hern, in colorado.

It's unrealistic to suppose that these two guys are (were) the only ones in the entire country to perform abortions after 21 weeks. In preparing material for my reproduction and development class I've had discussions with a number of health care providers who also conduct this procedure within their private ob/gyn practices. They do not give their names out as abortion providers, but do provide them privately to their patients of record.

That said, it's still disgraceful that only two (now one) people in the country had enough conviction/ money to spend on personal protection to publicly provide these abortions, as a direct result of threats and pressure by the pro-forced maternity wingnuts.

Posted by: DaveL | June 1, 2009 7:33 PM

What I wonder is this: if a radical Muslim, a member of an extremist omvement, had burst into a church and shot a doctor, there would be no hesitation to root out the other members of that movement and bring them to justice. The full force of the federal government would be brought to bear to prosecute not just those who carried out the attacks, but those who recruited and indoctrinated them, those who funded them, anyone who provided any kind of support whatsoever.

Why does the war on terror get suspended when the terrorists are white American Christians?

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 1, 2009 7:40 PM

Bridget McKinney:

Thanks for what little information is available on this question.

PZ, besides your error in saying that late-term abortions are
only carried out when there is a risk to the life of the mother,
I also have to question this statement:

Abortion must remain a decision between a woman and her
doctor…crazy evangelists (or ex-evangelists) and senators
have no part in it.

Senators actually should have some part in it. They have to define
WHEN the point is that the child has a legal interest of his own, to
be weighed against the mother's interest. I think that you would
concede that a two-year-old, despite being very dependent on
his parents, has a legal interest that his parents can't throw him
off the roof for their amusement or financial interests. What about
a 6-month-old? What about a newborn? At what instant does the
fetus become a newborn? In terms of brain development (which I
regard as nearly paramount in terms of "self") a 3-month-old isn't
very different from an 8-month fetus. What is your line between
"feticide" and "infanticide"?

Your statement above would leave the answer "when the woman
says so." I can't agree with that.

It's a very complicated question, and the interest and rights of
a woman are very strong when dealing with her fetus and her
child. But we give a child legal rights _against_ parents, too,
sometimes.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 1, 2009 7:41 PM

okay, i have a confession i used google to find an article with hern's quote, which i remembered reading last night, but i'd read no many articles i couldn't remember where, and "the independent" wasn't one of them.

the article has this at the bottom, and i didn't initially look for it:

CLARIFICATION: Dr. Warren Hern’s claim that he is the last late-term abortion provider is not factually correct, according to reproductive health experts. While there are few physicians who publicly advertise these rare services as Dr. Hern does, third trimester abortions are available, by physician referral, to women experiencing serious, life-threatening medical conditions and in the event of a stillborn or gravely ill baby. - Ed.

so i guess he's the only one left who hasn't been terrorized into silence, not literally the only one.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 1, 2009 7:45 PM

There seem to be restrictions already in the US.

Yes, the decision has been eroded quite a lot over the years. This is a very dangerous potential slippery slope. Once you give the government ownership of a women's body under some circumstances, it is becomes easier to justify giving it more.

well, have you been reading these threads?

Yes, I have. The late-term abortion position is a smokescreen for the true goal of entirely outlawing abortion. It's equivalent to creationists claiming they are only interested in academic freedom. It's an attempt to sound moderate, but there is no moderate way to take a woman's right to self-determination away.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 1, 2009 7:51 PM

PZ quoting Randall Terry:

Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

And if that doesn't work, we'll kill them in cold blood.

Posted by: Christian Sonne | June 1, 2009 8:11 PM

I wonder by what argument it is the "law of god" that abortion==murder... - surely this would be judged by what the bible says?

Well on this topic, it is quite clear - abortion is NOT murder (Ex 21:22-25)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2021:22-25;&version=31;

Posted by: Nat J. | June 1, 2009 8:15 PM

While I'm not sure that I'd agree with many of Schaeffer's reasons (pretty sure I'd disagree in fact), I don't think it's fair to say that the decision should only remain one between a woman and her doctor. The destruction of any life should ideally have ethical consideration, yet this obviously isn't practical given the different levels on which life exists (it's impossible for me to sneeze without killing something somehow). However, these are instances where humans do have a very real choice in the destruction of life, and I don't think the decision is one that must only consider the woman ethically. In the same way that I wouldn't kill a frog with no consideration (although granted less than that of a chimp, adult human, octopus, etc.), I wouldn't do that to a human fetus at all stages of prenatal development.

Therefore, I do agree with the statement that a developmental consideration must be made. Before anyone responds, please understand that I am by no means disagreeing with the right of a woman to abortion, and that I understand reproductive rights as integral to a just treatment of the sexes. However, I think that there's a problem with treating this decision in the same way that we'd treat the choices between cereals in the store as one between a consumer and retailer/manufacturer.

I understand the complications in limiting reproductive rights, however we live in an imperfect world (I know, I know, I'm sounding like Ken Ham here) and we have to understand that there can be competing evils, and an appropriate choice is the lesser of them.

It is clear that drawing a precise line is impractical, but the total inconsideration of these partially developed beings in favor of personal freedom seems to me too much like the contradiction of the supposedly benevolent Christian God who lets "free will" trump the considerations of starving and diseased children in conditions of famine.

Posted by: raven | June 1, 2009 8:18 PM

Bridget

I would love to see a more rigorous study on reasons for late-term abortions if anyone knows of one and could direct me to it.

Has there been any progress made on pregnancy outcomes among women with pulmonary arterial hypertension? Elisabeth Bédard1,2, Konstantinos Dimopoulos1,2 and Michael A. Gatzoulis1,2,* 1 Adult Congenital Heart Centre and Centre for Pulmonary Hypertension, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK 2 National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK

Received 19 April 2008; revised 13 October 2008; accepted 17 December 2008; online publish-ahead-of-print 15 January 2009.
Pregnancy in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is considered to be associated with prohibitive maternal mortality. During the past decade, new advanced therapies for PAH have emerged and progress in high-risk pregnancy management has been made. We examined whether these changes have improved outcomes in parturients with PAH. A systematic review of all cases of parturients with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension (iPAH), congenital heart disease associated with PAH (CHD-PAH), or PAH of other aetiology (oPH) published in the past decade (1997–2007) was performed. Outcome data from this study were then compared with relevant data published between 1978 and 1996. Forty-eight case reports or case series met the inclusion criteria, totalling 73 parturients with PAH. Seventy-two per cent of patients with iPAH were receiving advanced therapies, compared with 52% of CHD-PAH and 47% of oPH. Although a publication bias cannot be excluded, overall maternal mortality was significantly lower compared with previous era (25 vs. 38%, P = 0.047) and was 17% in iPAH, 28% in CHD-PAH, and 33% in oPH. Seventy-eight per cent of deaths occurred within the first month after delivery. Primigravidae and parturients who received general anaesthesia were at higher risk of death (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.15–12.5, P = 0.03 and OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.28–16.50, P = 0.02, respectively). Maternal mortality in parturients with PAH remains prohibitively high, despite lower death rates than previous decades. Early advice on pregnancy risks, including contraception, remains paramount. Women with PAH who become pregnant warrant a multidisciplinary approach with consideration of advanced therapies.

This is one reason women go for late term abortions. PAH patients who get pregnant have a 25% chance of dying..

There are many other underlying medical conditions that combined with pregnancy can lead to fatal outcomes. It happens sometimes.

Posted by: arachnophilia | June 1, 2009 8:27 PM

HEY GUYS!

you should know better than to not fact-check stuff written by these kind of people. their arguments are usually strawmen.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. (Roe v. Wade, 1973)

"roe is far too all or nothing" is an argument that only people who haven't actually read roe make. the case allows for state laws and regulations (conservative!) concerning late term abortions.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. (ibid)

Posted by: arachnophilia | June 1, 2009 8:34 PM

^^ yeah, what she said too.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 8:47 PM

It seems to be a prevalent belief, even among the moderate community that if abortion wasn't tightly regulated, women would be aborting babies right and left, day after, late term, after a couple of months, and just for the hell of it,

ABORTION PARTIES!

Posted by: Ryogam | June 1, 2009 8:52 PM

To all the abortion restricters, of all stripe: what you are actually advocating here is not only "outlawing murder" or "Balancing interests" but ALSO "forcing pregnancy and birth." You can't do the one without doing the other, not when we are discussing abortion.

You are saying: (Because a women choose to have sex nine months ago), the state can force a women to push a grapefruit sized head out her vagina or be sliced open and her innards shifted about in C Section, whether she wants to or not, for someone else. We usually call the unwilling use of a woman's vagina rape. Surgery without consent would be assault of the grossest kind. But, the terms "rape" and "assault" do not do the actual reality of this situation justice.

FORCING someone to undergo pain of the type associated with childbearing and birth is the very definition of 'torture.' I've tried to think of another situation when the State can use its power to cause pain to someone solely for the benefit of another, and, other than arguably a military draft or terrorist scenarios, I've come up blank. An I know of no known forced operations by the government on an unwilling adult.

Forced Birth is Torture. No ifs, ands or buts. It's that simple.

Now, when you come up with a way to get a viable or even non-viable fetus out of a women's womb without violating her bodily integrity against her will, then, hey, the interests finally be shifted. Until then, a women interest in not being forced to undergo medical procedures against her will always wins.

Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | June 1, 2009 8:54 PM

They are *not* done without good reason. Most often, this reason has to do with the health and viability of the mother and/or child.

Again, Danio, saying it don't make it so. Unless by viability you mean "It's not the kid I wanted." Given that amnios aren't given until the second trimester, and given that 90% of kids identified with Down Syndrome are smoked in utero, I suspect a number of those late term abortions are not due to life threatening ailments of mother or child, contrary to PZ's uninformed claim to the contrary. Either way, given how little information there appears to be on this subject, we can at least be certain that when PZ implies that late term abortion is utilized solely to save the life of the mother we know that he's talking out of his ink hole.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 1, 2009 8:55 PM

ALSO "forcing pregnancy and birth." You can't do the one without doing the other, not when we are discussing abortion.

You are saying: (Because a women choose to have sex nine months ago), the state can force a women to push a grapefruit sized head out her vagina or be sliced open and her innards shifted about in C Section, whether she wants to or not, for someone else. We usually call the unwilling use of a woman's vagina rape. Surgery without consent would be assault of the grossest kind. But, the terms "rape" and "assault" do not do the actual reality of this situation justice

Technically no. Not forcing pregnancy.

Forcing continued pregnancy yes, pregnancy period, no.

Posted by: me | June 1, 2009 9:01 PM

#63 Anon was me.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 1, 2009 9:02 PM

as has just been noted, the idea that most women would choose to go through the morning sickness, painful breast tenderness, extreme fatigue and other not-so-fun physical components of most early pregnancies, and then top it off with needing to define their personal beliefs about the ethics of pregnancy and terminating pregnancy and whether they ought to terminate theirs -because all that is somehow more "convenient" (as the anti-choicers love to say) than using birth control that prevents a pregnancy in the first place is asinine and absurd.

being pregnant isn't fun for many women, even many women who are trying to have a child, and things like severe morning sickness (that can last all damn day) can't be predicted before the pregnancy occurs.

and making a choice about terminating your own pregnancy isn't fun either.

if "on demand" abortion was available for free on every corner like in the anti-choicers' nightmares, an overwhelming majority of women would still try very, very hard to never, ever need one.

Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 9:09 PM

Bridget, et al:

Frankly, using the phrase "late-term" to describe an abortion carried out less than halfway through the pregnancy (IE, at 16 weeks) is semantically ludicrous. But why stop there? If you refer to all abortions performed after, say, implantation, as "late term" the percentage performed for health reasons is even smaller.

It's amazing what you can prove with humpty-dumpty arguments, innit?

