New South Dakota Abortion Law

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I am an absolutist. It's tough shit for him. He is a slave both to the wish of the mother and his legal obligations to a real breathing and living child. Sorry, but if you want to fuck, know you could be fucking yourself or maybe should be in the first place, if you're not. Everybody knows that a baby is a person and the law knows it too. Everybody also knows that to abort or not is solely the right of the woman.

Edit: One piece of good news I CAN offer you though is that at that point it is also too late for the MOTHER.

Actually, I disagree with none of that, but if you can be such an absolutist with the father, why not with the mother?
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,023
8,298
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
btw me being against abortion people are going about this all wrong. It is always an all or nothing approach. They need to hammer down the brutality and digusting on all levels practice of partial birth abortion. I'd be happy if in my lifetime if we outlawed that on the federal level. That procedure is something out of Dr Mengele(sp)'s wildest dream.

I agree that late term abortions should be banned - I thought that partial-birth abortions were already banned on the Federal level (edit: yep - intact dilation and extraction abortions are banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act ). It's not just a fetus at that point - the baby is viable outside the mother (although would need to be in a neonatal ICU).
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I'll answer that with my thoughts. The reason why is because after the child is born it is no longer a question of what is fair between the mother and father. It is now a question between what is fair between the mother, the father, and the child. That child, once born, has rights like any other citizen in this country according to the law.

Now, does that mean I can sit here and say to everyone that I believe that this whole thing is completely fair from A-Z? Nope, because it is not. There is no way to do that properly. The needle must tip one direction. The direction which has been chosen is towards that of the child after it is born. It also just so happens that the way which was chosen in this country under its laws happens to be the way I agree with the most.

But you still haven't explained why the man should be responsible when the woman choose to keep the child, and is capable of raising it without him. Plenty of children are raised by their mothers alone. If the father didn't want the child, why is he morally culpable just because he had sex?

Who said anything about being morally culpable? He's only legally culpable for financial support.

Plus, having sex has the risk of leading to pregnancy, even if some form of birth control is used. If you don't want to be culpable for the choice a woman would make in keeping a pregnancy, then there is a simple solution: don't have sex.

Mursilis

There are several reasons, but generally speaking Brainonska511 is correct with that bit about financial support. You say that a mother is fully capable of doing a quality job at raising a child on her own and for the most part I would agree with you because I have witnessed it myself. It is more challenging but most certainly doable.

The main problem is the financial aspect. Children are expensive and doing a quality job at raising a child to become a quality adult and citizen of this country is extremely difficult to do without money. This is mainly because our country and our economy now revolves very heavily around the idea that the average consumer comes from a duel income household.

In the end, the country and the law needs to do what is best for itself rather than what is the most fair for each and every individual in every situation. In this case, by making both the mother and father financially liable, there is a much better chance that the child will grow up the be a better citizen. Think of it as quality assurance for our country. If the men are able to just opt out of their financial obligations to their children then I can guarantee you that the quality of America's future citizens will decline very rapidly. This is not worth doing just for the sake of trying to make things more "fair"...whatever that really means.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor

The law says abortion isn't murder and a fetus isn't a human being. I just happen to agree with it.

Are you comparing aborting unborn, unconscious fetuses to the past treatment of living, conscious African Americans?

Yes I am. And what does consciousness have to do with it? It's still illegal to kill someone in a coma. You also used the word living. I think most scientists would agree a fetus meets the scientific definition of "living".

In both cases you're equating a fetus and a human being. They are not the same.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Plus, having sex has the risk of leading to pregnancy, even if some form of birth control is used. If you don't want to be culpable for the choice a woman would make in keeping a pregnancy, then there is a simple solution: don't have sex.

I have no problem with any of that. Heck, I even think the same standard should be applied to women.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

Another touchy subject that IMO needs another thread. ;)

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor

The law says abortion isn't murder and a fetus isn't a human being. I just happen to agree with it.

Are you comparing aborting unborn, unconscious fetuses to the past treatment of living, conscious African Americans?

Yes I am. And what does consciousness have to do with it? It's still illegal to kill someone in a coma. You also used the word living. I think most scientists would agree a fetus meets the scientific definition of "living".

In both cases you're equating a fetus and a human being. They are not the same.

