# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/421 "2006-03-03T17:01:00Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > I was too hasty in my last post. Neo-natal care is the responsibility of the mother and the father, or course. AND NO ONE ELSE. So is pre-natal care. You can’t have it both ways. If you are not responsible to care about the end result of someone elses pregnancy, then it also not your responsibility to care about their pregnancy or termination of. ---
**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 3, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/422 "2006-03-03T17:59:21Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Well, the government _writes_ the laws, so of course not. Exactly. I think actually we’re in agreement here - the government has no legal obligation to do anything, but they would have a moral, ethical, and practical obligation. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/423 "2006-03-03T20:00:18Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > 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? I don’t know. I don’t have enough information about this machine to form an opinion. It is true that I would consider the fertilized egg is a person, and that life must be respected and protected under the law. > [@](#): > > 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. I believe that we live in a society that is utterly selfish, but I did not say that **all** pro-choicers are utterly selfish. If I left that impression, I am sorry. I do believe however, that abortion is an _inherently_ selfish act, _as it is most often practiced._ \*\* There is something else I would like to add and to clarify: Selfishness and sincerity, anxiety, good intention, and even agony are not mutually exclusive. My sarcasm, or lame attempts at being clever or humorous, may leave people with the impression that I consider all women getting an abortion to be trollops who are capriciously and carelessly ending human lives so they can get out and have more sex with strangers. That is not my view, and if any of my quips have left that impression, than I apologize. Still, in my view it is possible, and common really, for a woman to be sincere, well intentioned, consider her moral compass, agonize, and still make a decision that is inherently selfish. It is my view that abortion, as it is usually practiced, is a selfish act\*\* > [@](#): > > 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)? I would agree with this with an important distinction/clarification. For the PLer items second, third and fourth are just as important _(or they should be!)_ and they are only irrelevent to the extent that they can’t be used as a basis to end the life of what they consider to be a human being. > [@](#): > > 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? I think you are at **ground zero** with this statement. A few other posters have said this in one form or another, with varying levels of specificity. I’ve also said I thought we were talking about the _wrong issue._ Since then, I’ve refined that to we’re taling about the _right issue_, but in the _wrong order._ But along the way I found it interesting. I think it would be good to discuss this whole question of when [human] life begins, but before that I would like to share my impressions what the thread (and similar threads)have suggested. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/424 "2006-03-03T20:01:42Z")
I want to get into the specifics of the question \*\*“When does Personhood begin” \*\* although the last few pages have left me with some very distinct impressions that I think need to be clarified. We will get into that in due course, in the meantime I would like to summarize the last few pages, and what apears to me to be a fair amount of inconsistencies and disagreement. (while never discussed) The PLer believes that the human life continuum/life cycle looks something like this: > [@](#): > > **The Human Life Continuum:** > The Human Life begins at the moment of conception. At that point, the human is just few cells. From that point, cells divide continuously and over the next 40 or so weeks will continue to divide and develop into a fully developed fetus. This process is progressive, so while at the point of birth the fetus is a fully developed child with a beating heart, a fully developed brain and limbs, the fetus is able to have some limited sentience and actually able to learn while in the womb prior to birth. > > After birth, the human will continue through infancy, adolescence, young adulthood, and eventually adulthood. Like the process during gestation, the process after birth is continuous and progressive and involves significant mental and physical changes. Somewhere in young to mid adulthood the human reaches the apex of his/her mental and physical acuity, and will begin a slow and progressive decline in physical and mental health, ultimately resulting in death; the end of the human life cycle. Because of genes, disease, enviornment or physical/mental nourishment, this process differs from person to person, although every human is subject to this process. Now the PLer sees this process beginning at conception, progressive and not static at any point. They see no distinction that would allow a fetus to somehow “less human” than an infant, any more that a toddler is less human than an adolescent or young adult. Further, the PLer sees that sentience, mental and physical prowess, mobility, communication, and the like will ebb and flow during the life cycle continuum, (by many factors other than the aging process, including disease or injury)and don’t make any living person _any less human._ **•••••** Now I would imagine the PCer sees the Human Life Continuum in much the same way; with an important distinction. The distinction is that there must be some other [objective] criteria that establishes us as humans. While there are some important distinctions between an infant and an adult, they do in fact share