# S.D. Gov'r "inclined" to ban abortions, shoves head up ass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 25, 2006, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066 "2006-02-25T13:49:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/281 "2006-02-28T19:11:14Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Who chose for you to have sex? > > What choices did _they_ (?) make that they’re forcing you to live with? > > Would it be the choice, codified in law, that you were not permitted to kill another human being? Is _that_ the choice you’re referring to? When it’s an actual person, then we can talk. Personhood was defined in Roe, as well. > [@](#): > > I mean your story—like so many others—assumes _you_ have no power, that _you_ are a victim, that _you_ make/made no choices. Not at all. Just that you are insisting on the right to take one of those choices away from me. No. You don’t even know me, you cannot make my choice for me. I reject your insistence that you be allowed to do so. > [@](#): > > Yet you choose to start your post only _after_ your choices—_your_ choice to have sex\*, and with the full understanding that sex produces children. Sometimes. Even with all attempts to make sure that becoming pregnant does not happen. I’m human. Humans have sex. In the _vast majority of cases_, they don’t wait til marriage. > [@](#): > > You want to begin the discussion _halfway through the story!_ It’s not a coincidence that is only after you can be questioned about your own choices, and accepting personal responsibility for them. I am. I’m accepting personal responsibility by deciding whether or not to have a child. And despite your posts to the contrary, this post of yours shows very much that you believe a pregnancy _should_ be a punishment. How DARE you have sex? You brought it on yourself! Judgemental prick. > [@](#): > > The inference is that you have no choices. _Quite the contrary!_ No. The statement is that YOU ARE TRYING TO TAKE ONE OF THOSE CHOICES AWAY. And you are. That isn’t up to you. Why? Because it isn’t your fucking body, asshole! Or your life! You don’t get to make choices for everyone else! Deal with it and live your own damn life and I’ll live mine. But stay the fuck out of my womb. I didn’t have sex with YOU, therefore, YOU do not get a say. And even if I had, I may listen to your opinion, but it’s still up to ME. > [@](#): > > Now, if that’s a child, which can only be answered by the question: > > > [@](#): > > > > **When does personhood begin?** Ah, we’re moving goalposts now, are we? Alright. Even so, the SCOTUS agrees with scientific evidence that “personhood” does not begin til sometime during the second trimester. [Linky](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe). So u=you’re wrong on that score, too. > [@](#): > > You can’t kill that child because he/she is a [potential] burden to you, any more than you can go down stairs and smother your infirmed grandmother because she is a burden. Difference? One is already alive and self sustaining. A separate entity. I realize you keep trying to make that fetus a separate person, but no matter how hard you try, you are going to run into the rather large brick wall of scientific fact which states that just ain’t so. > [@](#): > > If it’s child, society needs to rcognize that the life of that child is greater than your plans, social life, or how you will look in a bikini. Actually, try this one on for size. Because I was in nursing school, and there was no way for me to take care of that child and complete school. As an Emergency Room nurse, I saved more than just one life (no, I don’t believe in false modesty). had I not become a nurse, I wouldn’t have. And we can’t say for certain that those people would have lived. So. What’s more important? One clump of living cells that may or may not be viable, or 10 (or so) people, plus the babies I helped deliver? Who are you to say which of those lives was more important? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/282 "2006-02-28T19:12:12Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Go ahead–keep demonizing the females of the species. Keep your cock in your pants and your hands to yourself, you stupid person you. > > You have been shown repeatedly in this thread how the decision to abort is not made lightly by the VAST majority of women. To continue to characterize it in this way demonstrates to me that you are un-intelligent, un-informed and proud to remain willfully ignorant. In short, you are a stupid fuck. If I had known from the outset that you were an Endtimer, I would have refrained from this exercise in futility. I have no respect for you or your position. I pity your daughters and have dismay for your sons. > > And I am reminded (yet again) of that pity phrase: Right wing Christians love to hate and hate to love. You may well be surprised when you get to those Pearly Gates that mean so much to you. With all due respect, I have not once appealed to God, theology, doctrine or the bible in this thread. _Not once._ Further, while I find your views “appalling” as you say; I would not call you names or seek to denigrate you. In fact, I was offended at **DirkGntly** ’s comments to **catsix** –a woman who I profoundly disagree with—and said as much in defense of her. And nothing I’ve said in this thread warrants calling me names. Fortunately, I don’t have to talk to you. I think there are more than enough people to discuss this with who can maintain their composure. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/283 "2006-02-28T19:15:19Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > society needs to rcognize that the life of that child is greater than your plans, social life, or how you will look in a bikini. Ah, and so we come to it. **the raindog** is one of those people who is convinced that all women who have abortions are thoughtless, irresponsible people who are callously killing babies so that they can continue to climb the career ladder all day and fuck strange men all night. He is a misogynist. He is a zealot. He is not worth the effort and good will I have spent in this discussion. And most importantly, he is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/284 "2006-02-28T19:17:11Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > FTR, I haven’t appealed to religion, doctrine or theology in this discussion. You may have some interest in heading off in that direction, but I do not. No,m I have no interest in talking religion - it just seems rather disingenous that when you discussed your personal (though hypothetical) reaction to your daughter’s pregnancy, you left a large part (the religous part) out. So, how about answering my questions: Ought no one, including married people, have sex unless they want a child? What do your pronouncements of the faults of society have to do with preventing abortions? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/285 "2006-02-28T19:21:02Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Ah, and so we come to it. > > **the raindog** is one of those people who is convinced that all women who have abortions are thoughtless, irresponsible people who are callously killing babies so that they can continue to climb the career ladder all day and fuck strange men all night. > > He is a misogynist. He is a zealot. He is not worth the effort and good will I have spent in this discussion. And most importantly, he is wrong. _There is enough effort needed to speak for ourselves, let alone the time and [impossible] task of speaking for someone else!_ Now you just said,\* “ **the raindog** is one of those people who is convinced that all women who have abortions are thoughtless, irresponsible people who are callously killing babies so that they can continue to climb the career ladder all day and fuck strange men all night.”\* although that’s not what I think at all! _Or anything close to it!_ I think we’re chewing up a lot of perfectly good bandwidth talking about the wrong issue frankly, and I suspect a few are starting to lose their composure. I have to get back to my grindstone. Perhaps I can post tonight or tommorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/286 "2006-02-28T19:26:26Z")
So, why are you ignoring the definitions I’ve given you of the questions you’ve asked, **raindog**? It seems like every time someone presents you with a perfectly valid, scientific response, you hold your hands over your ears and close your eyes and then run away. Herein lies the problem with post PL advocates. When faced with fact, they act as if it doesn’t exist. As if that will somehow make it go away. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/287 "2006-02-28T19:29:36Z")
Don’t hang around holding your breath, **Maureen**. If I actually needed that kidney, I’d be dead by now. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/288 "2006-02-28T19:32:06Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > These threads leave me with the palpable impression that we are living in a time and generation that is lost. Lost intellectually, mentally, morally, spiritually, and culturally. As opposed to the “Females are property” generation you seem to belong to ? > [@the raindog](#): > > Abortion is just the most egegious example of the **Me First** generation; a generation that is steeped in selfishness, gradualism, relativism and individualism. Only if you belive that a fetus is a person, which is nonsense. > [@the raindog](#): > > A society that devalues all life. You look at half the human race as incubators, and reduce children to the equals of mindless lumps of flesh. _That’s_ devaluing life, not abortion. > [@the raindog](#): > > But it is not exclusively a religious issue, and there are extremely compelling reasons to reject abortion without religious undertones/overtones. No, there are not. > [@the raindog](#): > > I never would have believed that any civilized society, that would have acknowledged a fetus as a human life, would have allowed _a single abortion_ (taking rape/incest/mothers health off the table for a moment) to occur for something as capricious as ‘having this baby will change my plans.’ (and the myriad of similar ‘reasons’) A fetus is _not_ a human life, and regarding them as such is typically a mark of brutally oppressive societies, not civilized ones. Abortion is morally irrelevant, save perhaps in the late stages of pregnancy; it is morally permissable for any reason or no reason at all. > [@the raindog](#): > > And so I think that the central question, **“When does Life begin”** may in fact not be the central question at SDMB. Rather, the question seems to be, **"What is the value of a human life?"** Not relevant to abortion. A fetus isn’t a human life. > [@the raindog](#): > > And if you created it, and if it is a child, than killing it is indeed more irresponsible that giving birth. (notwithstanding a potentially poor quality of life) But it’s _not_ a child. Frankly, abortion is _more_ responsible than giving birth, because of the uncertain nature of life. If you’re so worried about responsibility, don’t have kids, ever. It’s not like you can protect a child from all harm after all, save by making sure he/she never exists. > [@the raindog](#): > > I haven’t appealed to God, have I? It’s more or less implied by opposition to abortion; that, or hatred/predation of women and children. > [@the raindog](#): > > When does Life begin? A billion or so years ago, IIRC. Sperm and eggs are alive, as are bacteria. _Humanity_ is defined by the mind, and at the _earliest_, that starts in the third trimester ( they don’t even have normal human brainwaves before then ) ; IMHO, it’s more likely sometime after birth. > [@the raindog](#): > > If it’s child, society needs to rcognize that the life of that child is greater than your plans, social life, or how you will look in a bikini. BUT. IT’S. NOT. > [@the raindog](#): > > You don’t kill it because you can’t afford it. So the entire family should starve ? A family should be destroyed for a lump of flesh ? > [@the raindog](#): > > although that’s not what I think at all! Or anything close to it! Liar. You’ve made you’re misogyny quite clear. Speaking of lies, I don’t believe for a moment your speech about how much you love and respect your daughters; I’d be surprised if you’re more than indifferent. Given the malice you have toward women, I expect you’re nasty or outright abusive towards them. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/289 "2006-02-28T19:35:29Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Don’t hang around holding your breath, **Maureen**. If I actually needed that kidney, I’d be dead by now. Not a chance, chickie. I’d have you hooked up to a hemodialysis machine quicker than grease through a goose. Ve haff vays of making you liff. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/290 "2006-02-28T19:44:20Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > They become convictions to the extent that they are backed with action; that they stand up under test/duress. It would seem to me that you at one time believed that the fetus in your classmate’s wombs were humans; children. But the minute your womb had one it was a different story. And what you are talking about, right here, succintly expresses why women often get offended when men pontificate about the selfishness of abortion. Because you are a man, your “convictions” about abortion are every bit as conceptual as you say **kimera’s** were. Unless you are in the shoes of a woman having an unwanted pregnancy–unless you know how if feels to _know_ that for whatever reason you are just not fit to be a host for another human being right now—then all you’re doing is preaching from the top of a tower in the Theoretical Land of the Self-Righteous. Your “convictions” can never be tested in the same way that a woman’s can, because it will never be _your_ body or life on the line. It will always be someone else’s body. Someone’s else life. Someone else’s fetus. It is therefore quite easy for you to have the opinion that the right to life trumps all other rights, including those of the woman. _You_ don’t have to worry about having any of your rights abrograted. I believe that you are sincere when you say that your 12 year old daughter would not be permitted to have an abortion should she become pregnant. But until that happens, until your daughter comes home and tells you with tears streaming down her cheeks that she is pregnant, and until you find out that the father of that conceptus is no naive little boy but a grown, lecherous adult (where do you draw the line between a “mistake” and “victimization”; it’s kind of hard at age 12) …until you have been there, you really don’t know what you’ll do. It is all concepts and ideas and hypotheticals for you. Remember that the next time you’re compelled to lecture a woman about her lack of conviction. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/291 "2006-02-28T20:03:04Z")
Nice distraction technique–my “lack of composure”(ah, that hysterical female accusation–Freud would be proud. Did you know that the root “hys” comes from the word uterus–yep, even Freud was a bit of a misogynist) should be irrelevant to the thread. Sweetums, this is the Pit. Deal. Also, I stated I found this thread “appalling”–you I found to be stupid. Willful ignorance=stupidity in my book. Frankly, I don’t care if you didn’t bring up religion in any way. Your attitude towards women is enough for me to Pit you without the apocalyptic mumb-jumbo. Girls who have babies at a young age tend to have babies who have babies young, if you follow me. Of course, apparently they do this asexually, since the Papas are just not in this picture. Or do they ensnare and entrap men, like the Sirens of old? Tell me, how do all these sluts keep getting knocked up? The hypocrisy and misogyny here are a bit much for me-I am home today with a bad head cold. I’m taking a breather. ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/292 "2006-02-28T20:11:04Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > He is a misogynist. He is a zealot. He is not worth the effort and good will I have spent in this discussion. And most importantly, he is wrong. Having read through this entire thread, I have to disagree with that. Raindog has a much different outlook and opinion on the topic than I do, but I think his arguments have been very calmly laid out. He feels strongly, just like most of us. Personally, I think he seems pretty compassionate, especially with his explanation about what he’d do if his daughter was put in the situation. His morals are different than yours (or mine for that matter), but he comes off rationally and sensitively on a very divisive topic. Oh yeah, the politicians of South Dakota can go to hell. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/293 "2006-02-28T20:24:12Z")
Were he to simply give it as his opinion and not present it as fact, then I’d be inclined to agree. I disagree with **Weirddave** on the subject, but at least he acknowledges that it is his personal opinion and he doesn’t believe he has the right to force his opinion to be the deciding factor of women he’s never even met, much less had sex with. **The Raindog** makes no such distinction. He doesn’t believe women should have the right to make decisions regarding their own reproduction, he doesn’t base his opinion on science or the laws of this country, he doesn’t even acknowledge that endangering the life of a 12 year old child by forcing her to undergo a pregnancy her body may not be ready for is irresponsible. Those opinions are not made more valid simply because they are laid out calmly. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/294 "2006-02-28T20:27:42Z")
> [@MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN](#): > > It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. > > 1. Ancient attitudes. These are not capable of precise determination. We are told that at the time of the Persian Empire abortifacients were known and that criminal abortions were severely punished. 8 We are also told, however, that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era, 9 and that “it was resorted to without scruple.” 10 The Ephesian, Soranos, often described as the greatest of the ancient gynecologists, appears to have been generally opposed to Rome’s prevailing free-abortion practices. He found it necessary to think first of the life of the mother, and he resorted to abortion when, upon this standard, he felt the procedure advisable. 11 Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father’s right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion. 12 > 2. The Hippocratic Oath. What then of the famous Oath that has stood so long as the ethical guide of the medical profession and that bears the name of the great Greek (460(?)