so...Mike Huckabee.

[BonosSaint]

All, though most specifically during the first trimester.

What restrictions would you enact first trimester? Federal?

 

[anitram]

By "here", of course, I mean this thread alone. Why bother discussing the countless others? Based on the 4 or 5 abortion threads I've read in the past year, the folks who consider making it illegal a viable option were never in the conversation for long, because they never had a better option themselves. New day, new thread, new context.

And that's fine if you want to have a purely academic argument. But the reality is that those fighting get rid of Roe v. Wade hold different opinions and that faction is loud, proud and not as tiny as you may think (although seemingly when they get their way as in South Dakota, suddenly they are awakened by an ugly little thing called reality and get a pretty bad case of buyer's remorse).

So if you want to have an academic argument, fine. But you need to be aware that out on the streets, it is a whole other ballgame and what you may think are compromise positions may be of very little value to either side.

 

[LemonMelon]

What restrictions would you enact first trimester? Federal?

I've always believed it should be federally-restricted to situations of rape and medical necessity. I have no position on particular timeframes however.

And that's fine if you want to have a purely academic argument. But the reality is that those fighting get rid of Roe v. Wade hold different opinions and that faction is loud, proud and not as tiny as you may think (although seemingly when they get their way as in South Dakota, suddenly they are awakened by an ugly little thing called reality and get a pretty bad case of buyer's remorse).

So if you want to have an academic argument, fine. But you need to be aware that out on the streets, it is a whole other ballgame and what you may think are compromise positions may be of very little value to either side.

No, that faction isn't tiny (many polls I've read place them in the 20% area), but it is quite small in FYM. What gain would there be in keeping these conversations black and white? Hey, I'm just a kid wasting my afternoon on an internet forum. My opinion doesn't really matter that much anyway.

 

[anitram]

I've always believed it should be federally-restricted to situations of rape and medical necessity. I have no position on particular timeframes however.

I don't want to go off on you, but I've always found this type of position to be just about the most disingenuous one out there. I actually have more respect for the likes of those who advocate a complete ban on abortion than this. If we are talking about the rights of the fetus, why the hell does a fetus who is the product of a rape have less rights? Does that fetus' life NOT begin at conception? Is this not a human life by virtue of how it came into existence? It's completely boggling.

 

[martha]

I've always believed it should be federally-restricted to situations of rape....

And here's where the rubber meets the road. Spell this out for me. Do we wait for a conviction? Do we rely on a woman's word? What if she lies to get the abortion she wants? Tell me exactly how you plan to implement this. And please don't cop out by saying you'll leave this to someone else. No one who ever proposes this has an answer.

Hey, I'm just a kid wasting my afternoon on an internet forum. My opinion doesn't really matter that much anyway.

It sure does matter. Why else would people want to engage you if your opinion didn't matter. Why else would candidates make sure they let people know their positions on this? Eventually you'll be old enough to vote, and it'll matter then.

 

[anitram]

And here's where the rubber meets the road. Spell this out for me. Do we wait for a conviction? Do we rely on a woman's word? What if she lies to get the abortion she wants? Tell me exactly how you plan to implement this. And please don't cop out by saying you'll leave this to someone else. No one who ever proposes this has an answer.

Other implementation issues are: will we jail the woman for having an illegal abortion? Are we going to jail doctors? How long will their sentences be? What about the woman's sister who drove her to the clinic or the baby's father who did so? Will they be held criminally culpable as parties to an offence?

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't want to go off on you, but I've always found this type of position to be just about the most disingenuous one out there. I actually have more respect for the likes of those who advocate a complete ban on abortion than this.

Now you have made me scratch my head. I have not thought of this line of thinking on this issue in this manner before.

If we are talking about the rights of the fetus, why the hell does a fetus who is the product of a rape have less rights? Does that fetus' life NOT begin at conception? Is this not a human life by virtue of how it came into existence? It's completely boggling.

Would this be a case where people universally believe that the trauma for the mother too great?