That said, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of abortions carried out past the point of viability/24 weeks, as described by one of the other respondents, are performed for health reasons, attempts to gerrymander the definition of "late term" notwithstanding.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 9:09 PM

You could be an honorary woman for the parties, MAJeff, because obviously anyone who thinks women should have agency has a silly girl-brain.

I'll take the residue and whip up a lovely fondue for everyone!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 1, 2009 9:15 PM

stop it.

you're all making me hungry

Posted by: Susan C | June 1, 2009 9:19 PM

I notice the rabid anti-choice people also appear to be anti-sex-education, pro-gun zealots who don't want to fund social programs that truly reduce the demand for abortion. How ironic.
And while there are anti-abortion people living in other countries, you don't see them shooting at doctors. Maybe our gun policy needs reassessment, ya think?

And that Randall person seems like a horrible, horrible man. He all but said he didn't care that Tiller was murdered. I guess he is the judge of which lives are more valuable than others. What, is he God?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 1, 2009 9:20 PM

Bubba @40

In terms of brain development (which I regard as nearly paramount in terms of "self") a 3-month-old isn't very different from an 8-month fetus.

That's cute. You think that 4 months of brain development is insignificant. Aww...Please shut up if you don't know anything about human development. You're showing your ignorance.

Loudon is a Fool @62

Given that amnios aren't given until the second trimester, and given that 90% of kids identified with Down Syndrome are smoked in utero, I suspect a number of those late term abortions are not due to life threatening ailments of mother or child, contrary to PZ's uninformed claim to the contrary.

Downs Syndrome (or the more modern term Trisomy 21) is actually a life threatening condition for many fetuses. That is isn't an automatic death sentence doesn't change that. The costs of the surgeries to correct congenital defects from Trisomy 21 can bankrupt families and still don't guarantee the baby will survive. Just because we have made tremendous progress in regards to treating Trisomy 21 doesn't mean it's a minor thing for people to deal with.

I would have an abortion if I was pregnant with a Trisomy 21 baby. Raising a child that will never be a functioning adult, who will always need someone to look after him, who will be a burden on his siblings after I'm gone is not something I ever want to do. I have that right. It's not a slippery slope argument either. One can be just fine with aborting genetically compromised fetuses and whole-heartedly against the euthanasia of already born people.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 1, 2009 9:33 PM

A few questions:

If the Christian god existed, and didn't want humans to have abortions, why didn't he design women's reproductive systems in such a way that would have made it impossible for us to so?

If the Christian god is against abortion, why doesn't he prevent the sort of conditions that lead to the type of late-term abortions that late Dr. Tiller performed?

If the aborted fetus has a soul, surely that soul goes straight to heaven - why wouldn't Christians want that?

Posted by: Art N. Heaven | June 1, 2009 9:43 PM

I also think that we should do what President Obama calls for: use sex education and contraceptive distribution and programs to help women and children in a way that results in less abortions.

Posted by: WarrenS | June 1, 2009 9:45 PM

My mother's life was saved by a "partial-birth abortion" in the 1950s. I just posted a diary at kos, telling her story:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/1/737756/-My-Mothers-Abortions#c8

Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | June 1, 2009 9:54 PM

Fair enough, Pygmy Loris. But our species suffer from many genetic variables that may pose obstacles to achieving the status of a functioning adult. Some babes are smitten with an X in-lieu of a Y chromosome. The Chinese know how to react when presented with such a horror show. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

Posted by: Sniper | June 1, 2009 9:59 PM

The Chinese know how to react when presented with such a horror show.

What is it with conservatives and the concept of consent, anyway? Is it really so hard to understand?

Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | June 1, 2009 10:03 PM

Your posts are getting stupider by the day, PZ.

Brilliant argument refuting the post.

Simply brilliant.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 1, 2009 10:06 PM

but I don't want to eat fetus

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 10:08 PM

but I don't want to eat fetus

not even wrapped in bacon?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 1, 2009 10:10 PM

not even

Posted by: EW | June 1, 2009 10:11 PM

I grew up in the middle of the Roe V Wade row. My first girl friend got pregnant (after me) and her wealthy parents took her overseas at the age of 15 for an abortion.

At that time I couldn't understand the controversy. A person is considered dead by almost everyone, including most religions, if certain brainwaves are not present. Plugs van legally be pulled, machines turned off etc.

This means you are not legally alive if said brainwaves are not present. I have no idea when these brainwaves develop but for the religous, they indicate the presence of a soul. For the non-religous they indicate the presence of a life.

I have never understood why people don't use this simple idea.

As for late term abortions after these brain waves are present and it becomes a question of who dies, mother or child? THAT is a question best decided by the mother in conjuction with her doctor.

I have never understood the controversy.

Posted by: Dinah | June 1, 2009 10:12 PM

This is an excellent article on late-term abortion:

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=31&compID=39

Posted by: Sniper | June 1, 2009 10:12 PM

Ichthyic wins everything.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 10:19 PM

whatever happened to my grammar

If there were a shred of evidence that Tiller was ever performing abortions unnecessary to saving lives, then he would have been in prison.

Posted by: foxfire | June 1, 2009 10:20 PM

@ #8 (pro from Dover) and #76 (Susan), regarding:

Is it just me or do the most fervent pro lifers also seem to be the ones who are also anti gun control, pro capital punishment, and pro military involvement overseas and want the national guard called in when there is any civil disturbance and turned a deaf ear to the people of New Orleans because of the sinful nature of their city?

and

I notice the rabid anti-choice people also appear to be anti-sex-education, pro-gun zealots who don't want to fund social programs that truly reduce the demand for abortion. How ironic.

This dichotomy blows me away too. When I was much younger, the issue was Vietnam and the mantra was "Kill a Commie for Christ" Apparently we have moved on to Destroy a Doctor for the Deity.

I really think this killing should be treated as an act of terrorism and handled appropriately. The "evil" part of me wishes this could be done in a Bush/Cheney sort of way...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2009 10:27 PM

Loudon is a Fool,

You're quite clearly incapable of rational thinking. This is a red herring. Sex selective abortions in China are not done because the fetus has genetic abnormalities, but because society values one sex (male) over the other. It is irrelevant to whether women should be able to choose to abort a fetus with genetic abnormalities that result in severe problems.

Also, I don't oppose sex-selective abortions, particularly in cultures where families incur tremendous cost for a particular gender. China has created a very difficult situation with its One Child law. People who make the decision to abort their female children are making a rational decision for their family (though it's not rational from a societal standpoint). The inevitable costs to society of excess males will correct this kind of behavior. There are several reasons human females are more common than human males. The biological constraints of human reproduction are certainly at the top of that list as China is finding out.

What I oppose is any State that would make reproductive decisions for its citizens. This includes both forced pregnancy, forced abortion and forced sterilization. It's called being Pro-choice. Choice to become pregnant, stay pregnant, retain the ability to become pregnant again.

Posted by: CatBallou | June 1, 2009 10:29 PM

I really am puzzled by the apparently "reasonable" people who talk about "balancing" the rights of the mother and the fetus. It's one or the other--there's no balancing point. Either the mother is in charge of her body, or she's not. There's no equitable arrangement that respects the rights of both "parties."
If your spouse received all of the property in a divorce, you wouldn't call that a balanced settlement. If one parent in a divorce maintains full control and custody over the children, you wouldn't call that joint custody.
"Balancing rights and interests" sounds well and good, but I don't think it really means anything with regard to this issue.
And for the people who are still referencing that Wikipedia article, you aren't paying attention. 16 weeks is not "late term."
Also, it's none of your fucking business why someone does something that's legal. Women are competent moral actors.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 1, 2009 10:34 PM

@BubbaRich #40
All I intended to convey with my post was some doubt about the assertion that late-term abortions are life-saving procedures. I don't even categorically doubt it. I'm certain that in some (maybe even most) cases they are. I'll probably spend the rest of the night doing a more thorough search for information on the topic. I'm truly interested to see some numbers on this issue. My post of information was partly a request for more information.

In answer to your question, I think that the law is fairly clear right now that as soon as a baby is *born* it has rights as a full human being. The argument that legalized abortion may eventually lead to legalized infanticide or murder of children under X age is a specious argument at best and it deflects attention from more productive dialog on this issue.

As I said--if women are having difficulty making arrangements for early procedures and this leads to later term abortions, that is a problem that can and should be addressed.

Until everyone agrees on at what point a fetus becomes a human being, choices in regards to abortion should be left to women (and hopefully their partners and families and communities). It's a very personal choice, and I think it's sad and tragic and wrong, but it would be more tragic and wrong for me to impose my opinion on others. Especially when much of the argument is not over something that is scientifically provable, but rather, over the metaphysical question of at what point the fetus becomes imbued with a soul.

If one wants to do something to combat abortion, I recommend going into counseling or ministry or teaching. Talk to women. Teach young girls about their bodies and sexuality and love and relationships. Contribute to a discussion of how we can raise young people who don't make the bad choices that lead to hard choices such as whether or not to abort.

In any case, Bubbarich, please refrain from using my posts as a way to segue into a pointless and specious argument. I would like to have dialog and learn something from this discussion without that as a distraction.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 1, 2009 11:01 PM

Bridget McKinney-

i understand very clearly that an abortion was the wrong choice for you (as you openly declare this on your blog) and i am grateful that you don't want to legally enforce your opinion on others. but you're still making a rather big jump from "it was wrong form me at age 19" to "it's always wrong period."

i also don't understand "choices in regards to abortion should be left to women (and hopefully their partners and families and communities)" what do their communities have to do with this?

also this statement is very broad "Contribute to a discussion of how we can raise young people who don't make the bad choices that lead to hard choices such as whether or not to abort."

obviously that choice would be "have sex without using effective birth control and using it the most effective way."

so why they vague phrasing? why not just come out and say

"you know what might be more effective than becoming a minister? teaching every kid out there that you always use a condom, it's just something you always do, like looking before you cross the street. and you make sure they have access to them and know how to use them, because hey, we haven't found cures for aids or herpes yet either. and then you give access and knowledge about further birth control methods to women. and you make birth control affordable. hell maybe even grow up and become a research scientist in the field of "the male pill" etc."

because you can't convince humans not to have sex, it is a biological drive that no purity ring can deny.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 1, 2009 11:25 PM

moron @ 91 babbled,

Obviously, a 16 week old human fetus shouldn't have the rights that an adult does, but there are good ethical reasons why it shouldn't be killed simply because its mother doesn't want to go through pregnancy and was too dumb to get an abortion sooner

Ah,yes,thats why women abort pregnancies,they cant be bothered,and are too stupid to get rid of it earlier.
Thanks for your contribution.
Jerk.

Posted by: EW | June 1, 2009 11:35 PM

"Is that what they do at those abortion parties mentioned above?"

No.

The test is if you are legally/morally alive or not. Most religions and legal systems accept the lack of certain brainwaves to be the indicator.

If you are not alive you can't be killed.

Posted by: EW | June 1, 2009 11:49 PM

Rorschach,

"As to the "when is a foetus a person",the problem is that there is no arbitrary line here"

The point I am trying to make is that there is most definately a line. You are considered alive (or not alive) if you have certain brainwaves.

The legal concept of if a person is alive or not is old and has tons of cases. Most religions and societies accept that a person is not alive unless certain brainwaves are present. Abortions performed before these signs of life are present can not be construed as murder, even by the religous.

