# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/341 "2006-03-01T16:40:04Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > **Death** of the conceptus is an incidental consequence of its removal from the womb, just as homelessness is an incidental consequence of eviction. > > The purpose of abortion, with respect to law, is to allow a woman the freedom to evict a fetus from her body. highlighting mine An **incidental** consequence? _Incidental?_ I suppose if you were shot to death during a robbery you would consider your death to be _an incidental consequence_ of firing the gun, yes? And the only difference between the fetus who had an incidental death visited upon him, and the homeless guy, is the fact the homeless guy is still among the living. And I would agree that it is about freedom. Freedom from personal responsibility. Freedom from parenthood. Freedom from the consequences from our choices. Freedom not to be burdened with the care of a child that has been conceived. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/342 "2006-03-01T16:52:47Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Death of the conceptus is an incidental consequence of its removal from the womb, just as homelessness is an incidental consequence of eviction. > > The purpose of abortion, with respect to law, is to allow a woman the freedom to evict a fetus from her body. A civilized society doesn’t kill squatters or vagrants. When they’re in your home, _evict them._ When they’re in your womb, _put them up for adoption._ ---
**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:** [March 1, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/343 "2006-03-01T17:04:49Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > And the only difference between the fetus who had an incidental death visited upon him, and the homeless guy, is the fact the homeless guy is still among the living. Come on, coward, at least _try_ to make an arguement that a fetus is a person, instead of asserting it. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/344 "2006-03-01T17:12:44Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > highlighting mine > > An **incidental** consequence? _Incidental?_ Yes! It is! You do know the legal basis which keeps abortion legal, right? It has nothing to do with murder, death, kill and all to do with women exercising the right to control their bodies as they see fit. Of course, if you take the attitude that women shouldn’t have this right, then you’re only going to see abortion as a tool of murder. But many folks don’t take such a dismissive stance towards the autonomy of women. > [@](#): > > I suppose if you were shot to death during a robbery you would consider your death to be _an incidental consequence_ of firing the gun, yes? Someone shooting me in a robbery would likely be shooting me in self-defense. Their aim is not to kill me, but to get me to stop robbing or threatening them. If a bullet to the leg accomplishes this goal but at the same time, incidentally costs me my life, then no crime has been committed. So the answer to your question is yes. > [@](#): > > And the only difference between the fetus who had an incidental death visited upon him, and the homeless guy, is the fact the homeless guy is still among the living. And? What is your point? This argument would be compelling only to someone who thinks a fetus’ “right to life” automatically trumps all other rights. I don’t have that opinion, so it doesn’t move me. You need rhetoric with a bit more teeth to it. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/345 "2006-03-01T17:13:02Z")
IMO, it comes down to that no-one can live a life based on a single principle. No life (human or otherwise) is that simplistic. To say that all Life is sacred should mean just that. But that is not what PL means. They think they mean that. What they really mean is that all as yet unborn life is sacred. They have no regard for the lives already here-none whatsoever. This is irrational thinking–there is no way that a potential should trump an actual in this case (and in most other situations not relevant here). We PCers like to live in reality-with teens who fuck, with men who do rape, and men and boys who molest and impregnate little girls. With STDs and ectopics and stillbirths and congenital anomalies so severe that it is more painful for birth to happen-for the baby–than for it to be killed mercifully. None of that matters–Life above all to the PLers. (except when they get pregnant-a surprising number of them go get abortions and go pick up those picket signs the day after). See an article by Joyce Arthur on the Web. [food for thought](http://www.womensservices.com/Information/tabid/61/Default.aspx) **the raindog** can claim all he wants that most men are involved in their children’s lives etc–that is irrelevant(and also certainly not true for the all). But the fact remains that it is the female, by dint of her having the uterus, that pays the price for sex, socially, financially, physically (in terms of health). I have a proposal for the PLers here: how about this scenario? The woman continues the pregnancy and gives birth. The baby is then handed over to the father, to be raised, clothed, fed, loved, kept healthy etc. Tit for tat. You play, you pay. And how. Woman gets the option of just walking away from baby and father forever, if she wants to. What say you to that? ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/346 "2006-03-01T17:13:22Z")