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't want to go off on you, but I've always found this type of position to be just about the most disingenuous one out there. I actually have more respect for the likes of those who advocate a complete ban on abortion than this. If we are talking about the rights of the fetus, why the hell does a fetus who is the product of a rape have less rights? Does that fetus' life NOT begin at conception? Is this not a human life by virtue of how it came into existence? It's completely boggling.

Of course it's mind-boggling. There is no right answer. But I'd rather have half of a right answer than none at all. Either way somebody dies or something is lost. If you ban it completely, you find people still getting what they want but through unsafe practices, and if you just forget it and let things run with no restrictions you find the rights of the fetus extinguished completely. Unless you can think of a better way, I'd rather have a safe but frustratingly incomplete measure than none at all.

 

[anitram]

Unless you can think of a better way, I'd rather have a safe but frustratingly incomplete measure than none at all.

Well considering I don't believe a fetus should have any legal rights in the first trimester, I can obviously think of a better way.

 

[anitram]

if you just forget it and let things run with no restrictions you find the rights of the fetus extinguished completely.

Have you thought of what assigning "legal rights" to a fetus entails? Shall we criminally sanction women who drink, smoke, participate in reckless activities, dangerous physical activities, work with radioactive materials, dye their hair, etc in the first trimester? Once you assign rights to a fetus, then it is very, very simple to see how those rights could be infringed.

 

[LemonMelon]

Have you thought of what assigning "legal rights" to a fetus entails? Shall we criminally sanction women who drink, smoke, participate in reckless activities, dangerous physical activities, work with radioactive materials, dye their hair, etc in the first trimester? Once you assign rights to a fetus, then it is very, very simple to see how those rights could be infringed.

"Irresponsible" and "illegal" aren't the same thing. Abortion is technically killing something off. Doing all of the things you just mentioned while pregnant simply makes for inhospitable surroundings. It ain't a crime to smoke around your kids, but stabbing them with a knife is a different issue altogether. "Rights" do not entail a perfect, shiny placenta.

 

[anitram]

"Irresponsible" and "illegal" aren't the same thing. Abortion is technically killing something off. Doing all of the things you just mentioned while pregnant simply makes for inhospitable surroundings.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome makes for "inhospitable surroundings?"

Driving drunk and causing injury to the fetus which results in brain damage makes for "inhospitable surroundings?"

Are you familiar with criminal negligence?

 

[LemonMelon]

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome makes for "inhospitable surroundings?"

Driving drunk and causing injury to the fetus which results in brain damage makes for "inhospitable surroundings?"

Are you familiar with criminal negligence?

You are grasping for straws, aren't you?

1. FAS only occurs in raging alcoholics. Testing has confirmed that simply drinking during pregnancy has no adverse affect on the child.

2. Driving while drunk is always a crime. Not sure why you would want to bring that up.

Just because a few idiots (who have no business getting pregnant in the first place, but that's a conversation for another day) could damage their unborn children doesn't mean they should damage them legally instead.

 

[anitram]

You are grasping for straws, aren't you?

No, I'm not. I think you haven't given this any real thought, to be honest.

1. FAS only occurs in raging alcoholics. Testing has confirmed that simply drinking during pregnancy has no adverse affect on the child.

The damage to a fetus from FAS occurs almost exclusively in the first trimester. Should an alcoholic pregnant woman be held criminally culpable for drinking? If the fetus has rights, then we could criminally pursue her.

In fact, a lot of academic circles feel that FAS will become the next big civil lawsuit success, in the context of children suing the alcohol industry. Basically in the same vein that smokers sued the tobacco industry. It will be interesting to see.

2. Driving while drunk is always a crime. Not sure why you would want to bring that up.

Sigh. Drink driving is a crime. Presently, a woman who drives drunk and gets in an accident and subsequently suffers a miscarriage OR the fetus survives but with significant physical or mental injuries, is not held criminally culpable. If the fetus has rights, then we could hold that woman criminally culpable (under the scope of crim neg). In fact, there have been tort actions on these exact types of cases. There is a famous case that went to the Canadian Supreme Court, where the mother was in a car accident and the fetus suffered horrific brain damage. The child, who was subsequently born, brought an action for negligence against the MOTHER.