I have never understood the controversy.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 1, 2009 11:51 PM

@luna1580
I'm truly sorry if my use of the word "wrong" came off too strongly. I suppose what I mean when I say this is that I find it unfortunate. Although we can't know with certainty what the effect of abortion is on unborn babies (in a metaphysical sense, anyway), it seems to me that it can be very harmful to women who make that choice. In my limited experience I've never met a woman who was happy about, content with, or proud of their decision to abort. The 4 or 5 women I've known who have made that decision all felt some guilt and regret over the decision in spite of being able to justify it by recalling that they were not financially or emotionally ready for parenthood at the time. I think it leaves many women wondering what might have been. I find this unfortunate. And saddening. My intent is not to be judgmental, but I do believe that abortion is categorically unfortunate, not so much because of the act itself but because of the decisions that lead to it and because of the pain that seems to follow.

Communities matter. Perhaps because I find abortion to be so sad, I (perhaps naively) hope that by appealing to community women may be able to explore other options besides abortion as part of their decision-making process. I certainly don't believe communities should dictate a choice to a woman, but I do believe that strong and loving communities can provide other options that it may be worthwhile to consider.

Pre-marital sex is something that I must say I've changed my mind about over the last few years. This is also something based largely on my own life experience and interactions with female friends, but I've found that, for me at least, I feel much better about myself when I'm not treating my body like a piece of meat or thinking of myself as simply an animal with biological drives. The biological drives are still there (3 years of celibacy sucks!), but I realise now that what I want (what I wanted all along) is not physical gratification, but intimacy and love. I hope now to set a good example for my young daughter and raise her to be a woman with self respect who feels safe and happy in her own skin.
For me, it's not just a matter of teaching boys to wrap their willies or teaching girls to remember to take their pills. This is an important thing and useful information. But I truly believe that in my case, and in many other cases, the worst lie that we tell young people is that "it's natural; it's biological; and you're going to do it anyway, so here's how not to get knocked up or get a disease." Some young people still end up pregnant or diseased--because young people are dumb (God knows I was at 19). But what is worse is that we are taught to think of ourselves as animals. We are taught to think of each other as animals. And we all become something less than human to each other as we forget that we are all PERSONS and start thinking of each other as meat with biological drives.
Now, I won't say that celibacy till marriage is the right choice for everyone--I'm sure it's not. Again, it's a very personal thing. My concern is only that we are dehumanizing ourselves and each other in the name of "nature" and "personal choice."

My last clarification will be that I consider ministry to be a broader term than just a reference to religious service. When we listen to others and talk with them (as opposed to *to* them); perform acts of service, kindness and generosity; when we touch others' lives and make the world a little bit better, that is ministry.

Posted by: HenryS | June 1, 2009 11:55 PM

Abortions performed before these signs of life are present can not be construed as murder,
*******
It seems that air in the lungs is line between abortion or still birth and homicide. If the aborted fetus is born dead, no problem if it is breathing, that is a big problem.

Posted by: EW | June 2, 2009 12:00 AM

"In my limited experience I've never met a woman who was happy about, content with, or proud of their decision to abort."

My wife had 2 abortions before the age of 16 caused by the idiot next door neighbor sex addict, and her own stupidity.

We will have been married 30 years this August and have raised a great family. She is VERY greatful she had that choice.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 12:08 AM

Bridget,

Your extremely small sample size (4 or 5 out of a parent population of millions) is such that significant conclusions about the mental effects of abortion on women cannot be made.

Here's an article from Ms. that cites numerous studies that find abortion doesn't result in mental trauma. The best quote from a review by the American Psychological Association was "The predominant sensation women felt following an abortion was relief, the group said. "

Relief. That's what my three friends who have had abortions felt. Not one of them feels bad about their decision.

Posted by: Tom Coward | June 2, 2009 12:12 AM

"Abortion is still murder"??? Last time i checked, murder was still murder as well.

Much as I oppose capital punishment overall, I think the best candidate for this penalty is one who cold bloodedly, and for his (or her) own personal gain, kills another. If there is a death penalty available, this killer is the type of person it should apply to.

Posted by: C | June 2, 2009 12:16 AM

Relief. That's what my three friends who have had abortions felt. Not one of them feels bad about their decision.

Yes. That is what I felt, overwhelming relief. It was unquestionably the right decision for me, and I've never regretted it. It was the best thing for me and for the child I already had, whose birth had almost killed me. (Crazy high blood pressure. He's 17 now and my blood pressure has never really returned to normal.)

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 12:19 AM

EW said:

The point I am trying to make is that there is most definately a line. You are considered alive (or not alive) if you have certain brainwaves.

It's not rocket science people and both sides accept it.

@Bridget:

Until everyone agrees on at what point a fetus becomes a human being...

see above. Don't look for it in your lifetime.

As I said--if women are having difficulty making arrangements for early procedures and this leads to later term abortions, that is a problem that can and should be addressed.

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend the Frontline program The Last Abortion Clinic, for a depiction of the lengths some women currently have to go through to obtain a LEGAL abortion. The situation is not improving, a fact painfully underscored by yesterday's tragic event.

In principal, I'm in support of your idea for better education for 'young people'--in fact this is an important element of my human repro & dev course. However, given your vague language about 'bad choices' coupled with your earlier musings about how hormonal contraception 'puts women out of sync with nature', I sincerely doubt that you and I are on the same page--or even in the same book--about the most effective way to do this.

Posted by: EW | June 2, 2009 12:21 AM

Bridget,

I enjoyed your post as you are a true religous moderate. You said...

"We are taught to think of each other as animals. And we all become something less than human to each other as we forget that we are all PERSONS and start thinking of each other as meat with biological drives."

Your church teaches you that without them, your animal instinct will take you straight to hell. We all are meat with biological drives. Why do you need a church to make you act "good"? Why not do that because you want to of your own accord?

Posted by: luna1580 | June 2, 2009 12:51 AM

bridget, thank you for the detailed and civil response.

but i must comment on:

The biological drives are still there (3 years of celibacy sucks!), but I realise now that what I want (what I wanted all along) is not physical gratification, but intimacy and love. I hope now to set a good example for my young daughter and raise her to be a woman with self respect who feels safe and happy in her own skin.

by pointing out the "so obvious we forget about it" the reason you are able to commit to things like years of celibacy now is that you not only have a different set of memories and level of emotional maturity than you had when you were an adolescent and early teen -you also have a biologically different brain and hormone levels. so yes, your drives are there now, but they are different.

i'm guessing from your blog that we are very close to the same age (i was born in 1980) so i'm assuming you are now between 25 and 30.

most people start feeling biological sexual urges by the time they are around 14 (if not earlier), a time when vital components of their brains that control impulse decision making are not fully developed they way they are in a 25 year old. and there are a lot of hormones yelling "reproduce" at them too.

so some of them are going to have sex. it is going to happen. it has always happened. all we can do is try to make sure that when it happens they use condoms, in addition to other birth control if possible. there have been studies showing that kids who've made "purity" promises and lacked comprehensive sex-ed are no less likely to have sex, just way, way less likely to have a condom and use it.

people always think that if they could just instill the wisdom about sex that they now have as adults into kids it will work -even though it's never worked for any other generation ever- because they forget that it is as much about biology as values.

you can instill values in a 13-year-old, you cannot grant them a 30-or-more year old body too.

humans are animals! we may or may not have something spiritual about us -and other animals may or may not have this too, as we can't ask them we don't know, but our biology remains.

p.s. add me to your sample of women who never regretted an abortion. 20 years old at the time, and as others have shared, all i felt was immense relief, no guilt no regrets.

Posted by: RickD | June 2, 2009 12:55 AM

Seems to me that Randall Terry is admitting that his "most effective rhetoric" involves making threats on the lives of doctors.

Posted by: DLC | June 2, 2009 12:58 AM

For those who would cover themselves by applying the Christian variant of the "No True Scotsman" gambit:
Screw you. You own this guy, and you own responsibility for what he did. Don't like it ? too bad.
If you are going to play Henry II and demand someone rid you of a meddlesome person, then you get to own responsibility for it when someone rids you of that person.

Posted by: EW | June 2, 2009 1:01 AM

luna1580 and Bridget,

Without my knowledge, my wife took my daughter in for "shots" the second we found out she had a boyfriend (age 15). I have no idea if she had sex before marriage but I do know for a fact she never got pregnant. :-)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 2, 2009 1:10 AM

But I'm scratching my head at how exactly that could happen. The esophagus just isn't large enough. (Not to mention the pharynx or the mouth.)

well, after you slow-smoke them with cherry wood, they become quite tender and easy to cut into bite-sized chunks with standard cutlery.

*looks at watch*

ah! time for dinner.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 1:14 AM

Bridget::

But I truly believe that in my case, and in many other cases, the worst lie that we tell young people is that "it's natural; it's biological; and you're going to do it anyway, so here's how not to get knocked up or get a disease." Some young people still end up pregnant or diseased--because young people are dumb (God knows I was at 19). But what is worse is that we are taught to think of ourselves as animals

Bridget, you sound sincere at least. But this argument that we tell kids they are animals with biological drives and BTW, this is a condom, use it, is a bit of a straw man. Who is this "they". It certainly isn't the schools or the parents.

It's all fine and good to tell kids to wait to have sex until they are mature and rational enough to handle it. Sex is powerful and confusing when your hormones are raging and you are still figuring out who you are, what you want, and where you are going. But kids are all different. Some will listen and some won't. Some are going to have sex no matter what and it is better to be responsible and adult about it and use contraception than just to hope. That never works for long.

Before the Bush disaster, there were some good sex ed and family life programs and rates of teen age pregnancy in some states, like in New England have fallen sharply. Abstinence only states show the opposite, They are high and rising.

There is a lot we could do to lower teen age pregnancy rates. In some European countries, they are far lower than the USA. We just don't do it. Killing abortion doctors isn't one of them.

Posted by: Andrew | June 2, 2009 1:17 AM

I just said a prayer for all of you guys. May you all find the love of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 2, 2009 1:19 AM

I just said a prayer for all of you guys. May you all find the love of Jesus Christ.

*looks up translation book for Jesusspeak to english*

ah!

and my response is:

Fuck you very much too!

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 2, 2009 1:26 AM

Andrew wrote:

May you all find the love of Jesus Christ.

It's always in the last place you look. Which means we know for sure that it isn't in Andrew's ass; with all the time he spends with his head up there he'd have noticed it by now.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 1:34 AM

Andrew:

I just said a prayer for all of you guys. May you all find the love of Jesus Christ.

This translates from fundie to English as:
"All you pseudointellectual, cannibalistic atheists are going to hell. {Insert favorite death threats here.}

Thanks Andew Sounds like a Xian. If you are armed and feeling homicidal, please leave your address and phone number. We will send it to the FBI. We all know for a fact that Xians can be killers.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 2, 2009 1:35 AM

@EW
I'd just like to throw out there that I have not been a member of a church in over 10 years. I won't get into any lengthy discussion of my personal theology here because I don't want to get so far off-topic (that's why I have a blog), but I will say that as far as I can tell from extensive reading on the subject my beliefs are far from normative.

I don't need a church to make me act good, which is a large part of why I continue to not be a member of any church, along with my sense of not quite belonging for theological and philosophical reasons and my concerns over exposing my young and impressionable daughter to doctrines that I find unconscionable and harmful.

I suppose if I could restate what you said in your reply, I would say it this way:

We all HAVE meat with biological drives. But meat is not all that we ARE.

Posted by: jrock | June 2, 2009 1:53 AM

Andrew

I already said a prayer @59. Obviously it didn't work because you just popped in here.

Posted by: EW | June 2, 2009 2:03 AM

Bridget

Thank you for that heartfelt reply! You are a trooper.

