Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[DaShi]

False analogy

[Krill]

Polling from the conservative bastion of CNN in which 52 percent took a pro-life view saying abortion should be illegal in all (15%) or most circumstances (37%).

Er no. You ignore the next question where it asks "Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. (RANDOM ORDER)

[Elok]

I read about a study in Chile a few months ago (too lazy to dig it up) which purportedly found that the population adjusted to a ban on abortion, i.e. deaths from unsafe abortions eventually petered out as women stopped having them--they figured out that they were likely to prove fatal and stopped trying. I didn't read it since I didn't trust myself to evaluate it in a meaningful way (also, again, I'm lazy), so maybe it was bogus, idk. Also Chile has a very different culture and society from the U.S. or Britain, which may be a big factor in women's reactions to a ban. Just chucking it out there anyway.

In any case, you're comparing the situation in the fifties and sixties to the situation today, which is an invalid comparison. The rise in the status of women (in ways unrelated to abortion) would seem to make such situations less likely, simply because women today are not treated like idiot children--and no, denying them complete bodily autonomy to the extent of forbidding an act considered tantamount to murder is not "treating them like children," at least not compared to the old days. Not to mention the substantial advances in technology. An abortion ban may prove to be unfeasible just because of RU-486.

Big ol' Xpost

[Elok]

I'm still waiting for a pro-lifer to state how they would stop a pregnant women self aborting.

Does this mean suicide, or a coat hanger? The answer is that we obviously can't, in either case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Is a baby entitled to care by it's parents?

JM

No. Ever heard of adoption, orphans, etc? A post viability fetus, if delivered, can be cared for by anyone - even a man. A pre-viability fetus must be hosted in the body of one specific human - it can not be removed, transplanted, anything.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It either is or is not a human life. If it isn't as the pro-abortion side asserts, suffering emotional pain from the removal of the fetus makes as much sense as being depressed over the removal of a hang nail.

It's potential human life. PO-TENT-CHUL for those of you challenged by words of more than two syllables.

[DaShi]

They are worse than xenomorphs, which at least have the decency to kill you after they are born. Children spend the next few decades slowly and painfully draining the life out of you.

[Krill]

Does this mean suicide, or a coat hanger? The answer is that we obviously can't, in either case.

But if abortion must be made illegal, then obviously this should be illegal as well. What about penalties? Prison is an obvious must, right?

[DinoDoc]

It's potential human life. PO-TENT-CHUL for those of you challenged by words of more than two syllables.

Is this a meaningful distinction for you when it comes to emotional pain?

[Elok]

But if abortion must be made illegal, then obviously this should be illegal as well. What about penalties? Prison is an obvious must, right?

That's more a question of the politically possible, and I don't particularly care. I view the women as (almost) the victims in all this. I'd concentrate more on shutting down providers, and decreasing the demand by one means or another. One promising route would be to subsidize adoption fees to make it a more attractive option. In order for it to work in the end--or even to pass into law, for that matter--it would require a substantial cultural shift. Which is highly unlikely to happen in the near future, since we're heavily invested in careless hedonistic ****headedry.

Sorry, don't have time to go into detail on this--I have more responsibilities than I used to.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Is this a meaningful distinction for you when it comes to emotional pain?

Emotional pain isn't really relevant to a legal or scientific or medical issue (unless the emotions are the medical issue. It's not like pro-lifers give a rat's ass about a pregnant woman's emotions one way or another. If one is going to argue that a woman who is raped and impregnated without her consent should be compelled by force of law to carry to term and give birth, then one has no grounds to even troll about emotional pain.

[kentonio]

I read about a study in Chile a few months ago (too lazy to dig it up) which purportedly found that the population adjusted to a ban on abortion, i.e. deaths from unsafe abortions eventually petered out as women stopped having them--they figured out that they were likely to prove fatal and stopped trying. I didn't read it since I didn't trust myself to evaluate it in a meaningful way (also, again, I'm lazy), so maybe it was bogus, idk. Also Chile has a very different culture and society from the U.S. or Britain, which may be a big factor in women's reactions to a ban. Just chucking it out there anyway.

I can absolutely 100% guarantee that it was full of ****.

In any case, you're comparing the situation in the fifties and sixties to the situation today, which is an invalid comparison. The rise in the status of women (in ways unrelated to abortion) would seem to make such situations less likely, simply because women today are not treated like idiot children

You think that women being a lot freer and in control these days is going to make them less likely to assert control over their own bodies. Right...