more similarities—liking a beating heart and the ability to survive outside the womb— than an infant and a zygote. The current laws use various forms of ‘viability’ to determine when a fetus can be aborted and when it can not, including situations in which certain fetuses may be deemed ‘viable’ by the doctor during the abortion process, in which efforts must be made to save the life of the fetus. [E-Sabbath](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5223587&postcount=30) posits that the Roe decision established life (‘viability’) as beginning [roughly] when you can feel the baby move. [WhyNot](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7153811&postcount=3) has an excellent post that gives you a concise scorecard as to how the abortion laws are spelled out, state by state. I think it would be helpful if we could add some clarity and certainty to the discussion as it relates to the point in which “personhood” begins. For most PLers such clarity exists: The point of conception. For the purpose of this discussion however, it is not necessary to have all PCers have unanimity as it realtes to this “point”, for I won’t make any division between one “point” or another. From **WhyNot** ’s post, **North Carolina** ’s defintion is as good as any. For the purpose oy my posts **the end of the 20th week** is the point that **Human Life** , or **Personhood** begins. Now certainly not all PCers, including the intelligensia here at SDMB, are in unanimity as to the point in which personhood begins, although it would certainly appear that _the majority would apply some ‘viability’ test of some sort,—thereby establishing some “point”_ _after which a fetus is considered a person in their view._ My thoughts are directed at this majority; a majority I would add is reflected at SDMB and among the whole population, and to which Roe is written for. Here at SDMB there are a pretty fair amount of people who would allow abortions much later than the 20th week. Here are a few examples: [Stonebrow](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7154216&postcount=40) apparently believes that life begins at conception but believes that the mothers rights (whatever they are) “trump” the life of the fetus, \*at any point during gestation. \* [Blalron](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5223620&postcount=31) apparently believes that a heartbeat isn’t enough, _sentience_ must be the standard. [jsgoddess](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7153000&postcount=37) apparently places no value on the fetus and doesn’t care much about it’s destruction. [msmith537](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5616408&postcount=32) apparently is in favor of abortion until the “63rd trimester.” [catsix](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7140794&postcount=45) apparently believes abortion should be “available at any point.” So I have some questions for the majority----specifically the **20-Week Pro-Choice Dopers:** (if you answer this post, please take the poll and answer in the same fashion as the thread [Poll on the SDMB community](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=359600), answering the bolded questions and “snipping” out the rest) \*\*The poll is exclusively for the dopers who are “20 week” PCers. \*\* **1) If Catsix, using her _only_ as an example, had an abortion in week 28, has she committed murder?** **2) If you answered “yes”, she has committed murder, and focusing only on her situation and not to use it as an example to outlaw abortion, would you say that in as much as pregnancies after 20 weeks are concerned, you have a greater commonality with Pro-Life people than [non 20 week] Pro-Choice people?** **Why/Why not?** (if you answer “no”, please ‘N/A’) **3) If you answer “no”—and yet you recognize the 28 week fetus as a “person”—why do you believe she hasn’t committed a murder?** (if you answer "yes to #1, please N/A) **4) Regardless of how you answer #1, should she be prosecuted? Why/Why not?** **5) Is it fair to say that your views mirror those who are Pro-Life after week 20? Why/Why not?** **6)** _Generally speaking_ PLers see all fetuses as persons, _at conception_ while 20 week PCers make this distinction at _20 weeks._ The PLers (on average) allow abortion for a person only for rape/incest/mother’s health. **Would you agree that abortions for [post 20 week] persons should be restricted to rape/incest/mother’s health?** **7) If “no” to #6, what specific allowances for abortion would you make for a [post 20 week] person?** **8) What is your general view towards the PCers who advocate “abortion at any point?” How does that differ from your view towards PLers?** **9) To the extent you believe a fetus becomes a person at 20 weeks, what is the basis for that belief? (i.e. viability) To what extent are your views influenced by your religious views?** ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/425 "2006-03-03T20:13:51Z")
For the nuance challenged, “20 Week” is an arbitrary number for the purpose of clarity. It doesn’t really matter if your number is “26” or some other means of establishing your criteria for “personhood.” (i.e. viability) ---
