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

[Elok]

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?

I said "considered" tantamount to murder. The intended implication being that I consider it so--in context, if I think you're doing murder, and I stop you, from my POV I'm not necessarily treating you like a child. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

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.

The point of this or any other discussion, as I see it, is to broaden our minds by exposing us to another POV. I may come to understand you--or Krill, or whoever--better, or at the very least exposure to your ideas will allow me a new perspective on my own. Now, I got into this thread pretty angry, and you're right that I've been less than polite. To which I can only say: my bad. But I'm not interested in being told I'm delusional and a monster, either. Of course, I'm in the wrong thread for that.

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.

I'm taking it on faith insofar as I'm not asking you to prove it, because even if it happened as described without ANY exaggeration--and on a subject as polarized as abortion, that's unlikely, but it doesn't matter--I don't think it follows that it would happen again. See #285 for an elaboration. Anyway, since I don't think either of us is interested in actually digging up the Chile study, swyve it.

[Krill]

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

The population stated they did not have abortions because it's illegal in Chile, causing a falsely low reporting of them. That is not the same as the number of abortions decreasing, Elok. And in Chile the women can be sent to jail for 3+ years, and guess what, it still doesn't stop the abortions. Do you think that the jail term is reasonable?

[DaShi]

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]

Why do you always respond this way to people who disagree with you?

[DaShi]

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.

Wow! Besides some of the outright racism in this paragraph, your opinions here are not well supported with any reasonable evidence. In addition, you are not offering any solutions. This makes sense, because you are conflating issues that aren't as closely linked as you want them to be.

Why not leave the armchair sociology to the professionals?

[kentonio]

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.

The social treatment of women back then is indisputable, but let's not fall for the mistake of thinking it made women any different mentally to how they are today. There have always been strong women and weak women, just like strong men and weak men. Even in the depths of sexual inequality, women rose above.

In fact, I'd argue that they got the short end of the stick where the sexual revolution is concerned.

Sorry but that's ridiculous. Men had far greater sexual freedom than women prior to the sexual revolution, and saying that women got the short end of the stick when they finally got the chance to determine their own choices is kind of insulting.

To which the pro-choice answer is abortion, but that's not a silver bullet by any means.

No, that is not the 'pro-choice answer', and if you think it is then you're misunderstand the entire pro-choice position. Allowing women to make a decision is not the same as pushing that option as an ideal solution.

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.

Try finding solutions for the problems that lead to the abortion rate.

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.

I personally think my country is a far, far better place than it was before liberalism took hold. The answer to helping parents and families in the new age is not trying to turn back the clock to a time that was never as great as people now imagine, it's about finding new social structures and family and friend units that actually suit the needs of today.

I said "considered" tantamount to murder. The intended implication being that I consider it so--in context, if I think you're doing murder, and I stop you, from my POV I'm not necessarily treating you like a child. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

But I'm not interested in being told I'm delusional and a monster, either. Of course, I'm in the wrong thread for that.

Your intention was crystal clear, but I'm trying to get you to see that sending the message that you think pro-choice people are facilitating murder is signalling that not only are you not interested in an honest discussion but that you're also happy to insult the other side. You don't want to be called delusional or a monster? How would you enjoy being called a murderer or supporter of murder?

The point of this or any other discussion, as I see it, is to broaden our minds by exposing us to another POV. I may come to understand you--or Krill, or whoever--better, or at the very least exposure to your ideas will allow me a new perspective on my own.

That's cool, it's the same reason I come here.

[Aeson]

It either is or is not a human life.

Whether it is or is not a human life does not equate to the dichotomy of significance you are pretending it does.

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.

Yes, other people's emotional responses don't make sense to you, we get that. However they make perfect sense to those with empathy and/or the ability to understand chemistry.

[Aeson]

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

Of course the potential for a human life (and more importantly, potential for a child) is a meaningful distinction with obvious implications on emotional attachment.

Consider if you and your wife (hypothetically) were trying to have a child. Before conception there is no human life, right? So if you and your wife couldn't conceive, your claim is there is no human life so there could be no emotional distress from the situation. You would claim your wife was irrational for being distressed by the inability to conceive?

[DinoDoc]

Emotional pain isn't really relevant to a legal or scientific or medical issue

It makes little sense to mourn the removal of something you don't even consider to be alive.

[Elok]

The population stated they did not have abortions because it's illegal in Chile, causing a falsely low reporting of them. That is not the same as the number of abortions decreasing, Elok. And in Chile the women can be sent to jail for 3+ years, and guess what, it still doesn't stop the abortions. Do you think that the jail term is reasonable?