Because you said so?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I suspect they were intending 'separate' to mean that the fetus is its own organism, not that they were meaning that it was separate from the mother for care & nourishment.

Now, now don't second guess these honest,concerned politicians, they just cannot get their lies straight.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor

In both cases you're equating a fetus and a human being. They are not the same.

Because you said so?

The law says so. The only way for you to get what you want is to change the law. There is no other way and the odds are against you because more people are adopting pro choice view points year after year.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
In the end, the country and the law needs to do what is best for itself rather than what is the most fair for each and every individual in every situation. In this case, by making both the mother and father financially liable, there is a much better chance that the child will grow up the be a better citizen. Think of it as quality assurance for our country. If the men are able to just opt out of their financial obligations to their children then I can guarantee you that the quality of America's future citizens will decline very rapidly. This is not worth doing just for the sake of trying to make things more "fair"...whatever that really means.

My only issue is with the contradiction I'm perceiving in Moonie's position. On the one hand, he vilifies pro-lifers for condemning a mother to raise an unwanted child just because she had sex and unfortunately got pregnant, but then Moonie imposes the burden of a child on a man just because HE had sex with a woman who got pregnant. I have no problem with society requiring men to aid in raising their own children.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Xavier434
In the end, the country and the law needs to do what is best for itself rather than what is the most fair for each and every individual in every situation. In this case, by making both the mother and father financially liable, there is a much better chance that the child will grow up the be a better citizen. Think of it as quality assurance for our country. If the men are able to just opt out of their financial obligations to their children then I can guarantee you that the quality of America's future citizens will decline very rapidly. This is not worth doing just for the sake of trying to make things more "fair"...whatever that really means.

My only issue is with the contradiction I'm perceiving in Moonie's position. On the one hand, he vilifies pro-lifers for condemning a mother to raise an unwanted child just because she had sex and unfortunately got pregnant, but then Moonie imposes the burden of a child on a man just because HE had sex with a woman who got pregnant. I have no problem with society requiring men to aid in raising their own children.

Well, I cannot speak for Moonie. ;)
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Robor
In both cases you're equating a fetus and a human being. They are not the same.

Because you said so?

Because you said so?

Edit: And I have the law on my side.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I am an absolutist. It's tough shit for him. He is a slave both to the wish of the mother and his legal obligations to a real breathing and living child. Sorry, but if you want to fuck, know you could be fucking yourself or maybe should be in the first place, if you're not. Everybody knows that a baby is a person and the law knows it too. Everybody also knows that to abort or not is solely the right of the woman.

Edit: One piece of good news I CAN offer you though is that at that point it is also too late for the MOTHER.

Actually, I disagree with none of that, but if you can be such an absolutist with the father, why not with the mother?

For pragmatic reasons. Nobody choses to be a girl, so only 50% of the population purely by chance, is stuck with the biological reality of having a chance to get pregnant. This isn't fair. It is, however, reality. Nobody wills themselves to get pregnant nor can one will it away if it happens. This isn't fair. Why should somebody get pregnant without wanting to. It is, however, reality. A woman can be raped or have sex with somebody who proves to be totally worthless as a potential father. That's not fair. It is, however, a reality. In order to balance these facts in the real world the law has struck a compromise. The woman will be given a choice to terminate a pregnancy up to some time limit. It isn't fair to the fetus, but the fetus is unaware it even exists. This is what the law has come to as the most reasonable balance of different interests. It is what the law has said is the best reasoned balance between all the unfairness involved in the issue. I agree that it is as fair as anything else I can see.

Naturally, I will push for a world in which self hate is recognized and understood as the fundamental deepest root of all our troubles and the origin of evil, in the hopeless hope that someday the psychologically damaged won't be abusing the wonderful blessings of sex and nobody will have any reason or the slightest dream of aborting anybody.
 

LS8

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2008
1,285
0
0
Just remember our Federal Government determined that tomatoes are a vegetables!
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Genx87
btw me being against abortion people are going about this all wrong. It is always an all or nothing approach. They need to hammer down the brutality and digusting on all levels practice of partial birth abortion. I'd be happy if in my lifetime if we outlawed that on the federal level. That procedure is something out of Dr Mengele(sp)'s wildest dream.