The thing is, **raindog** , carrying a pregnancy to term can be problematic, and not just for health reasons. In the United States, the government only requires employer to provide _unpaid_ maternity leave. For someone living paycheck-to-paycheck, taking the time off required could result in major financial hardship, including the possibility that she may not be able to pay rent, mortgage or utilities. Three years ago, I was laid off for 7 months. Unemployment usually only covers six months, although I was fortunate that it was extended. I had no health insurance; I couldn’t afford it. If I’d become pregnant, it would have made it even harder to find a job, since I doubt employers would be willing to hire a woman who would need time off shortly afterwards to give birth. Scraping up the money for prenatal care would have been dodgy, and I suspect even the cheapest form of medical care for the birth itself would have bankrupted me. I realize financial hardship is often pooh-poohed as a reason for having an abortion, but I’ve faced the possibility of becoming homeless before and found it terrifying. There are circumstances in which keeping one’s baby could result in losing one’s home and, while I realize things are quite different in England, here in the United States, I don’t think there’s that much of a safety net. CJ ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/347 "2006-03-01T17:17:58Z")
I should clarify, that no adoption option is made. YOu play, men, you pay. You had your 15 minutes of fun. Mother had 9+ months of pregnancy–now, it’s payback time. You can’t give the baby to your mom, either. Sorry, this society isn’t structured like that. What do you think of this? and just a question: Where do you think all these babies go–Boy’s Town? Modern day, hygienic and loving Oliver Twist-land? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/348 "2006-03-01T17:20:10Z")
Hello again, **the raindog** , I have a few more questions for you. 1:- There’s a thread in GD at the moment about a hypothetical “foetus incubator”, a machine in which a foetus/embryo at any stage in development could be surgically removed from the mother and grown in. If I understand your position on this subject, then I imagine your reponse to such a machine would be that either the mother carries the potential child to term, or that it is is mandatorily grown in the incubator - that these two are the only options, but that they are equal morally speaking. Is this correct? 2:- I believe now, from the last few posts you’re made, that you’ve moved on from the view that pro-choicers are all utterly selfish, but I would like to try and expand on that. For a pregnant pro-lifer, the factors that they would consider when making a decision to bring it to term would be: The foetus has personhood. Am I capable of bringing up the child? Do I want to bring up the child? Can I give this child a good life? Now, for the pro-lifer, the second, third and fourth factors are irrelevant - they believe that the foetus has personhood, and thus is as worthy of life as any adult human. However, for a pro-choicer, the factors to consider are: Am I capable of bringing up the child? Do I want to bring up the child? Can I give this child a good life? My point is - that the foetus has personhood is not a factor - not because we don’t care, but because we _don’t believe it has personhood_. It is not a case of us ranking the other factors higher than it - we simply don’t think that factor exists. I’m hoping this puts our viewpoint better into perspective for you, regarding our “selfishness” (though I admit some pro-choicers can make the decision for selfish reasons)? 3:- Thirdly, as both you and I have pointed out earlier, this issue revolves around the question “When does personhood begin?”. As i’ve said earlier, if we accept the premise that personhood begins at conception, I think your position is entirely logical - and likewise, you’ve said that if personhood does not begin at conception, but at some point in development, that our position is logical, too. So I think basically what we need to debate here is “When does personhood begin?” - after that we can talk about these other issues. Bearing that in mind, we’ve already seen several people in this thread give their reasons for believing that personhood begins sometime later than conception - be it because of the legal decision made by people learned in the subject, or the biological fact that the brain and other parts of the foetus does not develop until the second trimester, or other reasons. However, while you’ve made it very clear that you believe that personhood begins at conception, I don’t think you’ve given your reasons for believing that - so my last question is, what are your reasons for believing that personhood begins at conception? ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/349 "2006-03-01T17:22:47Z")