**Author:** ![infamousmom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d6d6ee/32.png) [@infamousmom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infamousmom)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/426 "2006-03-03T20:31:19Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > If it’s all about saving the babies, then it shouldn’t matter how the babies came about. If it’s all about saving the babies, then the people who think it’s their duty to save them ought to be compelled by law to step right up and adopt them, no questions asked, no backing out, no exceptions made for origin or medical condition of the baby. Then we’d soon see who’d be willing to put their money where their mouth was. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/427 "2006-03-03T20:44:12Z")
> [@moonstarssun](#): > > I was going to point this out after **raindog’s** response to **irishgirl’s** first question about acceptable risk. What’s acceptable for one is not acceptable for all. A 10% chance may not sound too scary until it’s your chances of dying that are being discussed, and it’s up to each individual to decide for herself what’s too risky. > > If abortion is only OK when the mother’s death is imminent ( **raindog’s** words), _someone_ has to determine the cutoff point. All pregnancies and births carry risk, but what amount of risk is too much? And why should someone else get to tell a woman how much risk she can tolerate? > > A coworker told me about a family at her church. The woman was diagnosed with fairly advanced cancer while she was pregnant, and the doctor recommended aborting so she could begin treatment–that was the only way she would survive. She opted to carry out the pregnancy and died shortly after the baby was born. To me, that was a selfish and irresponsible decision. She left her husband to raise three young children who would never know their mother, all because of her desire to bring a potential life into being. But despite the fact that I disagree with her and feel that she made a bad decision–it was her decision to make. She knew the risk and decided it was acceptable. So why not let all women have the right to decide for themselves? Good post. You know they say you can’t legislate morality. There are armies of tax attorneys whose sole mission is to game the tax system and avoid taxes [in a marginally legal way.] Ever see just how many US companies are incorporated in tax havens? (or their subsidiares) As to “risk” I am certain that some women (couples) are risk averse. It may be entirely practical to consider an abortion due to fear of death of the mother. Others may use this as a loophole and make decisions that do not reflect their true feelings and push for an abortion based on an imagined risk, or a risk that is truly insignificant to them—but serves as ground cover for a child they do not want. Still, I think it reasonable that the legislation have some reasonable langauge as to what circumstances “qualify” for abortion, even if that means that some risk is “imposed” on the woman. Most activities carry some risk–like getting in a car or airplane or going to the dentist. That’s life. And the fact is, a woman _choosing_ to have sex is accepting a whole wide range of things that may endanger her life. It’s a little disengenuous to say later that you have an abnormally low appetite for risk after behavior that belies that claim. What that standard should be, is another debate entirely. ---
**Author:** ![moonstarssun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@moonstarssun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moonstarssun)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/428 "2006-03-03T21:18:31Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > And the fact is, a woman _choosing_ to have sex is accepting a whole wide range of things that may endanger her life. It’s a little disengenuous to say later that you have an abnormally low appetite for risk after behavior that belies that claim. True enough. Choosing to have **unprotected** sex when pregnancy is a very real threat to your life/health is showing an awfully big appetite for risk. But that doesn’t mean that a woman who would be endangered by pregnancy or childbirth should have to live a celibate life. She should use the most effective birth control she can and use it correctly. But on the off chance that her birth control fails, she shouldn’t have to risk death or serious injury because she dared to have sex. **raindog** , if your wife found out that having another child would put her at great risk, would you be willing to give up your sex life? Would she? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/429 "2006-03-04T00:29:46Z")
> [@moonstarssun](#): > > True enough. Choosing to have **unprotected** sex when pregnancy is a very real threat to your life/health is showing an awfully big appetite for risk. But that doesn’t mean that a woman who would be endangered by pregnancy or childbirth should have to live a celibate life. She should use the most effective birth control she can and use it correctly. But on the off chance that her birth control fails, she shouldn’t have to risk death or serious injury because she dared to have sex. > > **raindog** , if your wife found out that having another child would put her at great risk, would you be willing to give up your sex life? Would she? I’m not married, so my wife is of the hypothetical nature. You don’t give me much information—not something thats’s easy in a casual MB conversation. But given the limitations of what you present, I would say that my wife’s life is more important than my sex life. I’d also say that there are many ways to mitigate risk and ,vasectomy, hysterectomy. birth controls etc can lessen risk substantially. There are also other ways for people to express themselves sexually that wouldn’t endanger the life of a woman. That’s likely anathema to a society that considers witholding sex akin to witholding oxygen. So I think you’re painting a picture of a bogeyman that doesn’t exist, or is as rare as BigFoot. At any rate, are you proposing that a million babies each year lose their lives so some infinitesimal percentage of the population enjoy an active sex lives? ---
**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 4, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/430 "2006-03-04T00:30:11Z")
I’m not a “20th week” PCer, so while you’re getting answers, **the raindog** , could I ask again your reasoning for believing that personhood begins at conception? ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/431 "2006-03-04T00:59:42Z")
Wait a minute–I thought you had two daughters. Were they hypothetical or are they illegitimate? ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/432 "2006-03-04T01:30:57Z")