--and no, denying them complete bodily autonomy to the extent of forbidding an act considered tantamount to murder is not "treating them like children," at least not compared to the old days.

Funny the way many millions of women seem to disagree with you. Incidentally its only 'considered tantamount to murder' by people like you. For most westerners its an unpleasant but necessary medical procedure which is basically no-ones damn business but the women concerned.

I'd concentrate more on shutting down providers, and decreasing the demand by one means or another. One promising route would be to subsidize adoption fees to make it a more attractive option. In order for it to work in the end--or even to pass into law, for that matter--it would require a substantial cultural shift. Which is highly unlikely to happen in the near future, since we're heavily invested in careless hedonistic ****headedry.

Or to put it another way, it's not going to happen because the dinosaurs who want to turn back the clock on womens rights to the fifties are thankfully dreaming.

[Elok]

Are you interested in having a discussion or a hissy-fit, Ken? If it's the latter, you can have it on your own. Mind you, I get a little heated on this subject myself, but I try to convey at least a little actual content along with the sermons about what a horrible person my interlocutor is. Also, while I'll take it on faith that stories about the dark ages of coat hangers actually happened more or less as described, your guarantee about a study you presumptively never heard of till I mentioned it...doesn't mean much.

[/irked]

[kentonio]

Are you interested in having a discussion or a hissy-fit, Ken? If it's the latter, you can have it on your own.

What just happened there wasn't a hissy fit, it was me deliberately responding in the same inflammatory terminology that you did, just from the other side of the aisle. You think 'tantamount to murder' isn't a provocative phrase? What kind of grown up discussion do you think that is likely to lead to?

Mind you, I get a little heated on this subject myself, but I try to convey at least a little actual content along with the sermons about what a horrible person my interlocutor is.

What debate is there to have? Either you accept abortion is an unpleasant necessity, in which case there's a discussion to have about its boundaries, or you think its murder in which case there's nothing to talk about. This isn't new science, there aren't any amazing new studies that are going to suddenly swing the debate, either you accept it's going to happen regardless and allow the medical community to assist or you don't and you drive it underground.

Also, while I'll take it on faith that stories about the dark ages of coat hangers actually happened more or less as described, your guarantee about a study you presumptively never heard of till I mentioned it...doesn't mean much.

When Chile announce they've done a study on human behaviour that completely flies in the face of a couple of millenia of documented human behaviour, then yes I feel pretty confident calling that bull****. You don't need to 'take it on faith' that the age of coat hangers actually happened btw, it's very well documented.

[Elok]

Okay, now that THAT's out of my system: I of course can't know exactly what life was like for women back in the fifties or so, but I know that they were basically one step above the feeble-minded as far as society was concerned. They didn't work, were less educated, rarely had independent social lives, and were treated with mostly-affectionate contempt. In other words, they had little or no power beyond the vote. Plus the sexual double standard was about five times its present strength. Under such circumstances, they were much more easily bullied, tricked, coerced or mistreated in various ways than they would be today--and no, sexual liberation and social freedom are not joined at the hip.

In fact, I'd argue that they got the short end of the stick where the sexual revolution is concerned. The disparity in slut-shaming went down--somewhat--but women bore, bear, and will continue to bear a disproportionate amount of the cost of sexual promiscuity: quite apart from pregnancy, they're much more frequently raped than men and are predisposed by biology to value committed relationships more. And as for pregnancy, well, the majority of single parents are women. To which the pro-choice answer is abortion, but that's not a silver bullet by any means. Delaying settling down has biological consequences (declining fertility, birth defects), not all children are going to be aborted, and even when a large number are, ick. IIRC the majority of racial-minority pregnancies in NYC, at least among the younger demographics, now get aborted. I don't think it's helping those communities all that much. Hell, if it "helped" them much more there wouldn't be any black or latino people left in the city in a few years. Kids need stable families raising them--but since that requires a lot of discipline and it currently hurts poor and dark people the most, we as a society settle for abortion.

This is not to say that it's only liberalism that's failed and betrayed our country (dunno about yours). Of course the GOP isn't helping when it makes "family values" mostly about hassling gays--i.e. the one group that almost never has unwanted children--and suppressing birth control. And probably a lot of other things, but there aren't a lot of pro-choice conservatives so there's no point in my bashing them at present.