If the anti-abortionists have their way, every known miscarriage will have to have a preliminary investigation as they are all suspicious and unexplained.
Do you have any evidence for this aside from inferences drawn from the statement of an anonymous doctor from a book?
Historically, many states that banned abortion did not punish the woman at all. It wouldn’t make much sense to require an investigation of something that, if not connected to a doctor, could not involve a criminal act. As Captain Amazing pointed out, if pre-Roe every miscarriage was investigated, that would have been a pretty big deal. But you can’t find any historical evidence for this?
How about this test: In those states where late-term abortions are illegal, are all late-term miscarriages (which I presume would be mostly stillbirths) subject to criminal investigation?
Except that there is no “someone else”.
I expect that that’s how you really feel about women, but you expected everyone to go along with the fiction that the anti-abortionists are civilized.
Just that Annie-Xmas put forth a bad, and one sided analogy that had little to do with the weight of the subject. Also a moral argument can be made that if you caused the accident and agreed to the kidney transplant as part of accepting responsibility for your actions that during the operation, where the death of the innocent party is at stake that the procedure should be followed through with.
Prior to Roe v. Wade – 1972 – many states outlawed abortion.
None of them, not one, required that every known miscarriage have a preliminary investigation.
This would seem to contradict your conclusion.
Give Huckabee credit for a moral consistency that often seems lacking in the anti-rights faction. If abortion truly is murder, as we keep hearing from them, then there can be no exceptions. Period. Murder can never be acceptable. Yet that crowd, apparently desiring to look and feel compassionate, chooses which babies they’d allow to be killed on the basis of who the father was and what the circumstances of the conception were. As if the baby had anything to do with those things that make it deserve to die.
But if exceptions are allowed, then the reasons for those and the choices that led to them have to be considered, and presto, there’s the right-to-choose position without the hypocrisy. Huckabee’s position on abortion isn’t extreme, it’s simply better thought through than the usual version.
I think the intellectual rigour of this argument deserves an equally rigorous response, so here we go: “Sez you”.
The “no exception even for rape or incest” position is consistent, certainly, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the “exception” position is inconsistent or hypocritical. An articulation of the latter position might run as follows:
“We do recognise that the choice to run the risk of conception should be freely made, and we give this choice such weight that in this case, where you were denied that freedom, we are even willing to give it precedence over the very right to life of that which has been conceived. We do not do this lightly; we recognise also that the creature inside you has not itself done anything deserving of death. However, justice demands this: that as the choice was taken away from you, it should now be restored.”
Yes, he and I do. Because it’s obvious. The people who oppose abortion, all over the world, are the same people who given a chance treat women horribly. And children as well. Give the anti-abortion crowd in America the power to do what they wanted, and they’d drag us back to the good old days of the Dark Ages where women were executed for adultery when pregnant after a rape.
And it strengthens Evil Captor’s position no end that you should leap in with an argument like that.
You do have a habit of ridiculing people’s opinions as stupid without actually coming up with reasons, don’t you ?
Like it or not, anti-abortionism and misogyny are near synonyms. Everywhere. They pretty much have to be, since outlawing abortion amounts to the reduction of women to breeding machines, wombs with legs. Making abortion illegal reduces a woman’s moral status to less than that of a mindless blob of tissue. It relegates women to a status lower than an animal.
Lower than a vegetable!
Have you met that pot over there? Like a long lost twin, that pot.
Oh, he has reasons. It’s just that they are almost always factual errors or logical fallacies.
Neck-and-neck with a mineral!
And not the good minerals, either, like quartz. I’m talking gypsum, talc, calcite, stuff like that.
I can’t believe it took 2 whole hours around here for someone to pick up on that! I was thinking 15 minutes, tops. 
Oh, you want a reason? You think your argument deserves the dignity of a reason? Fair enough. Pick half a dozen pro-life Dopers and demonstrate that they want to stone pregnant rape victims to death. I doubt you can do it. I suppose you’ll just have to conclude that they are No True Pro-Lifers.
Unfortunately this is a load of tosh. Do I have to go through it point by point?
Damn. I was thinking “lower than an amoeba!” But I didn’t post it because it didn’t seem quite right. Now I know why.
No, says a lot of people:
Cite:
Cite:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/study_congressm.html
Cite:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Abortion-Pro-Choice-338/Abortion-5.htm
Cite:
I got 264,000 hits when I Googled “abortion” and “slut”
Thanks for the opportunity for the easy slam dunk. It’s rarely so easy to totally demolish an opponent in an argument around here.
Hmm. I just got 7,680,000 hits when I googled “pro-choice likes to kill babies”. I had no idea there were over 7M pro-choice people who like to kill babies!!