South Dakota now requires 3-day waiting period for abortions

[jonks]

I don't see how logic fits into what is essentially a question of the definition of self defense. If you can kill someone in the act of doing something to you against your will, it follows that you can abort your baby if you had no say in the circumstances of its creation.

Exactly. In the first case, the mother is responsible. She consented to the act. In the second, she did not, and is not responsible.

Pregnancy didn't hurt mommy's feelings. It occurred without her consent.

No. Just no. I don't ever recall hearing this argument, and for good reason.

I'll not get into an element by element legal claim of self-defense on this issue because it's inapplicability is staggering, but if the fetus is considered a human baby, it cannot be killed under the rubrick of self-defense unless it poses a direct threat to the life of the mother, and in criminal law that threat must generally be an imminent threat. I'm sure there are those who would argue for 2nd amendment rights for the fetus to protect itself from unwanted abotions but until they figure out how to implement it, it'll just have to remain a wet dream.

That's another question entirely. At what point do you think a human person becomes a human person?

Full human rights are bestowed at birth. I don't believe an exact moment of personhood can be determined short of birth. Prior to birth I favor a sliding scale during which the further along the pregnancy progression, the greater the societal interest in protecting the unborn.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Ever hear of Terri Schiavo, where there were court hearings and a long drawn out court battle?

You might recall that it was determined that Terri Schiavo was indeed brain dead, and she was thereafter disconnected from life support.

 

[jonks]

Ever hear of Terri Schiavo, where there were court hearings and a long drawn out court battle?

You are confusing brain dead with persistent/permanent vegetative state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state

 

[Atreus21]

No. Just no. I don't ever recall hearing this argument, and for good reason.

I'll not get into an element by element legal claim of self-defense on this issue because it's inapplicability is staggering, but if the fetus is considered a human baby, it cannot be killed under the rubrick of self-defense unless it poses a direct threat to the life of the mother, and in criminal law that threat must generally be an imminent threat. I'm sure there are those who would argue for 2nd amendment rights for the fetus to protect itself from unwanted abotions but until they figure out how to implement it, it'll just have to remain a wet dream.

Killing someone in self defense is acceptable even when it doesn't pose a threat to the life of the mother. If you kill someone who's robbing you, I think the self-defense plea would hold water just fine.

I was listening to an argument between Peter Kreeft and some other guy on abortion. He (the pro-abortion guy) likened arguments against abortion to someone sneaking into your house, attaching himself to you by the kidney, and then telling you truthfully that you and he had to share your kidney for 9 months, and to remove yourself from him would be tantamount to murder.

I think the argument held water, IF sex was non-consensual. Otherwise it's simply nonsense.

In any case, I have to leave for the weekend. My last note on this is that if we ever get to the point of abortions being illegal except for cases of rape, notwithstanding your claim of illogicality, I think we'd be a far more humane society.

And since I can't resist: If full human rights are bestowed at birth, what arguments do you have against killing the child 5 seconds before it's birth if the mother deems it prudent?

 

[werepossum]

Then a hospital should be able to take certain people, and move them to the street where they would die?

At what point does society say "this is wrong."?
SNIP

Our society has set that bar at the point that a person with no chance of recovery may be disconnected from life support. Generally a person with no chance of higher brain function recovery, but able to function without life support (Terri Schiavo being an example) are usually indefinitely supported through intravenous feeding, but in some cases, like Schiavo's, where the next of kin wants the individual to die AND the medical experts' predominantly agree that what makes them a person is already dead, then they may be killed through denial of water and/or food. In some cases the killed person might in fact have recovered - nothing made of man is perfect - but medical science is pretty good in determining the difference between coma and destruction of higher level brain function.

For the record I was against killing Schiavo - you don't kill a dog through thirst, and in her case she had money set aside to pay for her care and parents who wanted her alive - but society has to make these decisions.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
Full human rights are bestowed at birth. I don't believe an exact moment of personhood can be determined short of birth. Prior to birth I favor a sliding scale during which the further along the pregnancy progression, the greater the societal interest in protecting the unborn.

This. A baby is fully human at conception, but does not receive full human rights, or at least society's protection for full human rights, until birth. Until a baby is born, protecting its rights inevitably involves trampling on someone else's, so we need to take great care as a society in what rights we enforce for the unborn.

 

[jonks]

Killing someone in self defense is acceptable even when it doesn't pose a threat to the life of the mother. If you kill someone who's robbing you, I think the self-defense plea would hold water just fine.