Indeed, meat is not all that we are. However that does not automatically mean something else is involved. You should question if your beliefs have any facts to back them up. Especially if those voicing them ask for money.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 2:28 AM

Bridget:

I don't support abstinence-only education. My daughter isn't old enough for me to have worried too much about it yet, but when I learned sex-ed in health class (7th grade and 9th grade), there was a lot of focus on "values clarification" in regard to sex--which is not necessarily negative, although my teacher seemed to strongly encourage us to "think for ourselves"--to the point of saying, no-joke, "Your parents' ideas about sex and drugs might be old-fashioned, so you have to make the choice that's right for you," which was something that strongly influenced me to rebellion as a 13-year-old. Abstinence was presented as an option, but the overall tone of the class material was that abstinence is an unrealistic option (it's hard, but not completely unrealistic)--"but, hey! look over here! pills! and shiny diaphragms! they're shiny!"

Doesn't sound too bad. I've seen worse. The overall tone that abstinence is unrealistic might have been because a lot of kids didn't buy it. Values clarification is worth something. To my mind, focusing on responsibility and consequences is key. A baby is for life and it is hard enough raising one without being 16, unemployed, and single. The other cognitive aid is "critical thinking". We never had that at my school but one teacher took it on himself to spend a day or two on how to spot propaganda and phony advertising claims. I still think that was the most valuable two days of my secondary education. But what do I know, not my field at all.

Most of us were young and stupid at one time. We all floundered around. Some sank without a trace. Most of us eventually got it together. Life is what happens while you are going somewhere else.

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 2:31 AM

EW:

Think of it this way, at some point during the pregnacy the fetus becomes a person, alive due to the legal precedence of brain activity. At that exact point you are dealing with two people, not one.

Before that abortion is fine. After, not unless the mothers life is in danger then it should be be between the woman and her doctor.

If it "should be between the woman and her doctor", why should either one of them give a rat's ass about which side of your arbitrary 'person line' they're on?

Posted by: Marshall | June 2, 2009 2:49 AM

Frank Schaffer Collateral

Posted by: Scrabcake | June 2, 2009 3:06 AM

Bridget,
I don't think it's really fair of you to blame your ex sex-ed teacher for your teenage rebellion. I think that questioning one's parents it part of growing up, and part of realizing that your parents are only human. If you take that too far, that's an issue between you and your parents and not anyone else's fault. Hell, I got exactly the opposite message from my youth group coordinators as a kid: "don't ask questions. You'll accept this when you're older," and I kept pestering them regardless--and I was pretty mild mannered as far as teenagers go.
For the record, I grew up in Utah/Colorado, the later of which surprisingly vied with the former in terms of conservative-ness. The sex-ed I got was like the Pope and Mbeki did a joint talk on AIDS + Condom use with a generous handful of horror stories about pus-filled STD lesions and date rape thrown in for good measure. I signed at least two virginity pledges which got hung in the hall of my highschool. For my teenage self it was just a piece of paper to sign. "Eeew. Cooties. Don't want those. Autograph."
By the time I figured out what sex actually entailed, I was looking back on those pledges and laughing.

Posted by: MadScientist | June 2, 2009 3:49 AM

@the pro from dover #8: If you are from Dover, you're lucky that firearms remain fairly well regulated on your little island. In the USA it's not such a simple matter of taking firearms from people - the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law-abiding people (despite what you might see on the news). Since firearms are already widespread, the government would merely be taking away citizens' options for defending themselves. Criminals would neither hand in weapons nor cease to have weapons - as it is you cannot legally purchase a firearm if you have a criminal record. Some people either lack training or are indifferent to what they've been told so every year we heard about the little boy/girl who accidentally killed his/her brother/sister. Many owners of weapons I've known just enjoy firing them and wouldn't even think of using the weapon in defense; the news stories give an exceedingly lop-sided view of gun issues. If you look at the total number of estimated legitimate firearms owners (as opposed to number of actual guns, which is higher) and you look at the number of violent crimes committed by legitimate firearms owners, the numbers are incredibly low. You can get some figures here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The estimate is that about 80% of people involved in violent crime with a gun were not themselves licensed to own one - they took it from friends or family. Now consider that about 10% of violent crimes involve guns. What do you gain from taking weapons away from a largely responsible and lawful community? You would be depriving them of their weapons in vain hopes of reducing that 80% of 10% of violent crimes while creating other problems. The claims of benefits of gun control are tenuous at best and I prefer to follow the tradition of allowing individuals to decide whether they want a gun or not.

Posted by: Keenacat | June 2, 2009 5:18 AM

Here is what I found in a nushell:
anti-choicers think:
- women have a habit of decision-making from a totally egocentric viewpoint, do care only for their own comfort and therefore chose late-term-abortion (never mind late-term-abortion is messy and way more uncomfortable than the early stuff)
- they can take data from two decades ago, twist it until unrecognizable and use it for their own argument (never mind today late-term refers to the third trimester, not everything past week 15)
- depression is a minor ailment made up by fuckwits trying to avoid responsibility
- if they decide some fetus is alive the woman carrying it loses her right to decide over her own body and her future life until birth is completed
- if some woman fucks up on contraception or contraception fails her, its her fault and therefor she loses the right to decide over her own body and her future life
- being pregnant and giving birth is natural and therefore safe and comfortable, which makes alleged threats to the mothers health a myth

and so on...

I might puke until Boerhaave-Syndrome.

See, I'm all into preventing abortion. This comes as I'm all into preventing unwanted pregnancy. My team and I go into schools, teach the kids about contraception (including hands-on-condom use), take up whatever twisted notions they bring (like the first time will not result in pregnancy, ever...) and put them right, teach them how to talk openly about sex and contraception and do some related stuff.
The anti-choice-crowd on the other hand talks out of their fucking misogynistic thou-shalt-serve-as-an-incubator-due-to-your-god-given-duty assholes without doing a single productive thing!

People actually doing something about unwanted pregnancys while at the same time regognizing and supporting womens rights are so much more pro-life than the whole anti-choice-movement put together and multiplied with the amount of dumbfuckery they spew. They are not pro-life, they are not even pro-children or pro-fetuses. They care a shit about fetuses, they only care about their wretched perception of womens dutys in front of their invisible tooth fairy.

[/rant]

Posted by: Walton | June 2, 2009 6:33 AM

The idea of Terry spending his last years eating from dumpsters before dying of exposure would, I admit, put a bit of a spring in my step.

That is vicious. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 2, 2009 7:18 AM

I'm truly sorry if my use of the word "wrong" came off too strongly. I suppose what I mean when I say this is that I find it unfortunate. Although we can't know with certainty what the effect of abortion is on unborn babies (in a metaphysical sense, anyway), it seems to me that it can be very harmful to women who make that choice. In my limited experience I've never met a woman who was happy about, content with, or proud of their decision to abort. The 4 or 5 women I've known who have made that decision all felt some guilt and regret over the decision in spite of being able to justify it by recalling that they were not financially or emotionally ready for parenthood at the time. I think it leaves many women wondering what might have been. I find this unfortunate. And saddening. My intent is not to be judgmental, but I do believe that abortion is categorically unfortunate, not so much because of the act itself but because of the decisions that lead to it and because of the pain that seems to follow.

The ignorance and idiocy is strong with this one.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 2, 2009 7:59 AM

Walton,

"abortion harms women" is an ignorant, idiotic position.

Posted by: Enders | June 2, 2009 8:20 AM

@7: Germany is rated wrongly. You can get an abortion after a consultation until the 12th week even without meeting any of the exception shown on the map.

Posted by: Dianne | June 2, 2009 8:26 AM

The 4 or 5 women I've known who have made that decision all felt some guilt and regret over the decision

Every woman I've ever met who has had a child has felt some guilt and regret over the decision. It's perfectly normal to feel some negative emotions over a life changing event--or the refusal to accept a life changing event, as in abortion. Heck, I felt regret about not conceiving a child with my college boyfriend*--it would have been a bad decision but there was still the "might have been" feeling about it.

That being said, however, most studies of women's feelings and function after abortion show that the predominant feeling is relief and that long lasting grief and depression are rare. This is in sharp contrast to women who have had a child and placed it for adoption, almost all of whom have lifelong mental and physical sequelae from that decision. I'll post links to the articles if people are interested, but I've posted them so many times before I'm not going to unless someone requests.

*While, of course, bearing in mind that I may just be a weirdo and that it is possible that no one else in the world has ever had such regrets. But I doubt it.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 8:42 AM

For the record, I am "pro choice" as far as early abortions go for any reason what so ever, and I think there are certain scenarios were even late term abortions should be allowed (late-term defined as past the point of the fetus being viable outside the uterus). Such as if the mother is a rape victim or has a documented history of birth related depression, if the fetus has severe physical abnormalities or is a threat to the mother's life. But "mental impairment" is such an obvious loophole.

So you believe women deserve to suffer irreversible mental damage.

Posted by: Dianne | June 2, 2009 8:45 AM

Kansas state law, which is what counts in Wichita, specifically allows for late-term abortions in cases were 2 M.D.'s certify that having the mother give birth would risk "irreversible mental impairment" of the mother.

Yet another mental illness denialist. Untreated depression has a 20% mortality rate. There are no medications approved for the treatment of depression in pregnancy. Class B is as good as it gets. ECT or electroshock therapy CAN be used but it has its own risks including memory loss. Furthermore, psychosis--another possibility in pregnancy and after birth--is a debilitating illness that can cause death through self-neglect or increased risk seeking behavior. The meds for psychosis, while better than they were 20 years ago, are by no means side effect free. And not approved for pregnancy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 8:49 AM

Why is it that "women feel guilt" or "its a difficult decision" is considered a legitimate excuse to use against abortion?¹

There are a shit load of things I've done in my life that I had to do that were difficult and carried some amount of regret. That's life. Things aren't always rosy sunshine days with ice cream and trips to the fair.

I'm not equating my events with the feelings that a woman has after has an abortion (though I have been apart of that on the male's side) but it's fairly infuriating to me that the "pro-life" crowd thinks women are so fragile that they shouldn't be able to make decisions about their own health care for fear of "regret" and "tough decisions".

1. That was obviously a rhetorical question

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 2, 2009 8:58 AM

I'm not equating my events with the feelings that a woman has after has an abortion (though I have been apart of that on the male's side) but it's fairly infuriating to me that the "pro-life" crowd thinks women are so fragile that they shouldn't be able to make decisions about their own health care for fear of "regret" and "tough decisions".

That's the thing. The entire debate has a tendency to, when not erasing them, infantalize women.

Women are so flighty, amoral, childish that they can't be trusted to make the "right" decision, so their ability to make any decisions about their own bodies and reproductive capacities must be tightly regulated. Women are so emotionally fragile that they must be protected from their decisions by having the ability to make those decisions taken away. Women are so frivolous that the fit of a little black cocktail dress is the primary reason they flush away innocent little babies.

We must all be protected from women!

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 2, 2009 9:07 AM

Thank you to the person who linked the article about "post-abortion stress syndrome". This is helpful to me. Although the whole thing sounds a little disturbing, especially since it seems that most stress that people feel, if any, is fueled by the intolerance of the "pro-life" establishment.

@EW
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this, but I generally believe that as long as one accepts and trusts the facts and information that *are* available (science is the miracle, after all), it's entirely possible to have faith in something that can't be proved. I think the problems with faith come when people use their faith as an excuse to subjugate others and when people have blind faith to the point of self- and other-harmful behavior because of an unhealthy distrust of science.

@raven and Scrabcake
I don't like to blame my education for my mistakes--those were all me. I do think there is a fine line, however, between encouraging independent thought and undermining the parent-child relationship, and I think that in my case that line was crossed. The line for me is the teaching of "independent thought" without a similar focus on critical thinking. Teaching that it's okay to rebel against one's parents, but without teaching that sometimes your parents are right on about the things they're trying to instill in you.