-377(?) B. C.), who has been described as the Father of Medicine, the “wisest and the greatest practitioner of his art,” and the “most important and most complete medical personality of antiquity,” who dominated the medical schools of his time, and who typified the sum of the medical knowledge of the past? 13 The Oath varies somewhat according to the particular translation, but in any translation the content is clear: “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion,” 14 or “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” 15 > > Although the Oath is not mentioned in any of the principal briefs in this case or in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, it represents the apex of the development of strict ethical concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this day. Why did not the authority of Hippocrates dissuade abortion practice in his time and that of Rome? The late Dr. Edelstein provides us with a theory: 16 The Oath was not uncontested even in Hippocrates’ day; only the Pythagorean school of philosophers frowned upon the related act of suicide. Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma. For them the embryo was animate from the moment of conception, and abortion meant destruction of a living being. The abortion clause of the Oath, therefore, “echoes Pythagorean doctrines,” and “in no other stratum of Greek opinion were such views held or proposed in the same spirit of uncompromising austerity.” 17 > > Dr. Edelstein then concludes that the Oath originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion and that it certainly was not accepted by all ancient physicians. He points out that medical writings down to Galen (A. D. 130-200) “give evidence of the violation of almost every one of its injunctions.” 18 But with the end of antiquity a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath “became the nucleus of all medical ethics” and “was applauded as the embodiment of truth.” Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is “a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct.” 19 > > This, it seems to us, is a satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the Hippocratic Oath’s apparent rigidity. It enables us to understand, in historical context, a long-accepted and revered statement of medical ethics. > > 1. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before “quickening” – the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 – was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became “formed” or recognizably human, or in terms of when a “person” came into being, that is, infused with a “soul” or “animated.” A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was “mediate animation.” Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas’ definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country. > > Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman “quick with child” is “a great misprision, and no murder.” 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), “modern law” took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. 26 This is of some importance because while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law, 27 others followed Coke in stating that abortion of a quick fetus was a “misprision,” a term they translated to mean “misdemeanor.” 28 That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum (due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus. > 4. The English statutory law. England’s first criminal abortion statute, Lord Ellenborough’s Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It made abortion of a quick fetus, § 1, a capital crime, but in § 2 it provided lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the “quickening” distinction. This contrast was continued in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 13. It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty, in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85, § 6, and did not reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, § 59, that formed the core of English anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, came into being. Its emphasis was upon the destruction of “the life of a child capable of being born alive.” It made a willful act performed with the necessary intent a felony. It contained a proviso that one was not to be found guilty of the offense “unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.” > > A seemingly notable development in the English law was the case of Rex v. Bourne, [1939] 1 K. B. 687. This case apparently answered in the affirmative the question whether an abortion necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman was excepted from the criminal penalties of the 1861 Act. In his instructions to the jury, Judge Macnaghten referred to the 1929 Act, and observed that that Act related to “the case where a child is killed by a wilful act at the time when it is being delivered in the ordinary course of nature.” Id., at 691. He concluded that the 1861 Act’s use of the word “unlawfully,” imported the same meaning expressed by the specific proviso in the 1929 Act, even though there was no mention of preserving the mother’s life in the 1861 Act. He then construed the phrase “preserving the life of the mother” broadly, that is, “in a reasonable sense,” to include a serious and permanent threat to the mother’s health, and instructed the jury to acquit Dr. Bourne if it found he had acted in a good-faith belief that the abortion was necessary for this purpose. Id., at 693-694. The jury did acquit. > > Recently, Parliament enacted a new abortion law. This is the Abortion Act of 1967, 15 & 16 Eliz. 2, c. 87. The Act permits a licensed physician to perform an abortion where two other licensed physicians agree (a) “that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,” or (b) “that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.” The Act also provides that, in making this determination, “account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.” It also permits a physician, without the concurrence of others, to terminate a pregnancy where he is of the good-faith opinion that the abortion “is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.” > > 1. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough’s Act that related to a woman “quick with child.” 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. 30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it “shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose.” By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother’s life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose. > Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950’s, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. 34 The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother’s health. 35 Three States permitted abortions that were not “unlawfully” performed or that were not “without lawful justification,” leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. 36 In the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, § 230.3, 37 set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205. > > It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy. > [@Plato](#): > > "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for > authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place > of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their > households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They > contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties > at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. Unfortunately for the raindog, things are never as simple as they seem. The history of abortion, if we can take Justice Blackmun’s words for truth, and they _are_ footnoted, is somewhat more considerably checkered than would appear. Much like the ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, these laws are simply out of memory of much of America, and thus, ‘have always been.’ But the memory of one generation is not always true, and even within that generation, within twenty or ten or five years, the mind may forget, may romanticize, may simply not understand what happened, when, say, a cousin ‘went to the farm’ for a semester. Raindog, old boy, you are simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/295 "2006-02-28T21:11:21Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > A question for the life-at-conception folks: of a set of identical twins, how can you tell which one is alive? I mean, one act of conception ocurred. This means one life, yes? No, it doesn’t. They’re both alive. The act of twinning creates a new life, just as conception does. “Life begins at conception” does not equal “Life _only_ begins at conception” or even “Conception is the only way that life can ever occur.” You and I have discussed this before, and I hope that you will learn this distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/296 "2006-02-28T22:42:37Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > I really find myself siding more and more with whoever upthread who said that men shouldn’t not be in on this choice. So far I ahve heard exactly no man state that HE is willing to be sterilized or double condom. I find that salient fact most telling. In an effort to redeem maledom in your eyes, I don’t really think men should have a say; also, I volunteered to be sterilized (in fact, I would’ve insisted) if my wife’s marena IUD didn’t work out. But it did, so there’s that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/297 "2006-02-28T22:49:53Z")
> [@Indygrrl](#): > > Having read through this entire thread, I have to disagree with that. > > Raindog has a much different outlook and opinion on the topic than I do, but I think his arguments have been very calmly laid out. He feels strongly, just like most of us. Personally, I think he seems pretty compassionate, especially with his explanation about what he’d do if his daughter was put in the situation. > > His morals are different than yours (or mine for that matter), but he comes off rationally and sensitively on a very divisive topic. > > Oh yeah, the politicians of South Dakota can go to hell. **Indygrrl** I’m not new here, and so I knew that venturing into this thread wouldn’t make me any more popular than I already am. 😉 You’re right; this is a very divisive topic and one that I think everyone feels very strongly about. And while we feel differently about the subject, I appreciate that you took the time to post this. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/298 "2006-02-28T22:50:08Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > In an effort to redeem maledom in your eyes, I don’t really think men should have a say; also, I volunteered to be sterilized (in fact, I would’ve insisted) if my wife’s marena IUD didn’t work out. > > But it did, so there’s that. 🙂 Well, there’s one. Thank you (I think?) I didn’t mean to knock men in general, but seriously, this a societal issue, not a situation where thoughtless, irresponsible women get pregnant and then schedule abortions to coordinate with their manicures. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/299 "2006-02-28T22:57:49Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Well, there’s one. Thank you (I think?) Actually, I’ve thought long and hard (no pun intended) about getting a vasectomy, just to help avoid this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/300 "2006-02-28T23:00:49Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > **Indygrrl** > I’m not new here, and so I knew that venturing into this thread wouldn’t make me any more popular than I already am. 😉 > > You’re right; this is a very divisive topic and one that I think everyone feels very strongly about. > > And while we feel differently about the subject, I appreciate that you took the time to post this. You would think that, with multiple persons pointing out the discrepancies in your arguments, you’d address those. If you want huggles, go to MPSIMS. Otherwise, stick to the topic. I addressed “when does life begin?” I addressed “when does personhood begin?”, and **DianaG** is still waiting for your response regarding organ donation. So, either your presence here is to seriously discuss the topic, (in which case: defend your position), or you’re being a jerk. Which is it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=16)