Generally speaking, your first sentence is simply incorrect; a person must believe that they are about to suffer serious bodily harm or death before employing deadly force in self-defense (this is the rule, there are some exceptions in a few states). Your second sentence is correct but makes an incorrect assumption. Deadly force is justified in self-defense if someone is robbing you because they present a substantial risk of causing either your death or serious bodily harm.

A pregnancy is a natural condition that results from sex, consensual or nonconsensual. The rights of the baby vis-a-vis the mother are completely separated from the cause of the pregnancy. It has and should not have any relevance whatsoever if you believe the fetus is a baby. The unintended consequences from such a position cannot be overstated, and the practical applications make no sense either. If rape was the only legal cause for abortion a woman would simply claim she was raped or drunk and didn't remember who raped her. The overwhelming majority of rapes are unreported anyway so a woman coming forward once she got pregnant from such a rape wouldn't even raise eyes as to why she didn't initially report it. Either way, a fetus in no way presents a substantial threat of causing imminent bodily harm or death to the mother such that killing it in self-defense is a colorable claim. The analogy is facially invalid. A far more accurate self-defense (defense of a 3rd person actually) analogy would be someone killing a doctor attempting to abort a fetus. That's actually logically sound if you believe a fetus is a human person. To the extent any women's rights groups employ the same theory, that abortion should be legal as self-defense, it is equally ridiculous. This really isn't worth discussing any further, it's a looney theory.

And since I can't resist: If full human rights are bestowed at birth, what arguments do you have against killing the child 5 seconds before it's birth if the mother deems it prudent?

As I said, the state's interest in the unborn is on a sliding scale during pregnancy. At 5 seconds before birth the interests of the state outweigh the mother's desire to be prudent. We don't allow people to kill dogs for fun either even though they aren't people.

 

[Kadarin]

In my opinion you shouldn't have sex unless you are prepared accept the responsibilities of pregnancy, by having sex in the first place you are committing yourself to accept the consequences.

I'm going to repost something that I posted earlier in this thread, because you've just shifted your argument from being about the sanctity of human life to the moral issue where your opinion is that consensual sex must have consequences:

The exception is that the government has the moral right and duty to try to prevent women from engaging in unapproved slutty behavior. Encouraging the attitude of "if you're going to play, you're going to pay" or "do the crime, do the time", where if a woman gets pregnant, God's righteous punishment of her for enjoying sex is to be forced to raise a child or give it up for adoption. We make exceptions for rape or incest because in those cases she didn't make the decision to have sex and likely didn't enjoy it, so in essense she "didn't do the crime", someone else did.

This was never about this "sanctity of human life" bullshit. Given human history, when the fuck have we ever cared about that?

 

[HAL9000]

I'm going to repost something that I posted earlier in this thread, because you've just shifted your argument from being about the sanctity of human life to the moral issue where your opinion is that consensual sex must have consequences:

My point is still about the sanctity of life. If you create life you have a responsibility to insure the continued existence of that life for as long as it has to be dependant on you. Having sex and getting pregnant (except in the case of rape) makes you responsible for the life created. Life is not sacred, because it implies holiness (google the definition) life is to be respected.

 

[Kadarin]

My point is still about the sanctity of life. If you create life you have a responsibility to insure the continued existence of that life for as long as it has to be dependant on you. Having sex and getting pregnant (except in the case of rape) makes you responsible for the life created. Life is not sacred, because it implies holiness (google the definition) life is to be respected.

You see, in your mind the exception for rape trumps the sanctity of life. Therefore, it's by definition NOT about the sanctity of life. Because life is no longer the most important thing.

Biology doesn't give a fuck whether or not the woman gave consent to have sex, but you do.

 

[HAL9000]

You see, in your mind the exception for rape trumps the sanctity of life. Therefore, it's by definition NOT about the sanctity of life. Because life is no longer the most important thing.

Biology doesn't give a fuck whether or not the woman gave consent to have sex.

Very fair, what I'm saying is that life is to be respected, potential life is to be respected, but in terms of morality it is wrong to put a woman through the trauma of carrying a child she was forced to receive.

 

[Kadarin]

Very fair, what I'm saying is that life is to be respected, potential life is to be respected, but in terms of morality it is wrong to put a woman through the trauma of carrying a child she was forced to receive.

So that aspect of trauma to the potential mother is more important than the sanctity of the child's life to you. (And, to be honest, to most people in the world.)

In my opinion, it is wrong to force a woman to carry a child she does not want, regardless of whether the act of sex was forced on her.