@MartinM
Late-term abortions raise some serious and legitimate ethical questions, especially is advancements are made in care for pre-mature infants and the age of viability becomes more difficult to pin down. I find the procedure itself to be distasteful and morally troublesome, and while I fully support a person's right to choose, I think that choice should be able to be made as early as possible to avoid these ethical issues that don't exist in the same way for earlier abortions. If a woman's life is in danger that's one thing, but if a woman has been prevented from access to safe and speedy service that is a problem for me, and it seems very solvable.

@MAJeff
I think I was very clear in explaining that my words were largely in regard to my own, very *limited* experience--which has unfortunately been negative. I have really been enjoying learning more about this issue through this discussion. If I am ignorant--and I have tried to be humble in my statements here because this is an issue that I am in the process of learning more about--a more productive way of dealing with that would be to educate me rather than trying to insult me. There are plenty of people who don't want to be educated, but I'm not one of them.

Posted by: palmira | June 2, 2009 9:13 AM

Just thought you might like to known that your antics with the cracker inspired the archbishop of Bologna to prohibit communion in the hand to prevent abuses, namely decrying that “some have taken the Sacred Species as ‘souvenirs’,” “put it up for sale,” or worse, “have taken it to be profaned in satanic rites.”

The said archbishop is further involved in a campaign denouncing the new advertising of Renault (New Scenic) that he considers appeals to polygamy... No links in english, I´m afraid, only in italian, portuguese and spanish. This one is from El pais

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 2, 2009 9:19 AM

Come for the argument. Stay for the ad hominem.

WHart argument did you make ?

You changed "irreversible mental impairment" to simply "mental impairment", which is dishonet. You also implied that mental impairment was nothing significant, when it fact there is a significant mortally rate associated with it.

Once you start making an argument, rather that simply lie, we will take you seriously. Until then, I susget you apologise for lying and then fuck off.

You also better go learn what an ad-hominem attack actually is. You have not been subjected to one. Another example of the honest person you are no doubt.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 2, 2009 9:31 AM

Martin Anderson

Come for the argument. Stay for the ad hominem.

As perfectly displayed by our dear friend Martin, I think "ad hominem" has become the most over-used and misapplied phrase on internet discussion boards. And not on just this site. I think of all the times I've seen it used, it is actually applicable maybe 1 out of every 8 times.

It's always the same thing: "Hey... I don't like what you just said... AD HOMINEM, AD HOMINEM!!!"

It's right up there, in terms of mis-use and mis-application, with "Methinks thou dost protest too much", another phrase I've seen pop up quite a bit recently.

Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 2, 2009 9:50 AM

I hope no one bothers with the grandstanding ghoul.

Posted by: raven | June 2, 2009 9:56 AM

This abortion is stressful, regretful and mentally harmful argument is silly.

Women are adult humans (Shocking isn't it, no fooling) and individuals..
They can make their own decisions and live with them, legally , morally, and ethically.

I've known a few women who got abortions. Also a few who didn't and ended up single parents at awkward stages of their life. Like 16 years old.

The women who got abortions regretted it. But they got over it and moved on. They felt they did the best thing at the time. One was a college student from a dysfunctional home, living with an interesting, intelligent, dynamic, irresponsible future severe alcoholic street person. Contraceptive failure. She was still in school, would have made a terrible mother due to mental and emotional issues, and her boy friend was not a bad person but heading into the hell of alcohol addiction that lasted for years and nearly killed him. So she got an abortion at like 1 1/2 months. She was sad. The alternative. Three ruined lives. The kid would have been lucky if he didn't end up in a mental asylum or prison. These aren't bad or stupid people. They were just troubled college kids from dysfunctional homes trying to get things together and barely capable of managing that much. A kid at that point would have had virtually no chance of a normal life.

Anyone who hasn't regretted something or a choice, hasn't been living life There are myriad choices and possibilities every day. We take one road and wonder what was down the other one.

PS The "irreversible mental harm" in the Kansas statute is vague but nontrivial. Often it refers to severe despression. The irreversible part is that they frequently end up committing suicide. Death is irreversible. There is a reason why these decisions are left up to docs and patients. They know the situation way better than anonymous posters on blog boards or Xian Terrorists babbling on about life while waiting for one of theirs to murder a doc, or bomb a clinic.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 2, 2009 10:06 AM

Matt Penfold: I already specified that the law states *irreversible* mental impairment *and* linked the source. Not everything is an attempt at quotefucking, and not everything needs to be reduced to a kindergarten fight in the very first reply.

Initially you did. The you left of the "irreversible", it seems quite deliberatly, and dishonestly. YOu have yet to offer an alternative explantion as to why you did, not have you aplogised. In the absence of both, or either, I consider you were willfully dishonest.

I don't have to recognize the mortality rate of any *untreated* ailment. Untreated hunger is 100% fatal, so we eat. In any case pregnancy, childbirth and (possible) motherhood are all life-altering events. What constitutes irreversible (!!!!!!!) mental impairment ought to be specified in the law, no matter what is decided upon. Otherwise the law is simply to vague to have any real meaning and with vague laws, democracy fails.

It has been explained to you a number of times that the treatment option for woman with mental illness during pregnancy are seriously limited. However since you are inistant that mental illness is treatable in pregancy please specify the regimes you recommend. Start with listing what anti-depressents are known to be safe during pregancy. Do note that cognitive thearioes can be very effective, but in moderate to severe depression patient complience is very poor unless there is both prior and concurrent treatment with modern SSRI's.

I suggesxt you stop arguing from a position of ignorance, and actually go away an learn about mental illness.

Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | June 2, 2009 10:26 AM

This one is from El pais

Não Palmira, é "El Mundo", não exatamente a mesma coisa ;-)

Anyway it is yet another example of exaggerated hyperbole from the Catholic hierarchy. The supposedly "exaltation of polygamy" is actually just a simple recognition of the normality of divorce. Then they whine when called liars for Jesus...

Posted by: Martin Andersen | June 2, 2009 10:52 AM

BigDump: I am perfectly aware what the ad hominem fallacy is, thank you. It's when insulst are used in lieu of argument. Not merely because an insult occurs. Thankfully your reply was irrelevant or this post would have been fallacious use of ad hominem wrt. the point. ;)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 11:05 AM

BigDump: I am perfectly aware what the ad hominem fallacy is, thank you. It's when insulst are used in lieu of argument. Not merely because an insult occurs. Thankfully your reply was irrelevant or this post would have been fallacious use of ad hominem wrt. the point. ;)

How exactly is it irrelevant when you, sir or madam, made the accusation here in this very thread.

Where is the Ad Hominem against you? Why did you chose to pick me instead of the people actually responding to you on your accusation?

Humm?

I still not sure you understand what it is.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 11:15 AM

The god of the bible is an abortionist:

Hosea 9:14 - 16 (read it in context for the full effect)
14Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

15All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

16Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

So-called "christian" anti-abortionists need to be angry with their god for his crimes!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 2, 2009 11:26 AM

Thankfully your reply was irrelevant or this post would have been fallacious use of ad hominem wrt. the point. ;)

So then, Martin... your comment at #197 was in keeping with the point?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 2, 2009 11:46 AM

Matt Penfold, you may be interested in this link:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antidepressants/DN00007

Thanks gr8hands. So it would seem that taking SSRIs during pregancy has risks to both fetus and woman. Given that SSRIs are extremely effective in treating depression, and that talking therapies work best when used in conjunction with them, a woman who becomes moderatly to severely depressed during pregnancy has no good option. Talking therapies rely heavily on patient involvement, and in moderate to severe depression treatment with SSRIs is often needed to get the patient stable enough to engage. Talking does not help much when you a curled up in bed in the fetal position facing the wall.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 12:04 PM

Please, women, answer this. I've never heard a satisfying answer from any woman on why they don't, as a gender, vote. It doesn't make sense to me. The whole issue of "my body, my choice" would not be an issue if all women voted.

You assume all women agree on this?

The most fervent anti-abortion people I have come into contact with when escorting patients into clinic have been women.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 12:14 PM

Rev.BigDumbChimp, I'm not asking just about abortion issues, I mean voting period. About anything: equal pay for equal work, sexual harassment, violence against women, non-discrimination everywhere, any and all issues that affect women directly.

I ask the same question of my Black friends and gay friends, who as a group also don't vote. This is the only real source of political power and influence anyone has, from how much you pay in taxes, to who sets the speed limits, to where gay bars can be zoned to operate, to who gets treated equally under the law, to who are the judges (and who appoints the judges), to what books are approved to be used in schools!

A wealthy person can spend a zillion dollars in bribes and advertising -- but if people vote a different way, it nullifies all that "influence." This is so important, and yet gets so trivialized.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 12:22 PM

Rev.BigDumbChimp, I'm not asking just about abortion issues, I mean voting period. About anything: equal pay for equal work, sexual harassment, violence against women, non-discrimination everywhere, any and all issues that affect women directly.

And I understand what you are getting at, but just like any large demographic group not all women agree even on these seemingly obvious topics. These aren't gender issues for many, they are religious and cultural issues.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 12:27 PM

Rev.BigDumbChimp, the issue I'm asking about isn't their religious or cultural views specifically, or about agreement in their demographic group, but about why they aren't voting! What is their reason?

As is attributed to Mark Twain: "there may not always be something to vote for, but there's always something to vote against."

Posted by: Steve_C | June 2, 2009 12:33 PM

Hey Turnus... that statistic is in the UK and it's after 20 weeks not 24.

Now who's being arbitrary?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 2, 2009 12:35 PM

Sorry Turnus, you failed again. Proper evidence which fits the discussion. US and 24+ weeks. That is why you pass wind, and smell up the place with your effluent.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 12:39 PM

Turnus, do you have links to evidence supporting your point of view? (I mean something other than rhetoric, opinions, rants, scripture-quoting, etc.) Actual evidence that there are late-term abortions being done for reasons other than the health of the woman or viability issues with the fetus. Don't give one example of some extremely rare exception, and expect anyone to think it is common, usual, customary or anything other than an extremely rare exception.

I, for one, would be interested in having you provide your evidence, so we could all review it, rather than merely have you tell us that our statements are "delusion" or "canards" . . .

It should be reasonably easy for you to find, if it exists. Otherwise, you might consider making an apology for being wrong. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do. I believe the phrase is "put up or shut up."

Posted by: Steve_C | June 2, 2009 12:42 PM

Something tells me Turnus doesn't give a shit about the validity of the survey. He thinks it proves his point.

It doesn't. He's an asshole.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 12:58 PM

Let's see . . .
* the first trimester is from week 1 to the end of week 12
* the second trimester is from week 13 to the end of week 26
* the third trimester is from week 27 to the end of the pregnancy

So, if you're talking about any abortion prior to week 27 . . . you wouldn't be talking about a "late-term" abortion, so the comments wouldn't be germane.

Turnus, you need to provide evidence related to abortions occurring "from week 27 to the end of the pregnancy" in order to be relevant to this particular point.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 1:06 PM

Gans Epner, J.E., Jonas, H.S., Seckinger, D.L. (1998). Late-term abortion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280 (8), 724-729.

They use, as I did, the 27th week as the start of "late term". Almost every physician talks about the 3rd trimester, which coincides with that date. Anti-abortionists try to blur that with the inaccurate phrase "late term" so that it can be easily confused and pushed back to the 24th week, 20th week and some even the 12th week.

Posted by: Dianne | June 2, 2009 1:10 PM

Turnus, if you really are a graduate student at a legitimate university in the English speaking world, there's a fair chance that you've just insulted, in terms that would embarrass a pre-adolescent, one or more of the members of your advisory committee. I do hope for your sake that your screen name doesn't resemble your real name. Of course, professors should be completely objective and not respond to childish insults, but they are human and your choice of language doesn't reflect well on your ability to function as a member of academia.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 2, 2009 1:13 PM

Turnus, no this is scientific blog, and we usually follow rules of science. Which you are avoiding for some reason. I suspect you know that the real data doesn't support your claims, so you have to stretch, lie, and misrepresent until they do. We have seen the likes of you for years. So don't expect kind treatment.