I agree that late term abortions should be banned - I thought that partial-birth abortions were already banned on the Federal level (edit: yep - intact dilation and extraction abortions are banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act ). It's not just a fetus at that point - the baby is viable outside the mother (although would need to be in a neonatal ICU).

You are aware that late term abortion != partial birth abortion? The federal statute outlaws a specific type of abortion (D&E), not abortion itself at the late stage. Methods other than D&E during the final weeks of pregnancy are legal. Doctors just kill the fetus in utero so the fetus isn't "partially birthed" alive.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,023
8,298
136
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Genx87
btw me being against abortion people are going about this all wrong. It is always an all or nothing approach. They need to hammer down the brutality and digusting on all levels practice of partial birth abortion. I'd be happy if in my lifetime if we outlawed that on the federal level. That procedure is something out of Dr Mengele(sp)'s wildest dream.

I agree that late term abortions should be banned - I thought that partial-birth abortions were already banned on the Federal level (edit: yep - intact dilation and extraction abortions are banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act ). It's not just a fetus at that point - the baby is viable outside the mother (although would need to be in a neonatal ICU).

You are aware that late term abortion != partial birth abortion? The federal statute outlaws a specific type of abortion (D&E), not abortion itself at the late stage. Methods other than D&E during the final weeks of pregnancy are legal. Doctors just kill the fetus in utero so the fetus isn't "partially birthed" alive.

No, I wasn't aware. Then that should also be banned (with an exception for the mother's health).
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
My father and I had an interesting discussion on abortion over the weekend. We have opposing views on the issue, but we are capable of having a rational, objective discussion without getting caught up in the emotionally charged nature of the subject.

He is against the use abortion procedures to terminate a growing life, whereas I'm perfectly fine with it. He brought up the argument that once the sperm cell penetrates the egg cell and begins to divide, it is now a new living being. He further said that killing that living thing constituted murder. I agreed with him about when life begins but said that killing it is better called homicide than murder, as murder is typically associated with criminal activity rather than just the act of killing another human being.

I said most pro-abortion people don't want to call it homicide because they don't want to feel any worse about what they are doing than what they already feel about it. But then I also said that human beings have been killing one another since existence. Abortion is a homicide born of convenience or expediency but humans have been doing that all along with various justifications. Governments kill in wars and military actions, societies and corporations kill by rationalization and marginalization, and individuals kill for convenience. What's the difference when the end result is people die at the hands of others? Why is one accepted and not the other?

He agreed with me, as we sat opposite one another, so long as it was understood that it was homicide which was taking place. I said I'm fine it and then we moved on to discuss the existence of God.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Genx87
btw me being against abortion people are going about this all wrong. It is always an all or nothing approach. They need to hammer down the brutality and digusting on all levels practice of partial birth abortion. I'd be happy if in my lifetime if we outlawed that on the federal level. That procedure is something out of Dr Mengele(sp)'s wildest dream.

I agree that late term abortions should be banned - I thought that partial-birth abortions were already banned on the Federal level (edit: yep - intact dilation and extraction abortions are banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act ). It's not just a fetus at that point - the baby is viable outside the mother (although would need to be in a neonatal ICU).

You are aware that late term abortion != partial birth abortion? The federal statute outlaws a specific type of abortion (D&E), not abortion itself at the late stage. Methods other than D&E during the final weeks of pregnancy are legal. Doctors just kill the fetus in utero so the fetus isn't "partially birthed" alive.

I am pro-choice but anti-that (bolded) unless the mother is in danger and even then I'd hate to be the Dr doing that procedure.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: jjones
My father and I had an interesting discussion on abortion over the weekend. We have opposing views on the issue, but we are capable of having a rational, objective discussion without getting caught up in the emotionally charged nature of the subject.

He is against the use abortion procedures to terminate a growing life, whereas I'm perfectly fine with it. He brought up the argument that once the sperm cell penetrates the egg cell and begins to divide, it is now a new living being. He further said that killing that living thing constituted murder. I agreed with him about when life begins but said that killing it is better called homicide than murder, as murder is typically associated with criminal activity rather than just the act of killing another human being.