So yes, I really think that you haven't thought about all the angles here and what assigning legal rights to a fetus really means and all the consequences thereof. The mere fact you think I'm reaching, when in fact these sorts of cases are not even rare anymore (at least civilly) just goes to illustrate that fact.

 

[LemonMelon]

So yes, I really think that you haven't thought about all the angles here and what assigning legal rights to a fetus really means and all the consequences thereof. The mere fact you think I'm reaching, when in fact these sorts of cases are not even rare anymore (at least civilly) just goes to illustrate that fact.

I think one of the places you're getting my point twisted is that at no point in this conversation did I ever claim I wish for fetus' to have the exact same rights that a full-grown child does, and I never even used the word "rights" until you did about a page back. I don't want to make it sound like I'm backpedaling or anything, but all I said (rather casually) was that a fetus has a general right to life. If we're discussing full rights, why not just count it as a dependent on your tax return?

Again, what is the best option on any of this? Half-measures avail us nothing, but both sides kind of suck in this area.

 

[anitram]

I think one of the places you're getting my point twisted is that at no point in this conversation did I ever claim I wish for fetus' to have the exact same rights that a full-grown child does, and I never even used the word "rights" until you did about a page back. I don't want to make it sound like I'm backpedaling or anything, but all I said (rather casually) was that a fetus has a general right to life.

But I think this is the point martha was making earlier - that proponents of pro-life never really consider anything much beyond the fact they want to restrict abortion. They have not thought out anything beyond that - not criminal sanctions for women who get abortions, not criminal sanctions for doctors or anyone helping them perform or obtain an abortion, what the right to life means, what rights a fetus should have, how those rights should be constitutionally protected, etc. None of it.

It's easy to take a position without actually having a single, workable idea of how to carry it out.

 

[LemonMelon]

But I think this is the point martha was making earlier - that proponents of pro-life never really consider anything much beyond the fact they want to restrict abortion. They have not thought out anything beyond that - not criminal sanctions for women who get abortions, not criminal sanctions for doctors or anyone helping them perform or obtain an abortion, what the right to life means, what rights a fetus should have, how those rights should be constitutionally protected, etc. None of it.

It's easy to take a position without actually having a single, workable idea of how to carry it out.

But again, you miss my question. I have tried my best to give an outline of my wishes (not completely filled in, but about as much as possible in a 1 hour internet conversation) concerning this issue, but you haven't really tried to do much more than pick at mine. Do you have a better way? It's not that I don't care for either side, I care for both...but compromise can look really ugly sometimes.

Of course, I know you're pro-choice, but there are many holes in (and frustration with) the current system we have, and we all know it. Otherwise, why would we even bother discussing this?

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, I think her point was the status quo is better than anything you or anyone else is putting out there as alternative. What are the "many holes?"

 

[LemonMelon]

What are the "many holes?"

The huge percentage of the country who either think the system needs tweaking or to be thrown out entirely and rebuilt, for one.

 

[anitram]

Do you have a better way? It's not that I don't care for either side, I care for both...but compromise can look really ugly sometimes.

Of course, I know you're pro-choice, but there are many holes in (and frustration with) the current system we have, and we all know it. Otherwise, why would we even bother discussing this?

I am staunchly pro-choice during the first trimester and there is no compromising there for me at all. Any effort to criminalize abortion in this respect is unacceptable in my eyes.

Obviously the key is to minimize the number of abortions - I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with that. To me this entails comprehensive and mandatory sexual education in schools, from a young age. Abstinence classes are ridiculous and should be laughed out of town. To me it also entails ignoring the Catholic church and every other church which advocates against the use of condoms and birth control. This is particularly important in the third world where churches have much more power among local populations and governments often bend to their whims.

It entails requiring, as a matter of law, that every pharmacist issues out birth control or relinquishes his license. It should be a condition of licensing that you cannot impose your religious beliefs on patients and go against the wishes of their doctors. At the very least, the pharmacist should have an employee present, at all times, who has no issue dispensing such medications. It is irrelevant that they are running a private business; the fact they are licensed by the state and as such enjoy a competitive advantage means they should be subject to regulations.

It entails making birth control and condoms more readily available to youth and cheaper to obtain. There is no reason why young women should be paying $30+ per month for the pill.