Wait, did you actually read the Chile study? I didn't read it, like I said, only heard of it, but I was told that it noted a decreasing women's death rate over time which was attributed to a decreasing death rate and such-n-such. Obviously I don't know what it actually was, so like I told Ken, n/m. As for the jail term, what's "reasonable?" The purpose of punishment is generally held to be either retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. I flat-out don't believe in retribution. It's useless and feeds the worst parts of our nature. Rehabilitation, if that's even meaningful in this context, is unlikely without addressing the social causes of abortion. And deterrence by definition isn't working if women are aborting anyway. I don't think any sentence would be effective deterrent without addressing those social causes. Hence I say: concentrate on those, which could be done a number of ways.

Ken: our conversation is more complicated and I have partial rugrat duty ATM. I'll try to get back to you.

[Krill]

Wait, did you actually read the Chile study? I didn't read it, like I said, only heard of it, but I was told that it noted a decreasing women's death rate over time which was attributed to a decreasing death rate and such-n-such. Obviously I don't know what it actually was, so like I told Ken, n/m. As for the jail term, what's "reasonable?" The purpose of punishment is generally held to be either retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. I flat-out don't believe in retribution. It's useless and feeds the worst parts of our nature. Rehabilitation, if that's even meaningful in this context, is unlikely without addressing the social causes of abortion. And deterrence by definition isn't working if women are aborting anyway. I don't think any sentence would be effective deterrent without addressing those social causes. Hence I say: concentrate on those, which could be done a number of ways.

I haven't read the article, because it's in Spanish. But the abstract claims that the death rate has decreased. The problem is that that statistic can't be attributed to a fall in the abortion rate, and what is telling is that whilst there is an increase in birth rate, it is only noted for those over 40, whereas the main group of women that have historically had abortions and been prosecuted in Chile have been "young, single mothers, and that many were domestic workers who had moved to the city from rural areas". The birth rate for all other groups (other than the 10-14 year olds which should be treated separately as a separate issue IMO) either stayed constant or decreased. This fact combined with the decreasing mortality suggests that women in Chile are not becoming pregnant (so using contraception, practising abstinence), or terminating the pregnancy illegally and that this practice has become safer due to availability of RU-486 and better surgical techniques. But there is no research to state which of these is true (and both could be to varying degrees), and there never will be whilst admitting you've had an abortion, or you helped carry one out is illegal. So using Chile as an example of how an abortion ban is accepted is like saying prohibition was accepted in the USA.

[Elok]

Wait, the data on whether women had aborted wasn't gathered confidentially/anonymously? If it wasn't, it was a terrible study. If it was, it sounds like you're setting an impossible standard here: if reported abortions hadn't gone down, you'd be right, and since they did, it's because they're too scared to talk about it so you're still right. If you interpret the data that way, it's impossible for a study to establish that abortion rates go down while illegal, whether they do or don't.

[Elok]

Ken, here's a partial reply to your last point, re: murder. The problem as I see it is that abortion being equivalent to murder is pretty much the whole pro-life objection to abortion. There are some other objections, but they're less important and in some cases seem to be invented by overzealous pro-lifers. The bulk of it is that I don't see distinctions such as stage of development or dependence on the mother's body as meaningful; it's still a human being dying in there AFAIC. I'll of course try not to be deliberately inflammatory from now on, but I don't see a way to avoid mentioning what is, after all, my main objection. Your point about my heated rhetoric is taken.

(hopefully more later, typing this before church)

[Jon Miller]

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.

Abortion is allowed after month 6 when the baby is viable.

I think your argument is insane. If I had a disabled/injured/etc person, that depended on me, it would be murder to kill them so that they couldn't depend on me.

JM

[Jon Miller]

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.

Abortion is allowed after month 6 when the baby is viable.

I think your argument is insane. If I had a disabled/injured/etc person, that depended on me, it would be murder to kill them so that they couldn't depend on me.

JM

[Krill]

Wait, the data on whether women had aborted wasn't gathered confidentially/anonymously? If it wasn't, it was a terrible study. If it was, it sounds like you're setting an impossible standard here: if reported abortions hadn't gone down, you'd be right, and since they did, it's because they're too scared to talk about it so you're still right. If you interpret the data that way, it's impossible for a study to establish that abortion rates go down while illegal, whether they do or don't.

What I'm saying is that that study didn't find that information confidentially, not that it isn't possible to do so. But what do you expect from a society where the majority of people appear to support the abortion ban, where the majority of bills before the senate are to increase the punitive prison measures and those prosecuted for having an abortion are not reasonably represented? On the whole, it appears to be a society that has no interest in altering the abortion laws yet abortions still occur, which is why your assertion that the abortion ban has been accepted is wrong.