I said most pro-abortion people don't want to call it homicide because they don't want to feel any worse about what they are doing than what they already feel about it. But then I also said that human beings have been killing one another since existence. Abortion is a homicide born of convenience or expediency but humans have been doing that all along with various justifications. Governments kill in wars and military actions, societies and corporations kill by rationalization and marginalization, and individuals kill for convenience. What's the difference when the end result is people die at the hands of others? Why is one accepted and not the other?

He agreed with me, as we sat opposite one another, so long as it was understood that it was homicide which was taking place. I said I'm fine it and then we moved on to discuss the existence of God.

I have similar rational discussions with my uncle. I would disagree with your position though. Homicide is a killing of a person. I would not characterize early term abortions as homicide. I agree "life" starts at conception, but not "personhood." The problem is there is no bright scientific line to determine when that fertilized egg becomes a person. The extremes are pretty easy for me. An undivided cell should have no rights, a 9 month fetus about to be born certainly deserves some protection. It's that space in the middle that screws everything up. Damn gestation.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

No it isn't. Try reading a book or two by people like Locke, JS Mill, or Rousseau. It's in society's interest to have laws protecting property (like your personal body). If people could go around killing and stealing from one-another, we wouldn't have a society. Merely a "state of nature" and "state of war" with each other.

Read all that - they make you do it to get a degree in philosophy. So why do you need laws to protect your property - you've got arms, legs, and the ability to make and use tools - defend yourself! It's silly to assume society can't exist w/o laws - man existed thousands of years before the first formalized codes were ever written.
Yes. And that was before today's population density - when there was obviously less contact between people. Now, with modern medicine preventing simple sickness from killing people and the selfish dumbasses who have 5+ children, rules of conduct have become necessary. As an example, in the automobile's infancy, there were no traffic signals. When the density became greater, signals became necessary.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I for one don't, she knows the risks as well and ignorance is not an excuse.

It's not my fault if a condom breaks, she knows the risks, she gets pregnant. She has all the cards, how is that fair?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I am an absolutist. It's tough shit for him. He is a slave both to the wish of the mother and his legal obligations to a real breathing and living child. Sorry, but if you want to fuck, know you could be fucking yourself or maybe should be in the first place, if you're not. Everybody knows that a baby is a person and the law knows it too. Everybody also knows that to abort or not is solely the right of the woman.

Edit: One piece of good news I CAN offer you though is that at that point it is also too late for the MOTHER.

Actually, I disagree with none of that, but if you can be such an absolutist with the father, why not with the mother?

For pragmatic reasons. Nobody choses to be a girl, so only 50% of the population purely by chance, is stuck with the biological reality of having a chance to get pregnant. This isn't fair. It is, however, reality. Nobody wills themselves to get pregnant nor can one will it away if it happens. This isn't fair. Why should somebody get pregnant without wanting to. It is, however, reality. A woman can be raped or have sex with somebody who proves to be totally worthless as a potential father. That's not fair. It is, however, a reality. In order to balance these facts in the real world the law has struck a compromise. The woman will be given a choice to terminate a pregnancy up to some time limit. It isn't fair to the fetus, but the fetus is unaware it even exists. This is what the law has come to as the most reasonable balance of different interests. It is what the law has said is the best reasoned balance between all the unfairness involved in the issue. I agree that it is as fair as anything else I can see.

Naturally, I will push for a world in which self hate is recognized and understood as the fundamental deepest root of all our troubles and the origin of evil, in the hopeless hope that someday the psychologically damaged won't be abusing the wonderful blessings of sex and nobody will have any reason or the slightest dream of aborting anybody.

How is it fair to say a women doesn't have complete control over her body?
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.

You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Change comes more slowly to the out back.

You are correct. Human life begins at conception. Seems like there are many around these parts that have not yet embraced that scientific fact.

So human life ends when? Why aren't you at hospitals screaming at the doctors who kill all of these thousands of humans each and every day just because their brain doesn't function?

You see, if you accept brain death as death, then you have a definition of life and that definition should be applied to any human, right? A fetus pre week 25 has no more brain functions (none beyond random impulses) than a brain dead living human.

So, basically you are saying that if you are born and braindead, you're dead, but if you are stillborn, you're alive as long as you're in the uterus?

Not that any of that really matters though, since it's not your body and you do NOT get to decide over other peoples bodies just because "god told me it was a great fucking idea", got that son?

It's her choice and you can hate her for making the wrong choice, but it's her choice to make.