The next thing you're going to say is "well, then she shouldn't be having sex"... To that I would say that most people in the world do not always have sex for the specific purpose of having a child; they have sex because they enjoy having sex for its own sake and their intent is to not have a child.

 

[HAL9000]

So that aspect of trauma to the potential mother is more important than the sanctity of the child's life to you. (And, to be honest, to most people in the world.)

In my opinion, it is wrong to force a woman to carry a child she does not want, regardless of whether the act of sex was forced on her.

The next thing you're going to say is "well, then she shouldn't be having sex"... To that I would say that most people in the world do not always have sex for the specific purpose of having a child; they have sex because they enjoy having sex for its own sake and their intent is to not have a child.

I wouldn't say it was more important than the childs life, but I would say it is understandable if some people feel that way. I wouldn't abort a baby if it was the result of rape.

I don't have sex unless I'm happy to live with the potential repercussions. No one should.

 

[her209]

The next thing you're going to say is "well, then she shouldn't be having sex"... To that I would say that most people in the world do not always have sex for the specific purpose of having a child; they have sex because they enjoy having sex for its own sake and their intent is to not have a child.

But having sex because its pleasurable or sex out of wedlock is a sin. Ooops, did I push religion on you?

 

[Kadarin]

But having sex because its pleasurable or sex out of wedlock is a sin. Ooops, did I push religion on you?

Yes, you did... BAD her209!

 

[HAL9000]

I disagree with both religion and abortion.

 

[zinfamous]

Some are, but some are hypocrites. Some take it so far as to say the release of sperm without conception is murder. Even if that were true you are still committing millions of murders for one life. I am a pro-choice Conservative. I also don’t see a lot of pro-lifers out adopting these unwanted babies.

yeah, there's the rub. pro-lifers tend to not be interested in adopting these babies; and as they are generally conservatives, they also want to do away with welfare

so...just how are these babies, many of them would be forced by the pro-lifers to be porn into poverty by an unprepared, unwilling single mother, supposed to have a decent shot at life?

 

[Kadarin]

But having sex because its pleasurable or sex out of wedlock is a sin. Ooops, did I push religion on you?

Oh, and this is why we need to punish these slutty immoral filthy whores who actually <gasp!> enjoy such wanton sinful Satan-inspired sexual activities, by forcing them to raise children. God damns these sinners to Hell, so why shouldn't we make them pay here on Earth? Abortion gives them the easy way out and just allows them to commit even more filthy sins...

 

[HAL9000]

yeah, there's the rub. pro-lifers tend to not be interested in adopting these babies; and as they are generally conservatives, they also want to do away with welfare

so...just how are these babies, many of them would be forced by the pro-lifers to be porn into poverty by an unprepared, unwilling single mother, supposed to have a decent shot at life?

A life born and raised in an orphanage is better than no life at all.

I want to adopt one day. :wub:

 

[Kadarin]

A life born and raised in an orphanage is better than no life at all.

I want to adopt one day. :wub:

So a shitty life is better than never having been born? Are you sure about that?

 

[HAL9000]

So a shitty life is better than never having been born? Are you sure about that?

Yes.

 

[Fern]

yeah, there's the rub. pro-lifers tend to not be interested in adopting these babies; and as they are generally conservatives, they also want to do away with welfare
-snip-

That's absurd.

Look into adopting a baby sometime. They're so damn few available most people have to go to foreign countries and pay large sums of money.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Ordinarily, I don't think a 3 day waiting period is any big deal, or even a bad idea. In many kinds of surgeries that seems standard anyway. You meet with the physician, they explain what's gonna happen and a later date is scheduled etc.

But if, as someone posted above, there is only one clinic in that entire state, the requirement that you meet IN PERSON with physician and then travel back again 3 days in really an inconvenience. They should allow telephone consultations with the physician if they wanna have 3 day waiting period.

Fern

 

[Kadarin]

Ordinarily, I don't think a 3 day waiting period is any big deal, or even a bad idea. In many kinds of surgeries that seems standard anyway. You meet with the physician, they explain what's gonna happen and a later date is scheduled etc.

But if, as someone posted above, there is only one clinic in that entire state, the requirement that you meet IN PERSON with physician and then travel back again 3 days in really an inconvenience. They should allow telephone consultations with the physician if they wanna have 3 day waiting period.

Fern

Part of what I object to is that it's not so much a medical consultation as it is a requirement that the patient be forcibly subjected to anti-abortion propaganda. And the inconvenience is specifically designed to make it more difficult to get the abortion performed. If you're poor, you're fucked, in other words.