And how would you react to something like [this?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4770154.stm) > [@](#): > > Baby MB, who cannot be named, has spinal muscular atrophy - a genetic condition which leads to almost total paralysis - and cannot breathe unaided. > [@](#): > > Doctors say his quality of life is so poor it is in his best interests to let him die. > [@](#): > > Baby MB cannot chew or swallow and is fed through a tube and is 17 months old. > > He is not mentally impaired but can only move his eyebrows, feet and fingers slightly. The rest of his body is immobile. ---
**Author:** ![moonstarssun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@moonstarssun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moonstarssun)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/433 "2006-03-04T01:43:55Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > At any rate, are you proposing that a million babies each year lose their lives so some infinitesimal percentage of the population enjoy an active sex lives? Nope, I’m proposing that the option must remain open at the very least for women who are in extreme situations with their pregnancies (risk of life/health, rape, incest). We live in the real world, and, as several other posters have pointed out, people aren’t going to stop having sex just because it may lead to unwanted pregnancy. If that were a deterrent, people would’ve stopped having sex a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/434 "2006-03-04T01:44:04Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > And how would you react to something like [this?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4770154.stm) I don’t know. I do know that it’s not germaine to the issue of abortion, except in a tangential way. But enough so that we might see this link again… ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/435 "2006-03-04T01:59:03Z")
> [@moonstarssun](#): > > Nope, I’m proposing that the option must remain open at the very least for women who are in extreme situations with their pregnancies (risk of life/health, rape, incest). We live in the real world, and, as several other posters have pointed out, people aren’t going to stop having sex just because it may lead to unwanted pregnancy. If that were a deterrent, people would’ve stopped having sex a long time ago. Of course, I suspect that your scenario is _highly_ unrealistic; or at least not _nearly_ as pervasive as we might imagine. (Given all the ways that remedies and accomodations can be made) And I agree with you in part/principle—abortion should be available for a woman who’s health/life is in _imminent_ danger, or if _inaction_ will cause death. I don’t agree as to the issue of rape/incest. As horrible as the trauma is, and a constant reminder, I don’t believe that trauma, in an of itself, is a compelling reason to take a life. (at any rate, I can’t see the “we can’t help ourselves” rationale as a compelling reason to kill unborn children) ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/436 "2006-03-04T02:04:58Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > I don’t know. > I do know that it’s not germaine to the issue of abortion, except in a tangential way. > But enough so that we might see this link again… How would you feel if his parents had had an abortion? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/437 "2006-03-04T02:06:30Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I’m not a “20th week” PCer, so while you’re getting answers, **the raindog** , could I ask again your reasoning for believing that personhood begins at conception? First I want to see how many people are interested/willing to answer my questions. It kind of summarizes the tone and substance of the last several pages. I fear that I’ll be answering questions from all quarters, and I’m having a hard time keeping up as it is. The answer to your question will obviously take a lot of thought and time—and that’s even after all the mindless name from those with nothing intelligent to contribute. 😉 I’m very much intersted in continuing, and discussing that specifically. Let’s see who how many have the gumption to answer me. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/438 "2006-03-04T02:08:22Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Wait a minute–I thought you had two daughters. Were they hypothetical or are they illegitimate? Yes, I too would like to hear the answer to this? ---
**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 4, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/439 "2006-03-04T02:11:48Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > First I want to see how many people are interested/willing to answer my questions. Why would we, when you won’t answer ours ? Discussion is a two-way street. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066/440 "2006-03-04T02:14:17Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > How would you feel if his parents had had an abortion? I don’t know really. The problem with this type of discussion is we don’t have all the information. To the extent that I know, I would say that it is not acceptable to abort a baby who doctors have determined in the womb has birth defects, if those birth defects are not life threatening. If the fetus in the womb is a child, you wouldn’t abort it any more than you would smother it in the crib. The link you provided suggests that this baby does in fact have very real life threatening defects, and death is even likely, without extraordinary medical intervention. (I don’t know to what extent the mother was at risk) I think that decision is between the parents and their doctor and the state has no compelling interest in taking an active role in the fetus’s medical care. If it is the opinion of highly qualified medical professionals that this fetus has a high likelihood of death, the state needs to step back. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/s-d-govr-inclined-to-ban-abortions-shoves-head-up-ass/346066.md?page=23)