**theRaindog** , since you do seem to be in favour of abortion to save the life of the mother, when do you feel that the risk to her life is great enough to justify an abortion? 0.1% risk of death? 1%? 20%? 50%? 75%? 90%? Does she actually have to be dying in front of you? While childbirth and pregnancy, **in the best case scenario** , has a 1 in 10,000 risk of death, and a much higher risk of serious morbidity, your idea that women should just continue with unwanted pregnancies and give the babies up for adoption amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Because that’s what it would be if I forced you to walk into a stadium of 10,00 people and told you I was going to kill one randomly selected person and seriously injure 100. ---
**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:** [March 1, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/350 "2006-03-01T17:40:52Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > A civilized society doesn’t kill squatters or vagrants. That’s only because people don’t automatically die when they are evicted from their homes. If property was truly comparable to the inside of a woman’s body, then this comparison of yours would make sense. But guess what? The womb is not property. A womb can not be condemned by the government, it can’t be taxed, it can’t be foreclosed upon, it can’t be regulated, it can’t be seized as a result of emminent domain. A womb is not a housing unit. It is not a hotel. It is not a way station or a pit stop. A womb is an internal organ, no different fundamentally than someone’s kidney or lung. If the government is going to force me to use my womb for the sake of another person, what’s stopping the government from forcing you to part with a kidney for the sake of another person? What is the true difference between a fetus claiming the use of my uterus, and someone claiming the use of your bone marrow? If the only difference is that “I put the fetus there by having sex” , then that’s a pretty weak argument. By that reasoning parents should be legally required to donate lungs and kidneys to their needy children. But that would never happen because it’s such an obvious violation of personal autonomy. The only reason abortion is less obvious is because the womb is perceived as being a baby-making machine and nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/351 "2006-03-01T23:11:13Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Yes! It is! You do know the legal basis which keeps abortion legal, right? It has nothing to do with murder, death, kill and all to do with women exercising the right to control their bodies as they see fit. I think it’s fairly evident that abortion is legal, and I think it’s fairly evident that many people think that is a national tragedy. > [@](#): > > **you with the face** Of course, if you take the attitude that women shouldn’t have this right, then you’re only going to see abortion as a tool of murder. But many folks don’t take such a dismissive stance towards the autonomy of women. You got the first part right… I don’t know if ‘many folks’ take a dismissive stance towards the autonomy of women. My view on that is pretty clear though isn’t it? I said a woman has, at the very least, these rights: > [@](#): > > **raindog** said > 1)The right to privacy. > 2)The right to self determination; the right to use her body in the way she chooses. > 3)The right to not have parenthood forced upon her; the right to keep the state of her family decisions. and that they should be respected and not trifled with capriciously. I’ve made my views about a ‘woman’s autonomy’ _exeptionally_ clear. They can hardly be called ‘dismissive.’ You may seem them in\*\* posts #40, #49 and #51.\*\* > [@](#): > > **you with the face** Someone shooting me in a robbery would likely be shooting me in self-defense. Their aim is not to kill me, but to get me to stop robbing or threatening them. If a bullet to the leg accomplishes this goal but at the same time, incidentally costs me my life, then no crime has been committed. > > So the answer to your question is yes. This whole sidetrack over a single word is getting a little banal and tiring. Whether a robber has the intent to _kill_ you rather than _wound_ you isn’t relevant to this discussion. In fact the abortion doctor isn’t nearly as ambivalent is he? One hundred percent of the time he will cause the “Death of the conceptus”; interestingly enough, _your exact words._ If the tenant in your apartment is unwanted, you evict him rather than kill him. If the tenant in your womb is deemed a human life, you evict him via adoption not via the murder of abortion. > [@](#): > > y **ou with the face** And? What is your point? This argument would be compelling only to someone who thinks a fetus’ “right to life” automatically trumps all other rights. I don’t have that opinion, so it doesn’t move me. > > You need rhetoric with a bit more teeth to it. What is my point? I’m guessing you haven’t read the whole thread. I would be interested in what those superior rights are however. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/352 "2006-03-02T00:11:51Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > **The raindog, Updike** , I asked you a question a couple of pages ago, which you seem to have convenienly overlooked even though, **raindog** , you managed to reply to just about everybody else. To repeat, back in the late 1960s or early 70s, I assume, a woman learned she was pregnant, presumably by her husband, a few weeks after he left her and their two daughters because he’d fallen in love with someone else. Because this was before Roe vs. Wade was decided, she had to be interviewed by a panel of three doctors and be certified an unfit mother in order to have an abortion. That’s when she became pro-choice. **Do you call this woman immoral?** No I don’t, nor do I think anyone has the right to call her immoral. It’s clear to me that she is a victim. As to her ordeal, I think it was wrong in every way. (based on the limited information you present) She should not have had to meet with that panel **at all** , and it was not their place to render judgement on her _in any way._ That having been said, the question remains: **"Was this a human life?"