Posted by: critter | June 2, 2009 1:45 PM

Strange Gods for the win!

#195

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 8:59 AM [kill]​[hide comment]

Collected stories from women who are glad they had abortions: http://www.imnotsorry.net/

If you find these stories hard to come by, it's probably because social pressure demands women to say "what an agonizing choice" it was. Women are expected to provide a narrative of emotional turmoil so that other people can experience a vicarious catharsis of their own mixed feelings about the woman's abortion. A woman who just says "I'm glad I had my abortion, end of story" gets to be judged as heartless because she isn't concerned with everyone else who wants a piece of her psyche.

The woman I know have had abortion(friends & relatives) did not agonize over it or grieve afterward. The only agonizing part was finding funds in a hurry.

Posted by: Martin Andersen | June 2, 2009 1:54 PM

How is being called "Yet another mental illness denialist" at the very onset *not* ad hominem? I've claimed no such thing as mental illness being made up or harmless, but Dianne and Matt Penfold seem to be so fond of hitting off eachothers witty comebacks as to actually read my posts for what *I* wrote and what *I* claimed. Hence my post one-liner post, whic obviously wasn't about arguing a point, but simply writing off meaningful discussion in this thread.

I was posting while at work, were it does happen that I occassionally have nothing better to do, but simply not posting replies within minutes doesn't mean I'm "ignoring" criticism. Get over yourselves. Please. This is like youtube comments without the character limit.

LiaF, while being abrasive about it, has a point in #254. And if you look at my initial post in this thread, my claim was that PZ Myers wasn't correct in stating the *only* reason for late-term abortions was the *LIFE* of the mother. But pointing out something like that around these parts seem tantamount to social faux pas, and I certainly wouldn't want to do that!

So have your faith that no late-term abortion was ever carried out for less than life-threatening reasons, and that the law only allows for it in Kansas in life and death situations. Oh! And anyone thinking otherwise is anti-gun legislation, teapot-partying, republican, fundamentalist, creationist, sectarian pro-lifer...

Bye.

Signed
A liberal pro-choice atheist Dane.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 2, 2009 2:02 PM

Bridget:

I don't support abstinence-only education. ... [W]hen I learned sex-ed in health class (7th grade and 9th grade), there was a lot of focus on "values clarification" in regard to sex--which is not necessarily negative, although my teacher seemed to strongly encourage us to "think for ourselves"--to the point of saying, no-joke, "Your parents' ideas about sex and drugs might be old-fashioned, so you have to make the choice that's right for you," which was something that strongly influenced me to rebellion as a 13-year-old.

Forgive me if this seems contrarian, but what makes you think your "think for ourselves" 13-year old "rebellion" was wrong and your parents' presumptively "old-fashioned" ideas were right?

I've ridden this hobbyhorse here at Pharyngula before, but it strikes me that the moral "specialness" Western culture assigns to sexuality (I'm not saying other cultural traditions don't also do so, BTW; I'm just admitting the limits of my awareness) is fundamentally religious in nature, despite having percolated through the soil of our culture so thoroughly that even ostensibly secular people and instutions buy into it almost without question. But increasingly I see the moral carve-out of human sexulity as a tool of religious oppression... yet one more way that authoritarian monotheistic churches assert arbitrary control over the lives of their adherents (and, as it happens, all the rest of us as well).

But if you strip away this speciously sacramental approach, sex begins to look more like driving: An activity that carries nonzero risk, and that requires a certain minimal level of maturity and knowledge to do safely, but which most people do quite a lot, with generally positive results. (Mind you, I wouldn't want to press that simile too far: I'm not suggesting that the state should license us to have sex, and I don't even want to think about what a sexual "learner's permit" might be! ;^) )

Looked at in that light, it seems to me that what you report being taught in sex ed — that you should rid yourself of superstitious preconceptions, arm yourself with knowledge, and then think for your own damn self — sounds just about perfect. If it didn't work out for you, I'd be more tempted to attribute that to the backwardness of the cultural environment in which you tried to apply the teaching than to the unwisdom of the teaching itself.

Walton:

MAJeff, I don't know why you have this tendency to personally attack anyone who voices any dissent whatsoever.

Personally, I don't agree with your evaluation of Jeff's contributions: He doesn't suffer fools gladly, that's for sure, but I've observed him to be generally gracious and constructive with those who aren't fools. But even if we stipulated that he was a bit quick on the rhetorical trigger, I'd argue that he's earned the right to be: You have to recall that as a gay man, Jeff is a member of a class that has been the subject of brutal, sometimes even fatal, discrimination. I don't know if Jeff himself or any of his loved ones have been directly affected by anti-gay hatred, but he can't fail to have been materially affected in any case, and so he's inherited the right to be a bit cranky, if he prefers.

Like so many conversations around here, it boils down to a matter of (to borrow the SCOTUS Word of the Week®) empathy. (Sorry to sound like such a Socialist! ;^) )

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 2, 2009 2:13 PM

@Ichthyic 49: Who died and made you "troll concern god"? That was a different thread, and I never made the "liberty interest" comments there, anyway. Beyond that, the "center" statement wasn't a primary warrant for my argument, therefore it's NOT an argumentum ad populum. Bite me.

Beyond that, seeing a complex issue with many dimensions in simplistic (not "simple") B/W is as bad from one extreme as it is the other.

@Ryogam 60: "Forced birth is torture." Then, so is forced killing of a viable child in development. Ooops.... geez, with illogic like that.

@Turnus 253: Bingo! That's why I've talked here and elsewhere about bimesters, not trimesters, as what's needed.

@Dianne 236 - So, 24 deaths don't matter? @Dianne 239: And, the Times of London is yellow journalism? More fundamentalism.

Yes, that's what this ultimately is, is pro-choice fundamentalism. That's why, though I've voted Green the past two presidential elections, which I doubt anybody else here has, I don't give money to any pro-choice organizations.

@Loudon 254: Unfortunately, Nerd et al can only do what Martin Anderson kindly noted.

@Ccritter 259: "Strange Gods for the win." Winning what? Biggest moron on this thread? That's a tough competition.

And, on this one, Turnus is right on one other point: A fish does rot from the head down, PZ. Beyond that, a black-and-white stance on an issue where you should know better about shades of gray means maybe emotion trumps logic for you in more cases than you'd like to admit, too.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 2:14 PM

Let's see: early term, mid-term, late term. Sounds like thirds to me. Corresponds nicely with "trimester" (you know, 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester).

Anyone talking about "late-term" and not meaning "3rd trimester" is confused -- purposely or not.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 2, 2009 2:30 PM

@MartinM
The site, on further examination (which, admittedly, I should have done before linking it here in the first place) is not as useless as you imply.

It is in fact 22 years old, so it may not be entirely accurate anymore--I would still like to read through a more recent study with a bigger sample size.

However, if you read the study (http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm) you'll see that it begins with an initial survey of reasons for abortion in general. The number 1 reason in all age groups is "Woman is concerned over how having a baby may change her life." This is followed by financial concerns and relationship concerns to round out the top 3 reasons. Only 13% of women claimed fetal health as a concern and a smaller number, 7% claim their own health as a concern. This is for all abortions performed throughout the study, which encompassed 42 locations over the course of 5 months.

When you get down to the section about "late-term" abortion, you will see that the question here is no longer "why did you have an abortion?" (because this question has already been asked) but "why did you wait until later in your pregnancy to do it?" These are very different questions, so the complaint that "it says nothing whatsoever about the reasons for getting an abortion in the first place" is kind of a red herring here.

It's not intended to say anything about why women have abortions. It's intended to give some insight into why, rather than have an earlier-term procedure, women wait until later in their pregnancy--which brings them into ethically dodgy territory.

When the age of the study was originally pointed out to me, I kind of wrote it off as an error on my part to be citing it in the first place. I'm okay with that and willing to set aside the study as inapplicable to the current discussion. I'm still looking for a more recent study on the issue.

However, if you must discuss the study, it should be done honestly. The study does in fact cover women's reasons for abortion. It also covers the reasons women have for waiting till late in pregnancy to procure a procedure. Those are often two very different questions and issues.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 2, 2009 2:38 PM

Turnus, looking at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html which you're claiming as "evidence" . . . only 320 out of 1,528,930 abortions were after the 26th week (and therefore count as "late term" by the accurate determination of occurring in the 3rd trimester). As a "grad student in statistics" you can tell me that it's what? Right around 2/100ths of one percent?

Did you read the article? It states "The only comprehensive source of information on the reasons women give for their abortion decision is from a 1987 AGI survey of 1,900 abortion patients nationwide."

Let's see. Taking their own figures, what would 2/100th of one percent of 1,900 be (to reflect the percentage of 3rd trimester abortions)? Not even ½ a person. It wouldn't even appear in their survey.

I think that sheds some light on the validity of their conclusions in regards to late-term abortions.

Posted by: Stu | June 2, 2009 2:46 PM

I do not care.

Yes you do, at least enough to reply to the charge.

Liar.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 2:53 PM

figures

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 2, 2009 3:01 PM

ew, O'Brien.
I thought I smelled him in another thread last week, too.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 2, 2009 3:09 PM

O'Brien was before my time, but I knew Turnus was just a stupid troll out to disrupt things with nonsense.

I see Loudon the FOOL got in a dig. I just consider the source. Nothing to see, everybody move on.

SocraticGadfly, your hemiterm idea arrived stillborn. Support it's gathering is zero. Deal with it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 3:14 PM

ew, O'Brien. I thought I smelled him in another thread last week, too.

Honestly the "dumbulb" comment above should have given him away, but I missed it.

Posted by: CJO | June 2, 2009 3:40 PM

This becomes especially applicable as the fetus grows too big to be extracted through earlier methods and requires a different and, to many, much more disturbing procedure.

So fucking what? I don't give a shit what "many" get all sqeamish about. Surgeons, generally, are not running daisy farms. It's a "disturbing procedure"? Great. Help yourself to a big ol' helping of not having it performed on yourself, and leave others' medical decisions to them and their doctors.

I mean, seriously. I find most elective cosmetic surgery disturbing. Does that give me the right to interfere with the medical care of others?

Posted by: llewelly | June 2, 2009 3:50 PM

Cath the Canberra Cook | June 1, 2009 6:43 PM:

If we could legislate what is standard practice anyway, we could get some of these people to SHUT THE FUCK UP about it.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 2, 2009 4:15 PM

@CJO
Cosmetic surgery doesn't have the same ethical complications as a procedure that many consider to be the taking of a human life.

In any case, I am not advocating interference. What I have said, several times, is that, if a woman's choice is being forced into that ethical gray area because of failures of the system of care available to here, that is a problem that should be addressed. I don't consider that to be interfering with her decision. I consider a question of how can we make the process efficient to avoid unnecessary ethical considerations.

If a woman decides at 12 weeks to have an abortion, and then is forced through circumstances outside her control to wait until 18 weeks, that is a problem. If women don't have the information and services and counseling they need to make speedy and informed decisions, that is a problem.

@Bubbarich
I puked 5 times a day when I was pregnant. For 9 months straight. I only gained 5 pounds because I was so sick with morning sickness early, and then anxiety and stress--my daughter weight 7.5 pounds at birth. Many women develop other more serious health problems than anxiety and depression. And many women have anxiety and depression far beyond even what I experienced. And I had already chosen to keep my baby.

I suffered from deep postpartum depression, but most of my physical symptoms disappeared after delivery. It was totally different.

There is a huge difference between a child that you have chosen to carry to term with the intention to love after you have it and the baby growing inside your belly sucking your energy for 37-40 weeks.