It entails perhaps a national childcare system (of course you're in the US so there will be screams of socialism as is often the case), better support for single mothers whom we want to be raising all these cute fetuses, an infusion of cash into school boards with large percentages of single parents, free and comprehensive healthcare for all children, and many other proposals.

But even if all of those were implemented, abortion must stay legal in the first trimester. Period.

 

[LemonMelon]

I am staunchly pro-choice during the first trimester and there is no compromising there for me at all. Any effort to criminalize abortion in this respect is unacceptable in my eyes.

Obviously the key is to minimize the number of abortions - I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with that. To me this entails comprehensive and mandatory sexual education in schools, from a young age. Abstinence classes are ridiculous and should be laughed out of town. To me it also entails ignoring the Catholic church and every other church which advocates against the use of condoms and birth control. This is particularly important in the third world where churches have much more power among local populations and governments often bend to their whims.

It entails requiring, as a matter of law, that every pharmacist issues out birth control or relinquishes his license. It should be a condition of licensing that you cannot impose your religious beliefs on patients and go against the wishes of their doctors. At the very least, the pharmacist should have an employee present, at all times, who has no issue dispensing such medications. It is irrelevant that they are running a private business; the fact they are licensed by the state and as such enjoy a competitive advantage means they should be subject to regulations.

It entails making birth control and condoms more readily available to youth and cheaper to obtain. There is no reason why young women should be paying $30+ per month for the pill.

It entails perhaps a national childcare system (of course you're in the US so there will be screams of socialism as is often the case), better support for single mothers whom we want to be raising all these cute fetuses, an infusion of cash into school boards with large percentages of single parents, free and comprehensive healthcare for all children, and many other proposals.

But even if all of those were implemented, abortion must stay legal in the first trimester. Period.

I agree with a large chunk of that, actually. I am fully, 100% in favor of birth control, and it's a hugely important (and realistic) factor in minimizing abortion on a large scale. The only question is what it would take to implement many of these ideas and how long of a wait it would be.

 

[phillyfan26]

The huge percentage of the country who either think the system needs tweaking or to be thrown out entirely and rebuilt, for one.

How is that a hole in the system?

 

[anitram]

I agree with a large chunk of that, actually. I am fully, 100% in favor of birth control, and it's a hugely important (and realistic) factor in minimizing abortion on a large scale. The only question is what it would take to implement many of these ideas and how long of a wait it would be.

Well you could probably never implement most of those in the US.

But that doesn't mean we should be draconian and instead criminalize abortion.

 

[LemonMelon]

How is that a hole in the system?

Holes are a reason to do some tweaking. While it may not, in and of itself, be a hole, it's certainly reason enough to do the necessary tweaking. You simply can't have the country torn in half over one issue. It should have been resolved to general satisfaction ages ago.

 

[phillyfan26]

But there's no way to do it other than the way we're doing it right now. How can we resolve something that's best solution is currently in place?

 

[LemonMelon]

But there's no way to do it other than the way we're doing it right now. How can we resolve something that's best solution is currently in place?

But that's the thing. The majority believe that there are better ways of going about it. Even if we keep the same laws in place, making some little changes like the ones antiram mentioned could make all the difference. At the moment, nothing is going to change; people will just have to passively accept how things are.

 

[anitram]

Even if we keep the same laws in place, making some little changes like the ones antiram mentioned could make all the difference. At the moment, nothing is going to change; people will just have to passively accept how things are.

Who do you think is holding up all the progress on sex education and birth control?

Hint: it's not the pro-choice crowd.

 

[LemonMelon]

Who do you think is holding up all the progress on sex education and birth control?

Hint: it's not the pro-choice crowd.

My Christian brethren are not the easiest people to defend sometimes. Philly's in the same boat I am; he's Catholic, after all.

 

[anitram]

Philly's in the same boat I am; he's Catholic, after all.

So am I. Perhaps that surprises you.

 

[LemonMelon]

So am I. Perhaps that surprises you.

It's not that surprising. What I find more surprising is that there are still so many folks out there who are adamantly opposed to birth control.