** **If it was** a human life, this is a tragedy on more than one front. First they humiliated this woman publicly, something they had no right to do. They amplified the tragedy by adding another victim to the mix by authorizing the killing of her unborn child. (which makes one wonder what the purpose of the kangaroo court was anyway, if not to humiliate her) **If it was not** a human life, the state (via the ‘panel’) had no compelling legal interest in the fetus, which should have had no more legal significance than her appendix. _At any rate,_ there is no context in which the state should have had any opinion on her ‘morals.’ I feel sympathy for her and the uneccessary humilation she was subjected to. I have greater concern for the fetus, who wasn’t humiliated, but murdered. > [@](#): > > Getting back to the OP, the infant mortality rate for Native American babies is _double_ the national average. As far as I know, South Dakota’s government is doing nothing about this, although I would welcome evidence to the contrary. Until that time, I’m inclined to put the grandstanding government of South Dakota into the camp that supports the rights of unborn children but loses interest in them or their welfare after they’re born. Protect the rights of the fetus at all costs, but once the baby’s born, that’s a societal issue which isn’t fashionable or interesting enough. **The raindog, Updike** , are you prepared to say anything about the morality of children dying, or do you confine yourselves to the unborn? I think the issue of welfare and the proper role of government are important issues. This issue is very complex and some very interesting arguments can be made on both sides of the political aisle. But I do not think this is relevent to this discussion, for if it is a human life the absence of adequate social services can never be a reason to essentially kill unborn children. Does this issue require discussion? yes. Is [tremondous] improvement in many, many ways, many if not most, are outside the purview of the state necessary? yes. Answers are needed. But killing babies is not the answer. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to look at us women and say we care more about our bikini lines than our babies. It’s easy to say to us, “if you don’t want kids, then don’t have sex.” My best friend and her husband don’t want shildren because of health problems on both sides. She’s also of an age where a pregnancy does pose higher than risks. She has, as far as I know, loved and had sex with only one man in her life: her husband. How _dare_ you tell me she and her husband should not enjoy the comfort and joy that sex can be. In fairness to me, I haven’t at any point suggested that people shouldn’t have sex. My message has been clear: Human life begins at conception. Along those lines it would seem appropriate that: 1. People use better judgement. (certainly better than we see regularly) 2. Show restraint when it is appropriate. (I do not believe the average 19 year old has the requisite emotional, mental, and financial maturity to accept the potential results from being sexually active) 3. People have a better grasp of the subtle and less than subtle impact of their decisions and non-decisions. 4)Accept personal responsibility for their choices, and understand that life is often ‘unfair’ or unpredictable. But if it a fetus is a human life it is a function of our character that we don’t kill the unborn—even when it is the easiest thing to do. > [@](#): > > One of the most chilling things I heard was on NPR during Alito’s Supreme Court nomination. A politician (I didn’t catch his name) said he’d talked to a woman who told him about the days before Roe vs. Wade, about women going to great lengths to obtain illegal abortions. She told him about women dying because they didn’t dare get medical help for a botched abortion until it was too late. He said he believed those stories, but he just didn’t care. I didn’t watch the hearings, but I did hear 4 or 5 hours worth during windshield time. > [@](#): > > In my opinion,. this bill in South Dakota isn’t about saving the lives of poor, innocent babies; poor innocent babies die every day, as evidenced by the infant mortality rates provided by **crow many clouds**. It isn’t about stemming the rampant tide of abortion, since there’s only one doctor who comes in from out of state to perform them once a week. Given that there’s a 24 hour mandatory waiting period before having an abortion yet 84 abortions a year are still performed in South Dakota, I doubt this bill will stop many of them. From what I’ve read about countries where abortion is illegal, it may well lead to women dying from illegal abortions. **The raindog, Updike** , are you OK with that? _Of course not!_ But if the fetus is a human life, what shall we do? Shall we authorize the killing of unborn children because some will seek illegal abortions, thereby putting themselves and their unborn children at risk? I do not believe that the state should have no compassion for the anguish and unplanned pregnancy can cause. But if the fetus is a human life, the women in your scenario are dying in the process of killing another human. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/353 "2006-03-02T00:18:41Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > IThis whole sidetrack over a single word is getting a little banal and tiring. Whether a robber has the intent to _kill_ you rather than _wound_ you isn’t relevant to this discussion. What? I’m talking about self-defense _against_ a robber, not about anything that the robber is doing. Go back and read again. > [@](#): > > In fact the abortion doctor isn’t nearly as ambivalent is he? One hundred percent of the time he will cause the “Death of the conceptus”; interestingly enough, _your exact words._ “Death of the conceptus” is the inevitable result of an abortion, but that doesn’t mean it is not incidental to its (legally recognized) purpose. Just as homelessness is often the result of eviction, but is not the primary intent. Just as split ends are the result of hair bleaching, but not its main objective. I sense that you understand this perfectly well, but are being purposefully obtuse. The probabilty of an consequence has nothing to do with whether that is a intended consequence. > [@](#): > > If the tenant in your apartment is unwanted, you evict him rather than kill him. If the tenant in your womb is deemed a human life, you evict him via adoption not via the murder of abortion. How do you adopt out a month-old zygote? Do you know of any technology that would allow us to keep a first trimester fetus allive? I don’t. > [@](#): > > I would be interested in what those superior rights are however. Does **DianaG’s** right to life entitle her to your kidney? ---
**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:** [March 2, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/354 "2006-03-02T00:29:29Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > I feel sympathy for her and the uneccessary humilation she was subjected to. I don’t believe a misgynist like you would _ever_ feel sympathy with a female, even if she was on fire. > [@the raindog](#): > > I have greater concern for the fetus, who wasn’t humiliated, but murdered. You can’t murder a fetus, anymore than you can a tumor or kidney. > [@the raindog](#): > > Answers are needed. But killing babies is not the answer. Nobody is suggesting “killing babies.” > [@the raindog](#): > > In fairness to me, I haven’t at any point suggested that people shouldn’t have sex. Lie. You’ve repeatedly made it clear that the punishment for a female who has sex should be the ruin of her life, or just plain death. > [@the raindog](#): > > My message has been clear: Human life begins at conception. Something you’ve asserted, and never tried to argue, or even acknowledge those who _ask_ for an argument. > [@the raindog](#): > > But if it a fetus is a human life it is a function of our character that we don’t kill the unborn—even when it is the easiest thing to do. Yet again, it’s not, so your arguement is useless. > [@the raindog](#): > > I do not believe that the state should have no compassion for the anguish and unplanned pregnancy can cause. But if the fetus is a human life, the women in your scenario are dying in the process of killing another human. IT’S NOT A HUMAN LIFE YOU UTTER FOOL ! It has no _mind_, therefore it’s not a _person_ ! This is nothing more than your excuse to inflict your malignance on women. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/355 "2006-03-02T00:46:06Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > **theRaindog** , since you do seem to be in favour of abortion to save the life of the mother, when do you feel that the risk to her life is great enough to justify an abortion? > > 0.1% risk of death? > 1%? > 20%? > 50%? > 75%? > 90%? > Does she actually have to be dying in front of you? > > While childbirth and pregnancy, **in the best case scenario** , has a 1 in 10,000 risk of death, and a much higher risk of serious morbidity, your idea that women should just continue with unwanted pregnancies and give the babies up for adoption amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. > > Because that’s what it would be if I forced you to walk into a stadium of 10,00 people and told you I was going to kill one randomly selected person and seriously injure 100. Excellent question and one that I don’t think can be answered easily. I think those are deeply personal issues and must be answered for each woman/family based on the advice of their doctor. It’s not my place to answer for someone else, and I don’t think the state has any right to impose on a woman the risk of death. Personally, I would find a 1% risk to be insignificant—so insignificant as to be zero as a practical matter. But among the reasons I have heard—and of course all of them here----_only the imminent death of another human being,_ **the mother** creates a situation in which a judgement needs to be made as to live and who will die, and that because a death----some death—is a near certainty if no action is taken. It is no longer a question of the value of the child in the womb—that goes unquestioned. The question now is, “Who do we save?” The answer to that is neither mine or the state’s. ---
**Author:** ![Spongemom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Spongemom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spongemom)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/356 "2006-03-02T01:25:23Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Excellent question and one that I don’t think can be answered easily. > > I think those are deeply personal issues and must be answered for each woman/family based on the advice of their doctor. > > It’s not my place to answer for someone else, and I don’t think the state has any right to impose on a woman the risk of death. > > Personally, I would find a 1% risk to be insignificant—so insignificant as to be zero as a practical matter. > > But among the reasons I have heard—and of course all of them here----_only the imminent death of another human being,_ **the mother** creates a situation in which a judgement needs to be made as to live and who will die, and that because a death----some death—is a near certainty if no action is taken. > > It is no longer a question of the value of the child in the womb—that goes unquestioned. The question now is, “Who do we save?” > > The answer to that is neither mine or the state’s. Not to step on toes here, but I couldn’t help but notice that you just skirted around the whole question, without answering anything that was actually asked of your viewpoint. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/357 "2006-03-02T01:29:15Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > One more time: a fetus is not a child. A fetus is not a child. A fetus is not a child. SCOTUS has never said a fetus is a child. > > You’re like Pontius Pilate and Iago mixed together. You are the silent accessory to a crime, claiming innocence while it was you who urged your partner to use the gun. You claim to uphold some noble ideal of human life, but you truly don’t care about human life–you care about control. Your control-your values, your choices-they should be everyone’s, because you are right, and the rest of us sadly lost in sin somewhere. > > You refuse to allow women to control their own destinies, claiming that you are advocating for those helpless and weak–but once born, you don’t care about that same baby (and mother) once alive and unable to cope/eat/live. Apparently, you then shake your head and say, some people should never be parents. Or is it all in God’s hands, then? And like Jesus said, the poor shall always be with us. So, why bother trying to help them–why increase taxes to strengthen social programs so that this Life you so glorify could be endurable? > > Nope, that is not your responsibility. Your responsibility ended when you played God and forced said woman and child into Hell on earth, all the while congratulating yourself on your religious convictions and moral superiority. And if baby is burned to death, or abused beyond comprehension (see the other Pit threads current now)–well, you’ve done all you can. You can’t help it if Evil exists–even as you have colluded with that Evil and compounded it. YOUR hands are clean. > Newsflash: women are not the gatekeepers of purity, fertility or morality. People are–and half of you are male. I wonder if you teach boys around you to be celibate\*. I wonder if you were yourself (I’ll bet you see any unmarried sex on the males’s part as a sin confessed and repented for[if even that; it’s probably a godgiven right]–but who were those men having sex with? Just asking–guess her sin is OK, as long as there aren’t consequences…for her. There are none for the men, apparently). > > \*psst–doesn’t work. OMG, **el** , switch teams and marry me. I’ll rub your feet and feed you lasagna. Does anyone else find it interesting that both the nurses in this thread are pro-choice? Or that the majority of health care professionals advocate sex education as a part of high school curriculum? Ignorance does nothing to stop teens from having sex. It’s a biological response. They’re going to do it. Despite their good judgement, despite everything their parents have told them, despite best intentions to keep it saved for marriage. And as long as there are paranoid parents out there trying to keep them neutered, those teens will lie to their parents. It’s a self defeating action. When was the last time you can recall telling a 15 year old “whatever you do, DON’T do that!” and they listened? I have one. He can’t wait to run out and do what I tell him not to. It would shock me not at all if **the raindog** posts sometime in the next two years that he’s going to become a grandfather. Because he honestly believes that if he ignores something, it won’t affect him. You can ignore me all you want, **raindog**. I’ll keep pointing out your inconsistencies and your dishonesty and your hypocracy. You’re not rising above it by ignoring me. You’re proving my point. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/358 "2006-03-02T01:30:59Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > It’s not my place to answer for someone else And yet you have done so all over this thread. > [@](#): > > only the imminent death of another human being It’s NOT a human being. Despite your sticking your fingers in your ears and saying it over and over, it doesn’t make it so. Can you provide credible evidence that a zygote IS a human being? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/359 "2006-03-02T01:33:03Z")
**Raindog** , welcome back. Could you answer the questions in my last post, por favor? ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/360 "2006-03-02T01:38:32Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > OMG, **el** , switch teams and marry me. I’ll rub your feet and feed you lasagna. Done! I’ll do anything for a foot massage, and none of the meatless lasagna, kay? I’ll bring the wine. > [@](#): > > Does anyone else find it interesting that both the nurses in this thread are pro-choice? Or that the majority of health care professionals advocate sex education as a part of high school curriculum? This is because nurses tend to live in reality. We’re pragmatists at heart. > [@](#): > > You can ignore me all you want, **raindog**. I’ll keep pointing out your inconsistencies and your dishonesty and your hypocracy. You’re not rising above it by ignoring me. You’re proving my point. Yep-I’m a female and I used the word “fuck” and I called him stupid(AND I disagreed with a Male–ooh, horrors!), so out goes me, as well. Maybe there is some ostrich blood in him? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=19)