Yes, an infant is dependent. But an infant is also wanted and loved and separate from your own body. You can take a nap when your infant naps or pawn him off on some adoring grandparents or make daddy take a turn playing mommy. You can't do those things with a 30 week gestation infant who kicking the insides of your ribs.

There are profound differences between a first trimester fetus and a 3-month-old baby.

I won't deny that I think there is a moral gray area with 3rd trimester abortions, as there is a possibility that the fetus could be viable, but as a general rule, the reason an infant has rights that a fetus doesn't is because the infant is legally considered a person, while the fetus, which is basically living parasitically off its mother, is not.

Metaphysical speculation about at what point a baby is a person or receives a soul is something that I don't think we'll ever get everyone to agree on.

In light of that fact, the law as it stands now on this aspect of the matter must be sufficient, and women must have the right to choose based on their own beliefs.

Keep in mind as well, that pregnancy can be an extremely uncomfortable, stressful, and sometimes unhealthy time for many women. It is hard on the body to carry a fetus to term and give birth. I know I certainly wouldn't wish my first experience with it on anyone. If women don't have the right to choose for themselves, the alternative is to force them to continue with pregnancy unwillingly.

Posted by: Ryogam | June 2, 2009 4:29 PM

Today's New York Times

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | June 2, 2009 4:44 PM

@Pygmy Loris
I am in no way saying we should deny anyone anything. I'm saying quite the opposite--that we should do whatever we can to facilitate speedy, safe, and ethical procedures. Later-term abortions, especially in the third trimester, will almost certainly continue to be a gray area of ethics that will continue to be indefinable through scientific methods. All I'm saying is that if people are being pushed into that gray area because of system failures outside their control, something should be done to eliminate those failures. That idea has nothing to do with denying anyone anything and everything to do with building a system that gives better care.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 2, 2009 5:02 PM

BREAKING: scott roeder charged:

let's see, two different native born american citizen "lone gunmen" with two different sets of "political and religious" motivations, commit 2 murders -both designed to gain vengeance against perceived wrongs and to create fear and terror, one day apart in the US.
so, how will we treat these terrorists under the law?
the one, a white christian known to have ties to radical libertarian antigovernment groups and anti-choice groups whose ex-wife said he had become frighteningly religious "in an old testament way," is a tax protester, and had a previous run in with the law for having bomb-making supplies:

Scott Roeder, 51, heard the official charges against him. They are one count of first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, also known as Carlos Bledsoe, is charged with capital murder and 16 counts of terroristic acts.

anyone else see what is wrong with this?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 5:09 PM

Bridget,

I realize that you have repeatedly said that we need to improve access to early-term abortions so that women are not forced into late-term abortions. The problem is that you fail to acknowledge that the reason for most late-term abortions (those after 24 wks) are because of fetal abnormalities or they're dangerous to the mother. Nearly every state requires one or the other to be a candidate for a late-term abortion.

I think the reason you keep focusing on the improving access issue is the out-dated article from 1988. The reasons that particular article is not terribly relevant to the current discussion have been made abundantly clear over and over again.

Why don't you tell what circumstances you think late-term (after 24 wks) abortions should be available to women. Also, could give me specifics as to why you have the views you do?

I'll start:

Anytime before viability a woman should be able to get an abortion on demand for no reason other than she wants it. Period, end of story.
Why? Because the fetus is a parasite that cannot live outside of the woman's body and no one should be forced to donate the use of their body to another nor should the bodily integrity of a woman be compromised for someone else.

After viability, the health(including her mental health) and life of the woman or fetal abnormalities (even those that aren't fatal) should be the criteria for abortion. Why? For the health and life exception, because the rights of a fully developed individual outweigh even a viable fetus. For the fetal abnormality, because a woman shouldn't have to continue to carry a fetus that may have severe problems simply because they were undiagnosed earlier in the pregnancy.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 2, 2009 5:13 PM

yeah, but the government is not acknowledging that roeder -or any of the groups he may be tied to like the freeman movement and operation rescue- are terrorists at all.

it is basically saying that "only muslims can be terrorists" and just by chance doing so mere hours before our president will meet with the saudi king than travel on to egypt, muslim countries.

i want it acknowledged that murdering dr. tiller when indeed an act or terrorism.

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 5:33 PM

Bridget:

All I'm saying is that if people are being pushed into that gray area because of system failures outside their control, something should be done to eliminate those failures.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 5:39 PM

As the father of a boy with Ds, I have to admit that eugenic abortions disgust me. But I don't think they should be illegal. Just don't expect to ever be invited over my house for dinner if you have one.

I wouldn't eat with such a sanctimonious arsehole if you paid me.

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 2, 2009 5:49 PM

PygmyLoris:

You and Bridget are doing the same thing, confusing moral and ethical issues with legal issues. You, in particular, are hiding behind "viability," which is a definite red herring. In the next 5-10 years we will have technology to make a fertilized egg viable outside the mother's body. I don't think that you can make the ethical solution completely dependent on available technology, although ethics are dependent on technology, too.

In general, though, despite your angry arguments, I think I agree with you and Bridget nearly entirely, just substituting "functioning brain" for "viable."

Bridget, I think I also agree with almost everything you say in #274. I really have to disagree with the silly Jennifer/Danio, that we, in fact, can make the legal decision that two people are present when the fetal brain is active, because we can make legal decisions based on science. And we can leave talk of souls aside from brain activity out of the legal system.

Bill Dauphin, I don't have time to read all your lengthy posts. We should definitely make early, especially very early, abortions much easier and more accessible. We should also improve sex education, as the local UUC does a pretty good job with. But you seem to spend a lot of time on the small _number_ of frivolous very-late-term abortions. How many are acceptable? How many frivolous murders of infants who happen to slip out early are acceptable? Numbers and percentages show how effective society is as a whole, but I don't really feel that happy that, for example, Somalia has cut down the honor killings of wives down to only 2% of female murders. (I made that up, BTW.) People are people.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 5:57 PM

Bridget said

One question: At what point, if any, should abortion cease to be an option? Or should women have complete freedom until the umbilical cord is cut?

Birth

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 6:03 PM

Tom @285,

I'm sorry your son has Trisomy 21. I also have a close family member with Trisomy 21. After having been around him my entire life and knowing the emotional/financial drain his care has had on his family, I know that I would have an abortion if I was pregnant with a fetus that had Trisomy 21. For the record, his mother has confided that had she had the knowledge to make a choice, she would have had an abortion. It's none of your business that I (or any other woman) would make this choice. Deal with it. Just because you made a different choice doesn't make you the moral arbiter of all that is good in this world.

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 2, 2009 6:16 PM

Bridget:

How do you indent a quote in a response on this blog? I don't remember if I knew that.

Your question:
One question: At what point, if any, should abortion cease to be an option? Or should women have complete freedom until the umbilical cord is cut?

is what I am trying to analyze, here.

PygmyLoris, your answer is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Is "birth" before or after the cord is cut? Does c-section count as birth? Sheep bond to offspring due to hormones released because of passage through the birth canal. My son was born at 32 weeks, and was nearly completely developed, especially lungs, stomach, and brain, although he took a few days feeding with a dropper before he could be nursed. At what point did he gain legal rights? You are rather extreme in your views, everybody else here seems to grant fetuses more rights progressively. For example, I support additional charges when an assault on a pregnant woman causes miscarriage, even early in the pregnancy, when I would still easily support allowing the woman to terminate. I definitely don't support even allowing the mother to intentionally cause suffering in a 3rd trimester fetus. You don't seem to allow room for questions like that.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 6:27 PM

Bubba,

The question posed was when should abortion stop being an option and I said birth. I didn't say abortion on demand should be an option until that point. Birth is when the baby is physically outside the woman's body. That covers c-sections too. Any woman should be able to get an abortion if necessary for her health or life until that point. Clearly it would be very, very rare to have such late term abortions because the woman would more than likely try to have a c-section if at all possible. However, there are situations where both a vaginal birth and a c-section would kill the woman. It is perfectly acceptable to me to have an abortion at that point because the already born woman has more rights than the fetus!

Whether you feel I'm extreme of not is of no consequence here. I'm saying that the health and life of an already born individual trump those of a fetus that hasn't been born and is essentially a parasite. I don't ever want to be in a position where sanctimonious asshats who will never become pregnant will have my life in their hands. I don't want to die giving birth and I have the right to value my life over a fetus. You can't get pregnant and will never be faced with the prospect of losing your life because of a pregnancy. You can say it's possible to lose your wife or whatever, but that's simply not the same as being faced with the loss of your own life.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 6:31 PM

Bubba,

For example, I support additional charges when an assault on a pregnant woman causes miscarriage, even early in the pregnancy, when I would still easily support allowing the woman to terminate

On what grounds do you support additional charges? Do you not realize the extreme cognitive dissonance in that statement?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 6:45 PM

Bubba,

Bill and Nerd have agreed with me about birth (at least when does it happen). Clearly I'm not so extreme that other people here don't hold a similar position. In fact, I think PZ holds a similar position.

So, why have you picked me out as an extremist?

Posted by: Dianne | June 2, 2009 7:09 PM

I definitely don't support even allowing the mother to intentionally cause suffering in a 3rd trimester fetus.

What sort of acts might cause suffering to the fetus? I'll take abortion as a given for the sake of the argument, but what else? If the fetus is aware on any level, then other acts may cause it distress. How do you determine that a fetus is in distress or suffering and what steps do you propose to alleviate the suffering? What level of suffering do you consider bad enough to require intervention and how do you determine that it is occurring?

These are, BTW, genuine questions. I have no gotchas or preconceived answers waiting but am really interested in your--and anyone else's--responses.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 2, 2009 7:17 PM

Nerd of Redhead, OM

I see. Well, it's not really a problem for me. I've been called an extremist before for unrelated reasons. I'm just going to bask is my extreme views and tell myself how very special they make me ;)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 2, 2009 7:39 PM

But I am certain that SOME late abortions are definitely unethical

Well, if you're certain, then we must accept your assertions as being true.

Posted by: luna1580 | June 2, 2009 7:47 PM

bubba:

"Most women seem to learn pretty quickly when eating onions makes the fetus uncomfortable."

uhm, kindly, WTF?

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 8:05 PM

I'm putting it up as an easy compromise. I can actually make arguments on either side of it, in the abstract.

Moreover:

uhm, kindly, WTF?

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 8:33 PM

Well said, Emmet.

Posted by: Stu | June 2, 2009 9:08 PM

Emmet:

I lack the moral narcissism

Immensely apt -- consider it stolen.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 9:19 PM

What is it with kooks and disturbing analogies/examples?

Have you read any of Ray Comfort's blog?

Posted by: Dianne | June 2, 2009 9:40 PM

But I am certain that SOME late abortions are definitely unethical…

I agree. Any abortion at any stage is unethical if the woman who is pregnant does not want an abortion except under the most extreme circumstances. I'm not too thrilled with the mythical prom queen either: she should have thought about her dress size 5 months ago. But forced abortion is truly immoral--and much more prevalent.

Posted by: crowepps | June 3, 2009 12:14 AM

Here is a case that might provide food for thought on this issue. This is precisely the kind of situation where Dr. Tiller provided abortions.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/217156_janedoe23.html

Posted by: Rorschach | June 3, 2009 2:40 AM

Bill D @ 324,

Although, if I and others are right in believing that a fetus is not a person, then even the slightest concern for one's own comfort trumps the nonexistent rights of the not-yet-person growing within.

I would be careful,and not in agreement,with that conclusion Bill.Thats sounds way too much like this whole mythos of "ah,now i cant be bothered with it anymore,make it go away" spiel the rightwing fringe loons upthread wanted to make us believe happens.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 3, 2009 3:30 AM

My position, OTOH, is that fetuses have no rights, but that does not imply they have no value.

*headspins*
So what's their value then in your opinion?

Posted by: Rorschach | June 3, 2009 4:17 AM

Bill D,

I was struggling a bit,not so much to get the distinction between value and rights,but to figure out what you meant by value in the context of a fetus,could have been anything,from "lump of tissue we can experiment with" to "potential new Einstein/Cochrane" to "person" etc,so thanks for the clarification.
I find it a bit problematic still,to try and assign a value to tissue in a womb,yes of course there is potential to develop into a human being if given the time and nourishment required,but what exactly does that mean in terms of value?
Anyway,semantics I guess.

"Potential to bring joy to their parents"
Yeah,or not.
LOL

Posted by: Katharina | June 3, 2009 6:34 AM

Re Post #7
"When it comes to abortion the US is more progressive than much of Europe, including the UK and Germany.."

Your link is not correct about Germany.

1. The counselling is free.
2. You can choose the counselling institution - and of course you go to an institution that is not pro-life.
3. Nobody urges you to abstain from abortion. You are informed of the financial help you can get if you decide to keep the baby.

That's it - and I know it because I went through the process myself.

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 10:54 AM

Does bacon??

Only whilst being eaten by lesbians, of course. That's self-evident.

Posted by: Tom | June 3, 2009 5:09 PM

The advent of advanced ultrasound techniques allow us to assess the severity of medical problems in Trisomy 21 cases (with respect to heart and gut malformations, which can often be used to predict the severity of the corresponding mental defects.

This is 100% incorrect. There is no correlation between medical issues and mental ability.

And eugenics does not refer simply to inherited traits. Eugenics is anything done to improve the offspring produced. And some cases of Down syndrome are inherited.

But for those who think that abortion because of the mental ability of a child is moral, do you also feel that aborting because you don't want a girl is moral? Or, if a genetic correlation is found, aborting because your child will be gay is moral? Or aborting because your child has a 60% chance of turning bald before age 30?

But just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal.

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 3, 2009 5:44 PM

Tom,
re: the correlated severity of DS symptoms, I was repeating what my maternal & fetal medicine specialist told me when I was pregnant in 2002. As I don't have time to do a pubmed search right now, I'll retract this statement.

And eugenics does not refer simply to inherited traits. Eugenics is anything done to improve the offspring produced. And some cases of Down syndrome are inherited.

No one has said otherwise, as far as I can tell, but an accusation of 'eugenics' with respect to choosing to terminate a trisomy 21 pregnancy is completely unfounded. Women faced with these decisions are absolutely not thinking in terms of societal benefit, but of their own individual ability--and that of their partners/other support system--to cope with the special needs of the child. As there is no societal norm, nor any pressure to decide one way or the other on a systemic level, this is absolutely does not qualify as eugenics.

but for those who think that abortion because of the mental ability of a child is moral, do you also feel that aborting because you don't want a girl is moral? Or, if a genetic correlation is found, aborting because your child will be gay is moral? Or aborting because your child has a 60% chance of turning bald before age 30?

Once again, mental ability is not the *only* concern w/r/t Down syndrome, but more to the point, why do you care so much about other people's morals? You could ask 100 people these questions and probably get 100 different answers, assuming your sample was random. Especially as you don't seem keen to legislate your own definition of what is and isn't 'moral' regarding these decisions, I honestly don't understand why you're pressing this issue.

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 3, 2009 6:01 PM

Luna (#311):

"Onion" was a silly aside to my comments. I know several women who stopped eating onions during their pregnancy, because the fetus responded with extreme activity. Sorry you didn't get this.

Nerd (#312):

You haven't said, as far as I've read, what your mind is, so I'm certainly not attempting to change it. You're very good at tiny insult posts, though, and joining in with the Greek Chorus!

Jennifer (#313):

You like to scream a lot. You should probably sit and read a minute, and try to understand. "Compromise" for legal declaration of humanity for a fetus. And I hope you understand the "onion" comment, now.

Emmet (#314):

Who decides if I think it is unethical? I do. I don't need an ombudsman for that. Nor would I suggest that law should be based on my feelings, except in the perfect world where everyone realizes I was right all along. You (and a few of YOUR Greek chorus) seem to have been stuck on this point.

I think I have been clear why society has a stake in reducing those killings of actual human beings. I really have no idea why you would oppose this, or what you wouldn't understand about this.

Stu (#316-7):

It's good to know that I only need to disagree with somebody here to become a "kook." What is disturbing about that? Have you ever spoken with a pregnant woman?

Dianne(#321):

I'm sure somebody could come up with a case where we would both agree that a forced abortion was the most ethical choice, otherwise I agree with you.

Pygmy Loris(#322):

You might be in the situation where you would need to cut the arm off of a child to survive, too. And yet, I am still in favor of laws against cutting the arms off of children. I am in favor of abortion when there is any risk to the mother's health, at any point in the pregnancy. You seem to be making some religious statement on harming the fetus that I just don't understand. The fetus is part of a woman, but it is a very special and unique part, at least to most women, and significant effort goes into caring for it properly. It deserves special status in the law, much more so than the equally rational reasoning behind sexual assault and battery having special status in the law.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 6:27 PM

Bubba,

You might be in the situation where you would need to cut the arm off of a child to survive, too. And yet, I am still in favor of laws against cutting the arms off of children.

Key word there: CHILD. There's a huge difference between a child and a fetus. The most important difference would be that the child is outside of my body and the fetus is not. You're apparently incapable of getting that.

It deserves special status in the law, much more so than the equally rational reasoning behind sexual assault and battery having special status in the law.

Do what? Sexual assault and battery have "special status" in the law? I thought they were crimes. Does that make them special?

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 3, 2009 6:59 PM

Nerd(340):

You haven't said anything yet, to agree or to disagree with.

Pygmy Loris(341):

I've said it very clearly a few times. I'll try again: It is a person because it has a human body and a human brain. My original question was for somebody to support this idea that cutting the cord makes it human, and nobody has even attempted to do so. Even here, you shout it again, and insult me, but don't even try to argue your point. Here's a starting point for you: is a person hooked up to a dialysis machine, a catheter, and an iron lung still a human being? Surely somebody here can argue this point without giving in to emotion, insults, and tribalism.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 7:31 PM

This is the last time I'm going to respond to you Bubba the ignorant, misogynist. (There's an insult!)

I have never said anything about when a fetus becomes human. If you notice, my comments have been about when is it okay to abort a fetus to save the pregnant woman's life. That's it.

is a person hooked up to a dialysis machine, a catheter, and an iron lung still a human being?

How is this relevant to a fetus inside a woman threatening her life? Oh, that's right, it's not. There isn't a good analogy for pregnancy because there's not another condition that's anything like it.

I'm done dealing with someone who refuses to actually read what I say and answer it with something intelligent. I get angry when I have to repeat points that I have already made.

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 3, 2009 8:32 PM

Pygmy Loris(#345):

Then we agree? You're still pretty angry about it, even though I've been definite in my support for abortion to protect the woman. You _did_ read that, didn't you?

Jen (#346):

You don't like what I'm saying? Or you won't follow the reference back to #313 to read the question I was answering?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 4, 2009 11:31 AM

Bubba, as I said before, if you want discussion, lose the attitude that we must agree with you. If we must agree with you, it is preaching or intimidation you are doing. If you can't see that, there will be no discussion.

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 4, 2009 2:30 PM

gr8hands(#348):

I'll read your post in a second, but you start out so wrong...

I DO NOT SAY, NOR DO I THINK that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by poor planning. Some unwanted pregnancies, though are caused that way. You wouldn't deny that, if you have a connection to reality. You reading this the way you did seems to indicate some sort of character flaw. Try re-reading my post without inserting the word "all."

You rather angrily make your assertion that cutting the cord is what makes it a human being, and then you refuse to even consider that somebody else would have a different opinion than you. I have also been very careful in my use of words, especially regarding the fetus. Brain development is what makes it a person, and the source of nutrients is not enough to deny it all legal rights and protections. You and PygmyLoris don't seem to be able to discuss this rationally at all, though, so I'll drop it, too.

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 4, 2009 3:17 PM

Bill D(#350):

You have not understood my position at all, then. I am for some sort of social regulation of late-term abortions EXPLICITLY because at the point it has full brain function it is a full human being, with some rights that must be balanced with the mother. An anencephalic fetus doesn't have full brain function.

I am NOT referring to all unwanted pregnancies. I am referring to those pregnancies that result directly from poor (or zero) planning and a superficial approach. THOSE pregnancies are more likely to continue, because poor planning and a superficial approach can lead to delaying consideration and planning for termination. There is no stereotype, conscious or subconscious, here. That should have been clear by the fact that I later said that these poor planners probably shouldn't be trusted to raise babies, anyway. And you're still dodging the issue. You act as if somebody who is approaching the whole issue with poor planning and superficial consideration will indeed PLAN to end it in a more comfortable way, or that I am saying they would PLAN to end it in a less comfortable way. I said they are MORE LIKELY to FAIL TO PLAN TO TERMINATE EARLY. That seems self-evident to me, since the group of people we are discussing was defined by being POOR PLANNERS AND FORETHINKERS.

Note to whiners: I am not applying this to ALL WOMEN, or even ALL WOMEN WHO HAVE UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

For your next point, I think it's important, even critical to use rational thinking to define arbitrary mileposts. You try to rule that out from the beginning. Then, once again, you refuse to define "birth" even though you are claiming it is the obvious arbitrary marker to use. It seems like you want to use "intention of the woman" as your defining difference.

Your next point you try to finesse, too, where you say that an animal is more "developed" than a newborn, but won't say "smarter." ANY adult animal is going to be more "developed." You're still dodging the question: can you draw a line IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FETUS between an 8-month-old fetus and a newborn? The only fundamental difference you make is its location of residence and its source of nutrition. That is NOT enough for me to decide that it isn't a person as much as a newborn is. That is the point I would like to argue, but you people are easily distracted...

As far as why am I arguing with you, I'm responding point by point when you say something wrong about what I have said. You 4 or 5 have done that a lot. My main argument would be that PZ was wrong in a couple of things he said, as I said in #40. Roe v. Wade is still pretty good law, and the state and society and the fetus have a valid legal interest at some point in the 3rd trimester. Several of you want to angrily agree with PZ, that it's only the woman with any legal interests up until the cord is cut. That's an interesting point to argue, but nobody wants to argue that, they want to assert it, like PZ did.

My main question is "What in its own development gives a newborn legal protection as a person, but doesn't give a 37 week fetus those same rights, albeit balanced with the rights of the mother?"

This is the best place for the future debate, much better for human and maternal rights than the debate about Platonic essences and anything else about "potential humans." This type of debate leads remorselessly back to fertilization, which is, to me, pointless. But we recognize something ACTUALLY HUMAN about newborns, not just POTENTIALLY HUMAN. Is there no difference in the baby itself, is it only in its umbilical cord connection?

Posted by: BubbaRich | June 13, 2009 2:32 AM

gr8hands:

I dunno if you'll see this, but I've gotta respond. Your little dance about "all" is mostly pathetic, but I think your sympathetic audience liked it. "You didn't say 'all,' I didn't say you said 'all,' but I definitely assumed you meant 'all.'"

I know the technical terms. I know how some people wish to define those terms so they match their political argument, but your effort is as sad as a pro-lifer saying "ABORTION ENDS A HUMAN LIFE!"

Your technical definition of when you want to call it a baby is completely irrelevant, except that you get a vote in this country, too. I am discussing the brain, the internal processes in the fetus that get it moral, legal, and emotional protections in our society. Your argument would support infanticide, too, in a place where technical definitions were slightly different, so relying on definitions from med school is not a reliable moral compass.

There is no fundamental difference in the baby's brain immediately before and immediately after the cord is cut. You keep wanting to discuss something else. Why?